You Are Not in Control of Terms of The Social Order https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/you-are-not-in-control-of-terms-of-the-social-order/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:12:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266764314469380096
Jan 22, 2020, 1:38 PM Libertarianism SUGGESTS to you (falsely, by Abrahamic false promise) that you are in control of the terms by which people will tolerate your existence (proximity, participation, survival) – you are not in control of it. They control it. Because the network of promises (habits norms etc) that they cooperate by what they depend upon for survival, risk mitigation, consumption, comfort, and joy. You are only in control of which polity you choose to participate in on their terms. Now, this is a male attempt to adopt a female means of persuasion. But a female is intrinsically valuable and a man is not. So your participation isn’t desirable. In fact, the maximum female, minimum male participation is desirable. So no libertarianism is (a) an attempt to claim you have intrinsic value by the threat of withdrawal from cooperation (b) except that if you don’t want to cooperate on the group’s terms then we don’t want you, and frankly, you’re not only dead weight but better off gone or d–d. And so if you don’t want to cooperate on those terms the question is why do we let you live? Worse, since Aryan reciprocity and Christian forgiveness are the optimum social economic political and strategic orders – and the only reason you can disagree with them is to parasitically live off the Aryan-Christian commons, then you are stuck with not only explaining why you should be tolerated but why anyone living anywhere on earth should tolerate you. You don’t have to do anything except NOT impose costs upon others. (Again, (((They’re all cognitively Female))) so it makes perfect sense that they would develop libertarianism as if they were intrinsically valuable when they’re intrinsically parasitic.)
Jan 22, 2020, 1:38 PM Libertarianism SUGGESTS to you (falsely, by Abrahamic false promise) that you are in control of the terms by which people will tolerate your existence (proximity, participation, survival) – you are not in control of it. They control it. Because the network of promises (habits norms etc) that they cooperate by what they depend upon for survival, risk mitigation, consumption, comfort, and joy. You are only in control of which polity you choose to participate in on their terms. Now, this is a male attempt to adopt a female means of persuasion. But a female is intrinsically valuable and a man is not. So your participation isn’t desirable. In fact, the maximum female, minimum male participation is desirable. So no libertarianism is (a) an attempt to claim you have intrinsic value by the threat of withdrawal from cooperation (b) except that if you don’t want to cooperate on the group’s terms then we don’t want you, and frankly, you’re not only dead weight but better off gone or d–d. And so if you don’t want to cooperate on those terms the question is why do we let you live? Worse, since Aryan reciprocity and Christian forgiveness are the optimum social economic political and strategic orders – and the only reason you can disagree with them is to parasitically live off the Aryan-Christian commons, then you are stuck with not only explaining why you should be tolerated but why anyone living anywhere on earth should tolerate you. You don’t have to do anything except NOT impose costs upon others. (Again, (((They’re all cognitively Female))) so it makes perfect sense that they would develop libertarianism as if they were intrinsically valuable when they’re intrinsically parasitic.)
Jan 24, 2020, 6:34 PM
—“Rights are an insurance, insurance is a service, some services can be commons, some commons are necessary, rights among them.”—Martin Štěpán
(flawless)
Jan 24, 2020, 6:34 PM
—“Rights are an insurance, insurance is a service, some services can be commons, some commons are necessary, rights among them.”—Martin Štěpán
(flawless)
Feb 1, 2020, 1:54 PM 1) Fascism was a nationalist(european) reaction to counter global (jewish) communism. 2) Fascism was conceived as french socialism, and the nazis came closest to implementing it – although today’s france is not far off. The period saw the decline of religion (darwin within memory) and rapid change, so in european tradition, fascism was another attempt at a secular theology of state, given the strange european desire for authority that is alien to anglos. 3) China is perhaps the best example of a fascist state practicing monopoly authoritarianism, nationalism, insulation from ‘corrupting’ influences, information control, state corporatism, militarism, and extremely tight coupling between state, finance, and industry. (note that the chinese like the germans are very happy with this situation). In other words, Fascism won the 20th century. Period. 4) I use the term “Market Fascism” in the sense that there is zero tolerance for extra market coercion anywhere under P. This was meant as a tongue in cheek response to Islamic Fascism vs “the white law”, and to cue the audience to the severity with which free riding, rent seeking, baiting into hazard, and all the other leftist techniques would be illegal – leaving only exchanges as a means of cooperating. 5) One of the most contra-jewish-libertarian properties of fascism is that profit at the expense of the commons or people was not permitted. We confuse this with autarky, but it was more that abitrages were not permitted – which is what americans want as well. And if a resource would be short in the country by higher profits out, that sale would be prohibited. The other contra-jewish-libertarian property is that they ended interest for consumers, and that the success of state-private industrial alliances are always beneficial since capital intensive industry is always taking a credit risk that only the state can reduce. This is why I would prefer the USA and UK were investing in battery research and factories and keeping the profits rather than externalizing them to the private sector. This is a principle problem with that is not true elsewhere. We fund all this basic research with public money but it is then privatized. In other words, why is consumer interests and privatization of public research returns handed out to the investment class rather than diminishing tax burdens of the people?
Feb 1, 2020, 1:54 PM 1) Fascism was a nationalist(european) reaction to counter global (jewish) communism. 2) Fascism was conceived as french socialism, and the nazis came closest to implementing it – although today’s france is not far off. The period saw the decline of religion (darwin within memory) and rapid change, so in european tradition, fascism was another attempt at a secular theology of state, given the strange european desire for authority that is alien to anglos. 3) China is perhaps the best example of a fascist state practicing monopoly authoritarianism, nationalism, insulation from ‘corrupting’ influences, information control, state corporatism, militarism, and extremely tight coupling between state, finance, and industry. (note that the chinese like the germans are very happy with this situation). In other words, Fascism won the 20th century. Period. 4) I use the term “Market Fascism” in the sense that there is zero tolerance for extra market coercion anywhere under P. This was meant as a tongue in cheek response to Islamic Fascism vs “the white law”, and to cue the audience to the severity with which free riding, rent seeking, baiting into hazard, and all the other leftist techniques would be illegal – leaving only exchanges as a means of cooperating. 5) One of the most contra-jewish-libertarian properties of fascism is that profit at the expense of the commons or people was not permitted. We confuse this with autarky, but it was more that abitrages were not permitted – which is what americans want as well. And if a resource would be short in the country by higher profits out, that sale would be prohibited. The other contra-jewish-libertarian property is that they ended interest for consumers, and that the success of state-private industrial alliances are always beneficial since capital intensive industry is always taking a credit risk that only the state can reduce. This is why I would prefer the USA and UK were investing in battery research and factories and keeping the profits rather than externalizing them to the private sector. This is a principle problem with that is not true elsewhere. We fund all this basic research with public money but it is then privatized. In other words, why is consumer interests and privatization of public research returns handed out to the investment class rather than diminishing tax burdens of the people?
Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/any-people-can-copy-them-if-they-are-able-it-appears-no-one-else-is-able/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:50:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266743690682302465
Feb 3, 2020, 8:52 AM There is a difference between european people (a race), european culture (a tradition), european civilization (a strategy), and the institutional TECHNOLOGY in science, language, myth, literature, philosophy, law, institutions. Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able. And this is the ONLY remaining european technological advantage: genetics and civilization. And this remaining advantage is what the enemy seeks to destroy as they did Greece, Rome, and the continent.
Feb 3, 2020, 8:52 AM There is a difference between european people (a race), european culture (a tradition), european civilization (a strategy), and the institutional TECHNOLOGY in science, language, myth, literature, philosophy, law, institutions. Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able. And this is the ONLY remaining european technological advantage: genetics and civilization. And this remaining advantage is what the enemy seeks to destroy as they did Greece, Rome, and the continent.