by Neil A. Bucklew The problem with abrahamism is its murky interpretable nature that allows a parasitic priest class to form. There are good ideas within christianity along side bad ones, as well as a lot of unnecessary fiction. the family structure of the west is not laid out in the bible, where semitic polygamy is still written. western “christian tradition”, is not wholly guided by the bible, but mixed with unspoken elements of western society. I do not see how you can look at Rome and its pagan culture or other pagans and see a feminized culture. They had the same basic monogamous culture with some variation on details. women and men had clear and specific duties more than loose rules of thumb such as “love your wife respect your husband”. To say Christianiy rescued Europe from the chaos of pagan matriarchy is quite a stretch. It would be more accurate to say that patriarchal people used and transformed christianity in their struggles for dominance. There is a huge amount of western behavior during christian times that cannot be explained by any christian teachings or what is written en the bible. the foundations of what is called the christian work ethic are hardly to be seen in the bible, which teaches that work is the result of a curse we must suffer through. the foundations of that work ethic is in the biology and pre christian culture. the “incremental suppresion” that curt talks about especially during the manorial period, was quite often about NOT helping those who would not work and participate and letting them die. no need to kill them, just let nature take its course. christian charity consistently undermines this.
Theme: Institution
-
WHY NO TRAINS IN AMERICA?
WHY NO TRAINS IN AMERICA?
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 16:28:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002225296656011264
-
“Curt: How should the (ideal) relationship between homosexuals and society exist
—“Curt: How should the (ideal) relationship between homosexuals and society exist or be constructed, to make homosexuals experience of society be the best it can be, while also making society’s experience of homosexuals be the best it can be? There are a lot of mixed messages out there… and you actually make sense and can justify why you make sense. I would appreciate your comment.”—
Ok, Here is a rough outline of the argument in natural law:
WHEREAS
1) As far as I know homosexuality is a non-rare in utero developmental disorder. I suspect this current scientific hypothesis to survive – although we might discover the cause is or is not an immune system reaction to testosterone (which it appears to be), and we may discover that it can be limited by natal treatments in the future – it does run in families.
2) If you read enough of my work, you’ll encounter the hypothesis that humans are not only able to adapt intellectually and emotionally to changes but that we can create very different distributions of traits in populations using very small variations in endocrine expression. We can express these by stresses and by selection. The male-vs female physical, and male-vs-female reward systems, and male vs female brain structures included in those distributions.
3) It is unclear whether or not the ability to produce homosexuals of either gender is a necessary consequence of our ability to produce those distributions. And secondly, whether or not the result is harmful or not. (apparently not). the reason being that there is *greater value in productivity in service of reproduction than reproduction*.
4) It is unclear how much of homosexuality is produced in utero, in early development, and in late development. My understanding at present, is that many sexual identity disorders can occur during development without sufficient physical exercise, and sufficient role play by either gender. (And that is before we account for the hormones in the modern chemical environment.)
AND WHEREAS
That we incrementally demonstrate our fitness (non parasitism, and productive contribution) by:
1) Forgoing crimes both private and public.
2) Demonstrate payment for the franchise by continuous military/militial/sheriff service.
3) Demonstrating worthiness by self sufficiency by productive contribution, thereby forgoing free riding and parasitism
4) Demonstrate worthiness to the intergenerational polity by marriage and family and the support thereof.
5) Demonstrate worthiness to productivity by the voluntary organization of business and industry.
7) Demonstrate worthiness to the polity by organization of the finance, industry, business, trade, and labor in a territory.
8) Demonstrate worthiness by the correct adjudication of disputes between in and out group members under the natural law of reciprocity.
AND WHEREAS
1) That the family is the first demonstration of organizational capacity upon which the intergenerational family is dependent.
2) That families are a costly but necessary contribution to the family, clan, tribe, nation, and polity.
3) That families must work tirelessly to insulate generations from consumptive and hedonistic interests and behaviors.
4) That individuals who do not serve, do not produce families, do not produce businesses or industries, do not manage territories, or do not adjudicate differences under the natural law of property, are at best not harmful, and if engaged in criminal or free riding or parasitic activities are a a dead weight loss to the family, clan, tribe, nation, and polity.
THEREFORE
1) Homosexuality is a birth defect, and not voluntary. Women are less sexually dedicated than males. Trauma in women especially can cause homosexuality at any point in life.
2) Anything that occurs between adults in private is a voluntary exchange between them and nothing else.
3) Anything that occurs in public (speech/sound, sight/display, or behavior/action) imposes an involuntary cost upon others.
4) Any speech, display, or action that is contrary to the preservation of the intergenerational investment in the commons, and in particular conspicuous hedonism or conspicuous consumption is damaging to the informational commons, and damaging to those who pay higher costs within it.
5) Marriage is a contract for corporation between a man, a woman, and the polity, for the intergeneration production of offspring, and reciprocal care, and reciprocal insurance. However, this contract consists almost entirely of (a)a transfer of all personal property to community property, (c) a reciprocal grant of power of attorney. (d) reciprocal ownership of offspring until the age of maturity. (e) an implied but unenforced insurance against hardship, infirmity, and old age. This corporation dramatically reduces the cost of household production and maintenance. Without this relationship household costs rise distproportionately and therefore standards of living drop accordingly. (as we have seen)
6) Natural Reproduction and parenting by individual homosexuals by whatever means, and by pairs of homosexuals by whatever means, is difficult to argue with, however any suggestion or influence by such parents that their children’s gender is flexible, that male and female minds and bodies are not different, and that male and female roles in family and society are not necessary, must be prosecuted as a developmental crime on the scale of any other child abuse or torture.
7) Public displays of affection in furtherance of paying the high cost of reproductive persistence, training an intergenerational family, and ensuring that families can produce intra and intergenerational insurance of one another rewards those that so contribute.
8) Public displays of non-reproductive affection shall be limited to those that are demonstrated between heterosexual members of the same sex.
9) Under no condition shall heterosexual and homosexual males be forced into one another’s company. Homosexual males are unfit for military participation by virtue of a birth defect that may hinder trust.
10) Prosecution of homosexual hedonism in any public form shall be vigorous such that it is entirely suppressed. (ie: no more of this public bathroom nonsense and drug use.)
CLOSING
In other words, the low temporal investment of homosexuals must be removed from visibility in the commons so that there is every incentives for the high intertemporal investment in families.
The direction of homosexual relations to the construction of families despite the extraordinary fragility of such families due to the fragility of homosexual relationships, and suppression of public hedonism has proven a successfully means of both reducing public hostility to homosexual behavior and increased the positive signaling behavior of homosexuals.
SPECIAL TREATMENT
the only special treatment we must give to any behavior in society is that which perpetuates investment in the high cost of producing high investment families. The age of individualism has been a catastrophe for the very reason it was intended to be: to destroy the influence of intergenerational middle and upper middle class families. Just as the ancient attack on the aristocracy was an attack on intergenerational aristocracy.
(The Ten Planks were available for all to see.)
—MORE—
NATURAL LAW ON GENDER
https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/02/natural-law-on-gender/
TWO GENDERS, MANY DISORDERS
https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/two-genders-many-disorders/
GAY MARRIAGE
https://propertarianism.com/2013/05/31/why-are-gay-people-asking-for-the-right-to-marry-if-it-is-legal-stuff-they-are-asking-for-cant-they-go-to-some-separate-setup-for-partners/
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-30 12:47:00 UTC
-
The end result of the british goverment is deterministically caretaker bolshevis
The end result of the british goverment is deterministically caretaker bolshevism. The Russian empire needed a means of homogenous conquest. British government after losing the empire has taken on a means of conquest – of its own people. UK=SOVIETS V2
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-28 20:47:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001203438619938816
-
Contractualism
—“Curt, would you say the English model of “contracts” paved the way for removing people from blood, soil and kinship loyalty?”— Um. It looks like Scandinavian and maybe northern european groups in general were organized as militial freemen back into prehistory – they could choose their leadership and form ‘private corporations’ so to speak to raid, conquer, and settle land. This ancient european custom led to Germanic law in general which lead to anglo-saxon law in particular, incorporated manorialism (sort of like land owners seeking franchisees), and prior to and up into the Hansa, iteratively developed ‘rule of law’ or rather ‘rule without rulers’, and english law is essentially contractualism, and the British and American constitutions contracts. At present we call this the ‘anglo saxon model’ in which (until say the 1970’s) has been employed across the anglosphere (britan, america, canada, australia, new zealand). This ‘contractualism’ is not existent elsewhere. Because militial civilization (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, voluntary organization/markets) was not possible or did not evolve elsewhere. So I think it’s been a battle between contractual, kinship-contract, and dominance/ownership models throughout time with the militial and naval developing contractual, and the militial and army developing kin-contract, and we have been largely free of the rest of the world’s ‘dominance/ownership’ and ‘religious kinship’ models. And I think until the postwar years we preserved it. (Women and other groups cannot function in this model. The enlightenment was wrong, women’s suffrage was wrong, universal suffrage was wrong.)
-
Contractualism
—“Curt, would you say the English model of “contracts” paved the way for removing people from blood, soil and kinship loyalty?”— Um. It looks like Scandinavian and maybe northern european groups in general were organized as militial freemen back into prehistory – they could choose their leadership and form ‘private corporations’ so to speak to raid, conquer, and settle land. This ancient european custom led to Germanic law in general which lead to anglo-saxon law in particular, incorporated manorialism (sort of like land owners seeking franchisees), and prior to and up into the Hansa, iteratively developed ‘rule of law’ or rather ‘rule without rulers’, and english law is essentially contractualism, and the British and American constitutions contracts. At present we call this the ‘anglo saxon model’ in which (until say the 1970’s) has been employed across the anglosphere (britan, america, canada, australia, new zealand). This ‘contractualism’ is not existent elsewhere. Because militial civilization (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, voluntary organization/markets) was not possible or did not evolve elsewhere. So I think it’s been a battle between contractual, kinship-contract, and dominance/ownership models throughout time with the militial and naval developing contractual, and the militial and army developing kin-contract, and we have been largely free of the rest of the world’s ‘dominance/ownership’ and ‘religious kinship’ models. And I think until the postwar years we preserved it. (Women and other groups cannot function in this model. The enlightenment was wrong, women’s suffrage was wrong, universal suffrage was wrong.)
-
CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD 1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason
CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD
1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital.
2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).
3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality.
4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.
5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families.
6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.
7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.
The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science.
As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008.
1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity
2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary.
3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism.
4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production.
5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse.
6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.**
DOMESTICATION
Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-28 10:37:00 UTC
-
CONTRACTUALISM —“Curt, would you say the English model of “contracts” paved th
CONTRACTUALISM
—“Curt, would you say the English model of “contracts” paved the way for removing people from blood, soil and kinship loyalty?”—
Um. It looks like Scandinavian and maybe northern european groups in general were organized as militial freemen back into prehistory – they could choose their leadership and form ‘private corporations’ so to speak to raid, conquer, and settle land. This ancient european custom led to Germanic law in general which lead to anglo-saxon law in particular, incorporated manorialism (sort of like land owners seeking franchisees), and prior to and up into the Hansa, iteratively developed ‘rule of law’ or rather ‘rule without rulers’, and english law is essentially contractualism, and the British and American constitutions contracts. At present we call this the ‘anglo saxon model’ in which (until say the 1970’s) has been employed across the anglosphere (britan, america, canada, australia, new zealand). This ‘contractualism’ is not existent elsewhere. Because militial civilization (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, voluntary organization/markets) was not possible or did not evolve elsewhere. So I think it’s been a battle between contractual, kinship-contract, and dominance/ownership models throughout time with the militial and naval developing contractual, and the militial and army developing kin-contract, and we have been largely free of the rest of the world’s ‘dominance/ownership’ and ‘religious kinship’ models. And I think until the postwar years we preserved it. (Women and other groups cannot function in this model. The enlightenment was wrong, women’s suffrage was wrong, universal suffrage was wrong.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-27 19:06:00 UTC
-
“Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken becaus
—“Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken because men are no longer Hoplites – no longer husbands of their freeholds.”—Greg Swann
The militia owns the commons, and tends it as a garden, or the commons is nothing but weeds – and like all countries lacking a militia – full of trash and fecal matter.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:47:00 UTC
-
—“How are society, culture and politics interrelated with each other?”—
SOCIETY: People in a geography with shared interests because of shared dependence upon language, manners, norms, laws, and institutions. POLITICS: The institutional means by which we jockey for, negotiate upon, decide upon which commons are produced with the scarce resources of the polity (population) – usually in the form of taxes, but also trade, behavior, and legislation. CULTURE: Myths, Traditions, Rituals, Holidays, Foods, Arts. Technically: the group’s evolutionary strategy, and the costs we pay to demonstrate reciprocal fitness (agreeableness) for that strategy.May 25, 2018 10:07am