Because I want to nag the people behind GAB out of being an tenth rate twitter clone, and into a platform that can compete with the mainstream.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 16:25:38 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/5148873810886422
Theme: Reform
-
THIS YEAR – THE TOOLS OF REVOLUTION – REVOLUTION COMES. We will have(a) de-legit
THIS YEAR – THE TOOLS OF REVOLUTION – REVOLUTION COMES.
We will have(a) de-legitimized the federal government, (b) a moral license for revolution (c) a set of demands for the devolution of the federal government, (d) necessary and sufficient incentive for majority approval of those demands, (e) a plan of transition, (f) a means of raising the cost of the status quo until the revolutionary demands are met. I do not expect this to result in a war between the public factions, but between the predatory state, finance, media, academy ‘cathedral complex’ and the majority of people, the military, and the judiciary.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 08:41:00 UTC
-
ACTION DRAFT AGAINST FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE I drafted this to show that remedies ar
https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/04/its-time-for-a-class-action-against-facebook-to-force-remedies-the-government-has-not/CLASS ACTION DRAFT AGAINST FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE
I drafted this to show that remedies are possible that provide neutral communication grounds in all ‘monopoly public media’.
The same exact regulations can be applied to Google.
The same exact regulations can be applied to *all* media.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:14:00 UTC
-
HOW DO WE ELIMINATE THE TINFOIL HAT BRIGADES FROM THE RIGHT?
HOW DO WE ELIMINATE THE TINFOIL HAT BRIGADES FROM THE RIGHT?
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 20:54:00 UTC
-
Time for a change. Time for an upgrade. Time for the New Right
Time for a change.
Time for an upgrade.
Time for the New Right.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 19:55:00 UTC
-
LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE CRITICS OF THE ALT RIGHT AND NEW RIGHT The evidence
http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/07/doctor-of-common-sense-and-zo/FOR LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE CRITICS OF THE ALT RIGHT AND NEW RIGHT
The evidence of the failure of libertarianism and conservatism is provided by the fact that conservatives have ONLY produced moral literature of moral equivocation and naturalistic fallacy, and NEVER produced a rational, or ratio-scientific literature with which to defend themselves against Abrahamism and Platonism in the ancient world (judaism/christianity/islam), or Abrahamism in the modern world (classical liberal equalitarianism(Middle Class), Feminism(Women), Marxism(Labor), or Postmodern Identitarianism(Slaves)) – or against the methods of argument used in deceitful discourse (Pseudo-Myth(Supernaturalism), Pseudo-Rationalism(Platonic Idealism, Postmodern Lit.), and Pseudo-Science (Boazianism, Marxism, Freudianism,Cantorianism).
The Alt Right has adopted the techniques of the marxists and postmodernists which is to abandon reason and merely propagandize, rally, shame ridicule, silence by volume, poisoning any discourse it can intrude upon in order to hindre emotional momentum, and directly engaging in opposition violence when possible, and to defeat the left when possible by letting the left demonstrate their character.
The New Right (Myself) has abandoned the classical liberal project, the presumption of hopefulness that political bias is other than expression of individual and group evolutionary strategy: a proxy for war. And that any further debate is futile, and that only violence to bring about the restoration of the traditional compromises between the genders and classes – and if not possible, return to the subjugation of female genders and under classes. But that the status quo or the left’s further conquest of the west (for the second time) is not tolerable – even less tolerable than civil war.
Now like any movement there are a tiny number of thought leaders, a small number of ideological leaders, a large number of agitators, communicators, and propagandists, and even larger numbers of sympathizers and advocates, and the main body of interested but uncommitted followers. As one would expect, the right does not consolidate into a single equalitarian body (as do females), but separates into tribes (as do males) using their own sentiments, language, arguments, and leaders. Right and men seek hunting packs with similar but specific agendas designed for rapid change, not a herd (and women and underclasses) with a loose directional agenda of incremental but continuous improvement.
On the alt right, (although they dislike this analysis intensely), it is fairly clear that the tribes have organized around class lines (and rougnly IQ) and method of argument that *reflects their social competency*. And that evidence appears as the the nat-soc(threats), green-frogs(antagonism), masculinists and rationalists (resistance), classical liberals and traditionalists (active opposition), various scientists HBD, RR, etc (refutation), Rule of Law/philosophers(Solution Definition), Traditionalists (wishful thinkers – historical escapists), literary occultists like evola, nietzsche ( literary escapists / shamers), and techo-libertarians (tech escapists), new-age/pseudoscientists (conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience escapists).
My opinion, as someone who has seen this transition (cycle) coming, and worked on it for many years, is that for the tribes of men to unite, those men need (a) a moral license, (b) a solution to demand (c) a plan of transition to the new solution (d) a strategy, tactics, and leadership by which to raise the cost of the status quo, until the demanded solution or a compromise is met. In other words, men need an objective to fight for using the methods of conflcit that they know how to employ. And our job is to succeed where the conservatives in ALL THEIR ITERATIONS since Burke first launched his criticism, have FAILED TO PRODUCE.
We are in a cold civil war. That civil war can turn hot at any moment. I expect it to. The question is, who has that solution?
Or rather, who ELSE has that solution?
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
=====
IN RESPONSE TO:
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 15:47:00 UTC
-
REFORM LIBERTARIANISM ONE BRICK AT A TIME: FROM FEBRUARY 2012 – BY IMITATING LEW
REFORM LIBERTARIANISM ONE BRICK AT A TIME: FROM FEBRUARY 2012 – BY IMITATING LEW ROCKWELL: VOLUMINOUS CRITICISM
(snip)
Languages are necessary in order to articulate political preferences. Political preferences are the result of metaphysical value judgements. Value judgements are social strategies.
The Libertarians have developed a language for universal political speech. Unfortunately, that language is grounded in a moralistic assumption about the very nature, cause and necessity of ethics.
One brick at a time, one day at a time, Iām trying to reform the libertarian language into aristocratic language, so that conservative sentiments, values, and social strategy can be articulated in the public debate ā so that we may conduct a battle of social models against encroaching totalitarianism brought about by Shumpeterian intellectuals.
(snip)
https://propertarianism.com/2012/02/21/what-i-learned-from-lew-rockwell/
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 13:26:00 UTC
-
MISES INSTITUTE BEGINS TO RETURN TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION (thanks for the alert t
https://mises.org/blog/new-libertarianTHE MISES INSTITUTE BEGINS TO RETURN TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION
(thanks for the alert to the post via @Kier Martland)
Jeff,
Very Inspiring. Congratulations. Thank you for what you’re doing. It’s profoundly important for lovers of liberty everywhere.
Thank you for bringing the reformation to the Mises Institute and the restoration of liberty to the western rule of law. You are taking the first steps toward producing a necessary reformation of libertarianism – the one I have been aggressively working to force by criticism, and the one I hoped the Mises Institute would finally – against all institutional memory, embrace.
I realize that reformation is challenging, and that it has taken time to change from radical individualism advocating separatism and hostility to commons, to radical civil society that preserves individualism by the production of commons. That was a hard transition to make. It restores liberty to the western and specifically anglo-germanic and greco-roman tradition of civil society. It’s important because separatism in the absence of institutions, commons, and territory means one ends up a diasporic people at the mercy of host civilizations, or survivors on a borderland in an age of man where no more borderlands exist.
And while changing values from individual separatism to community membership is difficult, I also realize that completing that restoration of liberty to the argumentative western tradition is even more challenging, and that it will take time to correct the Institute’s accumulated overinvestment in anti-western philosophy: (a) Rothbardian ethics of volition (allowing blackmail and externalities) instead of the natural law of reciprocity (not provoking retaliation), (b) The test of reciprocity using the NAP against intersubjectively verifiable property instead of non-imposition against demonstrated investment in homesteading or exchange (property-in-toto), (c) praxeology as a conflation of science and logic, instead of a logic within the scientific method by which we test rationality and reciprocity(morality) of transfers:, (d) argument by Rabbinical and Kantian Hermeneutic Justification (law and morality post agreement to cooperate) instead of Darwinian Survival from Scientific Criticism (continuous rational choice between predation, cooperation, and boycott prior to agreement to cooperate).
And I expect it will be even harder to swallow that western aristocracies profited from the domestication of the animal man by millennia of normative (access to opportunity), reproductive(access to reproduction), manorial (access to property and therefore food), and prosecutorial (legal), suppression of impulsive, immoral, unethical, and criminal behavior, and thereby applying the same aggressive eugenic domestication to man as he had to animal and plant. Ergo, man was not oppressed but domesticated until he could demonstrate equal sovereignty over mind, body, kin and possessions as his domesticators.
As far as I know, libertarianism remains a form of rebellion against the warriors and soldiers who create sovereignty by the organized application of non-substitutable violence to prevent alternative orders other than sovereignty. And that liberty movements arose as appeals for incremental sovereignty as the protected middle class sought to retain the proceeds of their production, as providing value in the preservation of sovereignty equal in all but risk to the peerage of the warriors.
Once libertarians are willing to pay the cost of their liberty, rather than rally and shame others for not giving it to them, the libertarian movement will be complete. And the conservative and libertarian movements united in all but demand for behavioral norms and reliance on argument and choice rather than ritual and obedience – which is the only material difference between us: libertarians with higher ambitions for novelty and opportunity, and higher ambitions for predictability and security.
At that point you will cease needing to struggle for donations, and the aged remains of ‘hopeful’ conservatism, and revel in the position of the central agent of change that restores western civilization.
Someone will profit from it and achieve it if you don’t. (wink)
I’m happy you’ve made the journey. I’d be happier if you led that journey, rather than require the institute continue to be dragged, kicking, rallying, ignoring, prevaricating, and shaming into the western tradition: Nomocracy: Incremental suppression of the animal, Evolution through reproduction, Transcendence via reason.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
https://mises.org/blog/new-libertarian
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 13:03:00 UTC
-
MISES INSTITUTE BEGINS TO RETURN TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION (followers: please shar
https://mises.org/blog/new-libertarianTHE MISES INSTITUTE BEGINS TO RETURN TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION
(followers: please share enthusiastically everywhere, and let me know you have.)
Jeff,
Very Inspiring. Congratulations. Thank you for what you’re doing. It’s profoundly important for lovers of liberty everywhere.
Thank you for bringing the reformation to the Mises Institute and the restoration of liberty to the western rule of law. You are taking the first steps toward producing a necessary reformation of libertarianism – the one I have been aggressively working to force by criticism, and the one I hoped the Mises Institute would finally – against all institutional memory, embrace.
I realize that reformation is challenging, and that it has taken time to change from radical individualism advocating separatism and hostility to commons, to radical civil society that preserves individualism by the production of commons. That was a hard transition to make. It restores liberty to the western and specifically anglo-germanic and greco-roman tradition of civil society. It’s important because separatism in the absence of institutions, commons, and territory means one ends up a diasporic people at the mercy of host civilizations, or survivors on a borderland in an age of man where no more borderlands exist.
And while changing values from individual separatism to community membership is difficult, I also realize that completing that restoration of liberty to the argumentative western tradition is even more challenging, and that it will take time to correct the Institute’s accumulated overinvestment in anti-western philosophy: (a) Rothbardian ethics of volition (allowing blackmail and externalities) instead of the natural law of reciprocity (not provoking retaliation), (b) The test of reciprocity using the NAP against intersubjectively verifiable property instead of non-imposition against demonstrated investment in homesteading or exchange (property-in-toto), (c) praxeology as a conflation of science and logic, instead of a logic within the scientific method by which we test rationality and reciprocity(morality) of transfers:, (d) argument by Rabbinical and Kantian Hermeneutic Justification (law and morality post agreement to cooperate) instead of Darwinian Survival from Scientific Criticism (continuous rational choice between predation, cooperation, and boycott prior to agreement to cooperate).
And I expect it will be even harder to swallow that western aristocracies profited from the domestication of the animal man by millennia of normative (access to opportunity), reproductive(access to reproduction), manorial (access to property and therefore food), and prosecutorial (legal), suppression of impulsive, immoral, unethical, and criminal behavior, and thereby applying the same aggressive eugenic domestication to man as he had to animal and plant. Ergo, man was not oppressed but domesticated until he could demonstrate equal sovereignty over mind, body, kin and possessions as his domesticators.
As far as I know, libertarianism remains a form of rebellion against the warriors and soldiers who create sovereignty by the organized application of non-substitutable violence to prevent alternative orders other than sovereignty. And that liberty movements arose as appeals for incremental sovereignty as the protected middle class sought to retain the proceeds of their production, as providing value in the preservation of sovereignty equal in all but risk to the peerage of the warriors.
Once libertarians are willing to pay the cost of their liberty, rather than rally and shame others for not giving it to them, the libertarian movement will be complete. And the conservative and libertarian movements united in all but demand for behavioral norms and reliance on argument and choice rather than ritual and obedience – which is the only material difference between us: libertarians with higher ambitions for novelty and opportunity, and higher ambitions for predictability and security.
At that point you will cease needing to struggle for donations, and the aged remains of ‘hopeful’ conservatism, and revel in the position of the central agent of change that restores western civilization.
Someone will profit from it and achieve it if you don’t. (wink)
I’m happy you’ve made the journey. I’d be happier if you led that journey, rather than require the institute continue to be dragged, kicking, rallying, ignoring, prevaricating, and shaming into the western tradition: Nomocracy: Incremental suppression of the animal, Evolution through reproduction, Transcendence via reason.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
https://mises.org/blog/new-libertarian
(thanks for the alert to the post via @Kier Martland)
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 13:02:00 UTC
-
THE EVOLUTIONARY CYCLE OF THE CRITERIA FOR EQUALITY (priceless) by Bill Joslin 1
THE EVOLUTIONARY CYCLE OF THE CRITERIA FOR EQUALITY
(priceless)
by Bill Joslin
1) LAW: Equality before the law, formed in the wake of costly rebellion where arbitrary, inconsistent, discretionary application of law bred resentment, encouraged retaliation and ultimately rebellion.
2) OPPORTUNITY: Equality of opportunity – as the welfare state rise and regulation became the staple of the state, upper middle classes pled for the state from interfering in opportunity (via statute and regulation)
3) OUTCOME: Equality of outcome – romantics, upset about a rising gentry aligned themselves with the underclass causes to “shame” the capitalist gentry. Faced with the reality that no one is equal, they pointed at unequal outcomes as an example of hypocrisy and encourages the state to “level the playing Feild”.
Leveling the Feild requires the state to develope special rights for the disadvantaged. This results in arbitrary, inconsistent and discretionary application of law….
Wash rinse repeat.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 18:39:00 UTC