—“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” — Samuel Adams (via josh moye) —“Not every individual can practice Reciprocity in display word and deed. Every group can practice Rule of Law by Natural Law by getting rid of the members that can’t.”—Martin Štěpán —–“God is with us because only Europeans practice adherence to physical (entropy, conservation of energy), natural (reciprocity, testimony), and evolutionary laws (market eugenics, preventing regression). Only Europeans practice the Rule of Law by Natural Law. That is God’s Law.”— CD
Theme: Religion
-
God is with us
-
God is with us
—“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” — Samuel Adams (via josh moye) —“Not every individual can practice Reciprocity in display word and deed. Every group can practice Rule of Law by Natural Law by getting rid of the members that can’t.”—Martin Štěpán —–“God is with us because only Europeans practice adherence to physical (entropy, conservation of energy), natural (reciprocity, testimony), and evolutionary laws (market eugenics, preventing regression). Only Europeans practice the Rule of Law by Natural Law. That is God’s Law.”— CD
-
(Collection of Twitter Posts) Great excuse. So, you’re a posturing little punk f
(Collection of Twitter Posts)
Great excuse. So, you’re a posturing little punk from a second world country promoting a third world political religion, trying to get attention, by bravado and insult when you can’t even demonstrate you have an argument worth showing up for? You won’t, cause you can’t, make one.
I set my criteria. If you won’t show up …… Then apologize for your behavior, show me an argument (even define NB as other than vague “Dugginism”), and show me evidence that you can hold an adult debate. If you can’t then you’re just a poser afraid to make a case in public.
I told you to apologize for your childishness, show me evidence you can hold a debate, or there is no debate to accept. I’m claiming you can’t debate, don’t have an argument, and are an attention whore. You have to be ABLE to debate. You’ve demonstrated you can’t. Man up.
So what are we doing to debate then? Adaptive innovative, mixed economies, versus a repetition of the soviet and Russian failures of the past? is this a debate over prices and incentives again? What is there to debate other than another promise ‘this time will be different’?
Yes, you disagree, you haven’t learned from the failures of the past (china has: nationalsm+state capitalism+to catch up). And so have we (nationalism + state capitalism to stay ahead). Russia is poor so it can’t take either path and will have to return to forced labor. Simple.
Unfortunately, Russia is very poor, vast, infrastructure costs too high, low trust, massively corrupt, hated by everyone around it for hubris, lacking population and economy to become a great power, and can only succeed by restoring forced labor and low productivity. I agree.
You seem to be under the illusion that Propertarinism is other than a formal logic social science that explains the European miracle and how to repeat it – with European people. Russia failed in joining advanced civilizations by creating trust necessary for complex organizations.
My work restores European peoples to their trajectory free of lying – bolshevik and otherwise. Economies and Political systems are just organizations necessary for any given set of conditions with a given demographic. Russia remains backward but moral, west immoral but forward.
There is no reason to do debate in person unless there is evidence one is worthy of debate. So far I don’t hear any argument worth having that hasn’t been settled by the evidence. I you can’t make an argument in text you sure as heck can’t make one in words.
We are still trying to determine if you have any argument. So far you say you have beliefs. But this occult-religious or secular-religious (ideological) not scientific or rational and worthy of debate.
Maybe can explain to me why you think your ‘maxism will work this time’?
You can say disagree with my ‘science’ but you’re merely saying you disapprove or dislike it. You’re not saying it’s false (and you can’t – I know). You can only say that only anglos are fit for rule of law, and no other people are, and as such, other means of government needed.
And this is why I prefer to ‘test the mettle’ of posers in public, and in writing, because I know full well that you have an empty hat, claiming a rabbit in it.
China uses facism. National Capitalism. Fascism won. Clan Beurearatic fascism won in both china and russia. Boslhevism is jewish communism. The underclasses can’t do anything competent and never have.
Russia had about the same # people, more resources, but Russian people are low trust, lazy, production quality was trash, and (STILL) can’t form large organizations because of low trust. (same as Muslims). Russians used cheap(forced) labor, US/CN used credit. Incentives mattered.
The condition for victory was that everything RU touched went backward by a century. Every RU immigrant had the same effect on ukraine, latvia, lithuania etc as africans did on the usa. Even today RU are all ‘Glopnkis’. We make fun of them in UA. Lazy, violent, criminal, corrupt.
There is no evidence of that. And I am certain I now the economics of it better than you do. The quality declined rapidly generation by generation as people learned ‘to do the minimum’. Only the military could function and did. Hence your instincts of militarization of economics.
So no, it was Russian under-development, rapid industrialization using militarization of the economy, the failure to grasp that while states can concentrate capital to form industries they must immediately be managerially privatized or they turn parasitic. That is a law of econ.
And they were wrong, right? Those economists were wrong? I was there in the 70’s when the soviet failure was obvious, 80’s when we chose to bankrupt it, and 90’s when everything fell apart, and they said ‘well, we didn’t see that coming’ – but we did.
I played in those Red Blue war games in the 80’s. I understood that we could never win a ground war, but russia could never win an economic and technological one.
We were sifting thru data on russian production. It was obvious. Just as the Stalin vs Kruchev era build quality.
The Russian empire failed for the same reason the nazi’s failed: conversion of religious into ideological zeal, so that preserving the system of lies was more important than reacting to the empirical evidence on the ground. Hitler, Soviets, Chinese, Jews, Muslims, xians failed.
RU empire fell because the J’s convinced the peasants that they could be saved from poverty and war if they fell for the false promise they were oppressed and could rule. Had the whites succeeded, the czar survived,and the Hohenzollern taken DU throne Russia could have caught up.
In the end, you are still saying that a military organization of production by peasants unable to organize by trust and law, can do anything other than bring a backward country into parity, before converting from forced labor to incentives to maintain competitive advantage.
Yes russian can dugginize as soon as western europe falls and provide europe with an army and cause the rest of europe to fall down to russian standards of incompetence and poverty.
Yes I expect that something like this might happen because Germany is weak, and France not strong.
All power rotation in history in all civs follows the same path. As the economy increase in prosperity the number of the territorial (martial)aristocracy must shrink, and a new ‘house’ for the merchants created since they now produce all tax revenues. UK/DU yes. FR/RU failed.
I don’t see that you have a debate other than that you are following the Tradition RU habit of historical revisionism and data-cherrypicking in order to avoid the central thesis, of force labor discounts at cost of corruption, vs incentive labor costs in favor of productivity.
The consensus among political theorists at present is that nationalism is on the rise, state capitalism won over market capitalism, and that states must act as primary venture capitalists, and the private sector manage state assets by incentives. Problem? Slavs can’t Truth/ROL.
And that in the absence of European empires, the British empire, the American ‘preservation’ of the British empire, that the world will return to normal as a conflict of civilizations led by core states, with ‘torn countries’ creating conflict between those civilizations.(TK)
And that in the absence of European empires, the British empire, the American ‘preservation’ of the British empire, that the world will return to normal as a conflict of civilizations led by core states, with ‘torn countries’ creating conflict between those civilizations.(TK)
Worse, world economic and military instability is now in the USA’s favor, since we can no longer afford to police the world’s seas. China has taken manufacturing base. Mexico our labor force. Immigration our culture, state, and proceeds. Jews our rule of law. We’re done.
So you’re talking about stupid shit of the last century thinking you’re smart by fighting a war that was decided a century ago, and failing to see the evidence before you.
Russia will not survive this century intact. Nor with the USA. China might now. And Europe is .. lost.
We just outlined the debate. I’ve engaged your points. Nothing can compensate for the failure of forced labor economies to produce continuously declining production, and continuously increasing corruption that creates negates initial advantage.
You’re afraid of public written debate because you can’t play (((Abrahamic games ))). and don’t want a public record of your defeat. And you cant get away with kiddie games in public text that you can with mainbois in ‘discord’.
There is no perfect steady state government. The optimum is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, a professional bureaucracy, with state as primary venture capitalist, ensuring that profits made from the people are shared with the people at least in their commons.
The level of participatory government depends on the relative size of the middle (asset responsible) classes – not taxpaying classes. The only value of participatory government is negative – to vote out people or down taxes or down policy.
These are just truths. How do they apply to your people? Well, that’ depends on the level of sophistication of your people. Russians are smart educated but trust no one.
Well, I got you to say Chinese (Nationalist) Intolerant (fascist) state-capitalist (State as primary investor) instead of some silly ideological bullshit so now we are at least talking like adults. And yes that is the wave of the future as far as I can tell. So what?
I’m educating the audience. And I’m establishing the terms of the debate. So far, all I know is that you’re arguing for state capitalism and haven’t read my seconddeclaration and how the state is organized, or how the financial sector is absorbed by the state
Except that we know what “Chinese nationalist fascist expansionist, state capitalist, mixed economy” means because it exists and is possible. If you want to try to legitimize antique labels that’s just intellectual dishonesty. China is reverting to WORLD HISTORICAL NORMS.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-21 16:05:00 UTC
-
Tolerating the Truth of Physical, Natural, Evolutionary Laws
We need: The Aristotle/Law (Truth) to know it; The Epic cycle/Paganism/Tragedy (Strong) to fight for it, The Arthurian/chivalry(Middle) to govern under it; and Christianity(Meek) to suffer it. The meek are left out of the European pagan pantheon – they are the slaves – those to be conquered, domesticated like animals, and used like animals, to advance the aristocracy that advances the laws of nature and nature’s god. Christianity provides the meek with honor and status and virtue.
-
Tolerating the Truth of Physical, Natural, Evolutionary Laws
We need: The Aristotle/Law (Truth) to know it; The Epic cycle/Paganism/Tragedy (Strong) to fight for it, The Arthurian/chivalry(Middle) to govern under it; and Christianity(Meek) to suffer it. The meek are left out of the European pagan pantheon – they are the slaves – those to be conquered, domesticated like animals, and used like animals, to advance the aristocracy that advances the laws of nature and nature’s god. Christianity provides the meek with honor and status and virtue.
-
Christianity in Europe Was a Religion Of, For, and By the Elite.
CHRISTIANITY IN EUROPE WAS A RELIGION OF, FOR, AND BY THE ELITE. (Christianity = Marxism-Postmodernism) “All roads lead to Rome. Christianity in Europe was a religion of, for, and by the elite. For example Catholic Mass was given in Latin until 1963. Did peasants speak, read or understand Latin? Not 12th century french peasants that is for damn sure. The elite nature of the church goes back to the original legitimacy of kings. When the Roman Empire collapsed there was a huge power vacuum in the conquered territories. The very small and very young Catholic Church held onto its dominance in Europe by holding onto the power of the ancient Pontiff Maximus. Kindling the ancient legitimacy and glory of Rome the Pope was the origin of authority in Christendom. Here we have to interject a distinction between the Eastern and western Roman empires. In the Orthodox and Eastern Church the High Priest did not trump the authority of the Kings/Emperors. But, in the West the Pontiff (Pope) did trump the authority of kings. This traditional distinction between the two could go back to Caesar being Pontiff Maximus before being Emperor. And later Constantine being King who appointed priests. Remember when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor? This was to signify that he stands over the authority of the pope. First off what we know today as France was not completely unified during the Middle Ages. It was actually a diverse place with a Normans, Franks, Goths, Anglo-Germanic peoples, and who could forget the Swiss. If we start with the two hundred years between Charlemagne and the Norman invasion of Great Britain (East Anglia) in 1066 as a measure we can be assured that peasants in Europe were still very pagan. Charlemagne (crowned by the Pope) spread the authority of the Holy Roman Empire with a sword. Charlemagne is basically the ultimate Christian warrior king for Christ. If you do some digging you will find much of his kingship was spent on horseback spreading the word by spilling blood. He traveled collected taxes and asserted his and the Churches legitimate authority. In Early Christian France alone there is a very very diverse group of peoples living together. So basically the average peasant would only know what they are told by the Church i.e. the divine nature of the king, the dominance of the Christ, the meaning of the divine birth, and the meaning of Christ’s death. What is interesting is the degree of which the early church in Europe actually adapted the rituals and practices of the people in Europe. For exapmle we even today still celebrate, May first (Beltaine), Christmas (Saturnalia), Easter(Roman New Year), and Holloween (Samhaine). Have you ever played around a May Pole? Have you ever kissed under Holly? What about drinking at the modern New Year? All of these holidays (Holy Days) were originally pagan holy days. Is it not interesting how we still celebrate them? Did you know the puritan colony of Massachusetts had laws prohibiting all of the aforementioned Holy Days on the grounds that they were in fact Pagan! So basically the early church appealed to the native religions of Europe by adapting their practices. Because remember, Europeans were the first conquest of the cross they had to be slowly integrated because there were far to many pagans to kill. So in a TLDR answer to your question a peasant in early christian France would most likely still know about the ancient religion of their forefathers. They would be practicing Christians but the practices of villages across France would be markedly different. If you ever visit France you will notice village saints or church relics across the country. The peasants would know relatively know nothing outside of their small worlds. Being illiterate and with feudal system laws in place tying people to the land there was little opportunity for people to learn much about the world out side of what the local authority figures said. Those saints were once either pagan gods or heroes now forgotten and adapted by the Church. Those relics therein were once pagan relics. This was the only way the early church was able to survive in the Pagan stronghold of Europe. Through a conquest of integration built off of the once Omnipotent authority of the Roman Empire. Remember Beowulf was written down in the 11th century the line between pagan and christian was still fairly thin well into the renascence. There are some, like Colin, who have even theorized that the Druids, and Pagan Kings went underground joining the church in an attempt to keep their ancient traditions alive.” Edit: sources: Viola, Frank and Greg Barna: Pagan Chritianity (2008) González, Justo L. (1984). The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper. Grabar, André (1968). Christian iconography, a study of its origins. Princeton University Press. Morris, Colin (1989). The papal monarchy : the western church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: Clarendon.
-
Christianity in Europe Was a Religion Of, For, and By the Elite.
CHRISTIANITY IN EUROPE WAS A RELIGION OF, FOR, AND BY THE ELITE. (Christianity = Marxism-Postmodernism) “All roads lead to Rome. Christianity in Europe was a religion of, for, and by the elite. For example Catholic Mass was given in Latin until 1963. Did peasants speak, read or understand Latin? Not 12th century french peasants that is for damn sure. The elite nature of the church goes back to the original legitimacy of kings. When the Roman Empire collapsed there was a huge power vacuum in the conquered territories. The very small and very young Catholic Church held onto its dominance in Europe by holding onto the power of the ancient Pontiff Maximus. Kindling the ancient legitimacy and glory of Rome the Pope was the origin of authority in Christendom. Here we have to interject a distinction between the Eastern and western Roman empires. In the Orthodox and Eastern Church the High Priest did not trump the authority of the Kings/Emperors. But, in the West the Pontiff (Pope) did trump the authority of kings. This traditional distinction between the two could go back to Caesar being Pontiff Maximus before being Emperor. And later Constantine being King who appointed priests. Remember when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor? This was to signify that he stands over the authority of the pope. First off what we know today as France was not completely unified during the Middle Ages. It was actually a diverse place with a Normans, Franks, Goths, Anglo-Germanic peoples, and who could forget the Swiss. If we start with the two hundred years between Charlemagne and the Norman invasion of Great Britain (East Anglia) in 1066 as a measure we can be assured that peasants in Europe were still very pagan. Charlemagne (crowned by the Pope) spread the authority of the Holy Roman Empire with a sword. Charlemagne is basically the ultimate Christian warrior king for Christ. If you do some digging you will find much of his kingship was spent on horseback spreading the word by spilling blood. He traveled collected taxes and asserted his and the Churches legitimate authority. In Early Christian France alone there is a very very diverse group of peoples living together. So basically the average peasant would only know what they are told by the Church i.e. the divine nature of the king, the dominance of the Christ, the meaning of the divine birth, and the meaning of Christ’s death. What is interesting is the degree of which the early church in Europe actually adapted the rituals and practices of the people in Europe. For exapmle we even today still celebrate, May first (Beltaine), Christmas (Saturnalia), Easter(Roman New Year), and Holloween (Samhaine). Have you ever played around a May Pole? Have you ever kissed under Holly? What about drinking at the modern New Year? All of these holidays (Holy Days) were originally pagan holy days. Is it not interesting how we still celebrate them? Did you know the puritan colony of Massachusetts had laws prohibiting all of the aforementioned Holy Days on the grounds that they were in fact Pagan! So basically the early church appealed to the native religions of Europe by adapting their practices. Because remember, Europeans were the first conquest of the cross they had to be slowly integrated because there were far to many pagans to kill. So in a TLDR answer to your question a peasant in early christian France would most likely still know about the ancient religion of their forefathers. They would be practicing Christians but the practices of villages across France would be markedly different. If you ever visit France you will notice village saints or church relics across the country. The peasants would know relatively know nothing outside of their small worlds. Being illiterate and with feudal system laws in place tying people to the land there was little opportunity for people to learn much about the world out side of what the local authority figures said. Those saints were once either pagan gods or heroes now forgotten and adapted by the Church. Those relics therein were once pagan relics. This was the only way the early church was able to survive in the Pagan stronghold of Europe. Through a conquest of integration built off of the once Omnipotent authority of the Roman Empire. Remember Beowulf was written down in the 11th century the line between pagan and christian was still fairly thin well into the renascence. There are some, like Colin, who have even theorized that the Druids, and Pagan Kings went underground joining the church in an attempt to keep their ancient traditions alive.” Edit: sources: Viola, Frank and Greg Barna: Pagan Chritianity (2008) González, Justo L. (1984). The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper. Grabar, André (1968). Christian iconography, a study of its origins. Princeton University Press. Morris, Colin (1989). The papal monarchy : the western church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: Clarendon.
-
The Difference Between Christian Sects
Christianity: all Christian sects … Catholicism: Religion of Rule … Orthodoxy: Religion within Rule … Protestantism: Religion outside of rule.
-
The Difference Between Christian Sects
Christianity: all Christian sects … Catholicism: Religion of Rule … Orthodoxy: Religion within Rule … Protestantism: Religion outside of rule.
-
Transcending Abrahamic Method of Deceit
Abrahamism like Aristotelianism and Confucianism consists of a means of persuasion: a ‘grammar’. Aristotelian Truth, Confucian Wisdom, and Abrahamic Deceit. Aristotle and Confucius make no false promises, bait man with no lies, speak of the beauty of life. The Abrahamic death cults hate life, hate civilization, and promise falsehoods to bait the ignorance into supernatural submission, rather than the hard work of developing agency. There is a reason the European Jews did nothing except produce volumes of mysticism, develop organized financial crime; the Christians did nothing but spread superstition, ignorance, and reverse Greco roman literacy learning and commerce; and the Muslims reduced to ignorance, dysgenic, and ashes every great civilization of the ancient world. Abrahamic religions are just an addictive drug for those unwilling and lacking leadership that trains them as the Romans and Greeks did, through incentives for status, into developing agency: knowledge of, adaptation to, and application of, the physical, natural, evolutionary laws, by thought, display, word, and deed, of realism, naturalism, and operationalism. My work merely exposes the Abrahamic method of deceit that utilizes the female strategy of seduction and addiction, using false unwarrantable promises of freedom from physical natural and evolutionary laws, and extends existing law on fraud to criminalize the Abrahamic method of fraud and political warfare, in all speech in public to the public in matters public. That’s the premise of the work. The prohibition on false promises baiting into hazard. And the reformation of our informational, educational, economic, and political commons to purge those false promises. Grow up. Man up. Face the Truth. Learn from the east Chinese and our pre-Christian ancestors – the only peoples to escape the great lies. There are no gods but those we imagine. And those we imagine are literary archetypes, that provide a system of intuitionistic measurement for our group’s strategy. And the Abrahamic gods are, at best, when undressed, the most evil demons man can conceive. And we know this by the evidence, no matter what lies and excuses their addicted slaves concoct. Aristotle is our lawgiver: the laws of nature. Tyr/Tiwaz is our god (universal military militia). Heroes of History are our Demigods. Stoicism/Epicureanism are our religion of mindfulness. Only Nature and Ancestors and Nature are due our debts (worship). And all universalist gods are the enemy of our people. Jesus was – at best – a philosopher the eastern empire dressed up in garb to make the conquered peoples submissive so that they could be taxed and ruled. At worst he was another Abrahamic deceiver who taught the dysgenic bottom, like Gandhi, how do undermine the aristocracy that sought to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, and poverty. Aristotelianism is the most advanced system of thought most correspondent with the laws of the universe, that empowers man to transcend the animal, and Abrahamism is the most advanced system of lying to deny them and destroy mankind ever invented. The Byzantines the Romans and finally the Germans, and then Germanized Christianity, and the British in science, the french in socialism, the germans in philosophy – all Europeans – seek to escape it with Americans the only hold outs. The only problem is they failed to replace it. Or rather they replaced it with the doctrine of human rights, without providing the stoic discipline, political discipline, social integration, or german culture to bring it about. This is a problem we can solve.