The Propertarian Definition of Property - Answering an FAQ by John Mark

Curt Doolittle standing next to his Ferrari nobody rides for free.jpg

by Bill Joslin, from The Propertarian Institute Facebook page

Note from John Mark: One of the most frequently asked questions we get is “Won’t the Propertarian definition of property be abused by the Left? Can’t they use it for their own purposes? Can’t they use it to protect or argue for various things they want?” The answer is, no. Because everything the Left does and wants to do is parasitic. Anyone who asks this question has only a passing knowledge of the propertarian definition of property. Anyone who understands the definition of property would never even think to ask this question. Don’t try to play lawyer without going to law school - without studying and understanding the definition. Here is Bill Joslin’s answer to this question. (Bill is one of the leading Propertarians.) Keep in mind that here he is focusing primarily on one aspect of the definition of property (“demonstrated investment”), not every aspect of it.

PROPERTY AS A HUMAN BEHAVIOR

A demonstrated definition of property doesn't result in a less precise criteria for deciding property.

The demonstrated definition: i.e. the investment to seek a future benefit to the extent one would seek restitution or retaliation if said investment has been imposed upon, damaged or destroyed.

This definition has two sides to it - the investment (which is demonstrated) and the willingness protect the investment. Another way to describe property is the term "demonstrated interests".

By this we have a clear means of calculating (not interpreting) property and a measure for imposition.

People would not be able to claim their feelings as a property because there is no demonstrated investment. The demonstrated definition of property closes the door to discretionary interpretation (abuse) and opens the door to calculation. It accomplishes the opposite of what you are concerned about.

(Note from John Mark: Be sure to catch the point Bill is making here. A person cannot claim a property violation unless they can demonstrate that they invested in it somehow. Example: A leftist claiming that their welfare check is property. Sorry leftist. You can’t demonstrate that you invested in it - it’s just a handout to you. Contrast that with a paycheck - a person can easily demonstrate that they invested in their paycheck by working for it. Another example: Say a leftist claims that immigrants have a “right” to come to America, and that anyone who wants to stop immigration is committing a “property violation” against immigrants. Sorry leftist. Immigrants can’t demonstrate that they invested in making America what it is, so coming to America is just a free benefit given to them. Thus stopping immigrants from coming to America is not a property violation against them. No demonstrated investment on your part = you can’t claim it as your property.

On the other hand, if immigration imposes any cost on any form of property that any group of Americans has invested in - say, if immigration of a particular group or individual increases the crime rate, reduces average IQ of the American population, or reduces trust in our society when immigrants demonize white people etc. - then that is a property violation against Americans, and is a violation of reciprocity and must not be allowed. So you see that if all immigrant groups had avg IQ equal to or higher than current avg IQ in America, crime rate equal to or lower than current in America, and did not antagonize white people or other Americans or reduce societal cohesion and trust in any way, then immigration of that group would not be a property violation, would not violate reciprocity and could be considered as an option if we wanted to let them in - but we would still have no obligation to let them come in.)

So think of it this way - the point of a demonstrated definition of property wasn't to expand property rights beyond material possessions etc. (This isn't a ploy.)

It begins with clarifying the causes for human conflict, i.e. what inspires retaliation and why do we retaliate.

By doing this it becomes clear older versions of property definitions (possession i.e. property equates to ownership, exclusive control) and mixed labour theories (material becomes property when we mix our labor with it) are partially correct but highly flawed.

Simply put, property exists as a behaviour humans exhibit toward objects. And once the behaviour was discovered then it became clear that humans behave this way toward more than just objects.

Our language use exemplifies this. We use the possessive for all sorts of things which we don't consider property by traditional definitions... my wife, my daughter, my religion, my idea, my friend etc... And in all of these cases we have investment and willingness to maintain (reinvest), protect if threatened, and retaliate if damaged.

Rule of Law vs. Government by John Mark

Courthouse Federal.jpg

by Curt Doolittle, from The Propertarian Institute Facebook page

RULE OF LAW VS. GOVERNMENT - DECONFLATION

Rule of Law is Rule of Law (prohibitions, via-negativa) regardless of the form of Government (actions, requirements, via-positiva). The only necessary function of law is the resolution of disputes. The only necessary function of government is the production of commons. In a democracy individuals vote on those commons recommended by whom? A king? A bureaucracy? Any proposed by anyone? In a republic, individuals vote for representatives who then vote on those commons. Dictator/Monarchy, Cabinet, (Representatives) Bureaucracy, People.

European Parliaments like thangs and juries were originally juries, where the monarchy would petition local landowners (business people) if they wished to tax them for some purpose or not. The battle over via-negativa control Rule of Law vs. Rule by Discretion and the limits of exception on rule of law vs rule by discretion, and the distribution of via-positiva rule between monarch (nation) / dictator (empire), oligarchy / parliament (intermediary between state and people), and the people, has continued.

As far as I know the best form of government for a given group is dependent upon the demographic distribution of the people (relative sizes of the classes), their state of development (size of the middle classes), scale of territory, and hostility and competitiveness of neighbors.

If we want an ideal government – at least, the one possible by man – we probably had it: small homogeneous nation states, rule of law by the natural (necessary) law of reciprocity (tort, trespass), an hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals acting largely as venture capitalists, a small professional bureaucracy, preferably trained in the aristocratic (private secular), church or Confucian model from youth. Via-negativa voting by the people in matters of taxation. (The ability to say “no, you cannot tax us for this purpose”.) And universal standing before the court in matters of the commons (lack of this is causing most of our 19th-20th century problems).

This creates a political market for commons, a productive market for goods services and information, and a juridical market for prosecution of ir-reciprocity regardless of whether private or public.

"Islam is Right About Women" - The Best Meme of 2019? by John Mark

by James Fox Higgins, from RationalRise.com

IslamRightAboutWomen.PNG

(Note from John Mark: James Fox Higgins is a great example of a “muscular Christian” who shows no sign of the cuckery that some Christians can be plagued with. He understands what it takes to save the West. If you are not a Christian, you could replace the word “Christian” in this piece with “Western” and it will speak to you just the same. It is wonderful to see non-Christian and Christian grassroots right-uniting in the knowledge of how to defeat our enemies.)

“Islam is Right About Women.” These five words printed in plain text on an A4 leaf and duck-taped to a signpost constitute what is possibly the most powerful, and important, meme of 2019.

“Islam is RIGHT about women” has sparked what anyone with an IQ above 130 would have immediately predicted upon reading these words: “confusion and anger” from the NPC class of Homo sapiens sapiens. At least that’s what they call it. We player characters (men and women of agency) call it cognitive dissonance.

As you can see from this video, most people interviewed aren’t exactly sure what to make of it. Is this an attack on Islam? Or an attack on women? Or both? Or maybe it’s just a random right-wing troll that isn’t supposed to make any sense.

You see, to come out and decry this poster as an attack on women is to acknowledge that Islam subjugates women, which is in direct conflict with the feminist egalitarian ideals of the West. But to come out and call this an attack on Islam, through the irony of saying the religion is “right”, is to (again) highlight the incompatibility of the Islamic patriarchy with the Western feminarchy. In five simple words, this meme destroys the narrative of inclusivity and diversity.

DiversityOrIslamWomen choice meme.png

Many on the Right will notice this cognitive dissonance, and find it amusing. But few will be brave enough to go a layer deeper and point to what this meme truthfully predicts for women: the West must choose which type of patriarchy it will have.

Everyone who isn’t completely ignorant of the difficulties we are facing in the West today will recognise that Islam is stronger, growing faster, and maintaining its local hegemony in the Middle East far better than Western Civilisation is managing in its own geographic centres. The Islamic population in the West steadily grows, by both immigration and procreation, while our own birth rates continue to decline, and we don’t seem to be migrating into Islamic nations at all. It’s not hard to work out where this goes, even at current rates, with a bit of time passing.

Islam is objectively stronger in the West than Christianity right now.

No, I’m not saying that I’d like to live in an Islamic nation, or under Sharia Law, or within a global Caliphate. That would be disastrous, especially when one considers the peripheral drawbacks to the Islamic world, and the social ramifications of their religious superstitions.

But the fact remains that Western Christianity has failed to stop the globohomo spread through our societies, media, and schools. We have failed to prevent the mass-slaughter of innocent babies in abortion clinics. We have failed to maintain basic Christian morality, which is the very foundation of what makes the West the most desirable place for human beings to reside on the planet. (Note from John Mark: I would say that the morality Christianity teaches “has contributed to” making the West the most desirable place on the planet to live. Other huge factors are genetics and rule of law. Case in point: Japan has almost no Christians yet they have what we crave: extremely low crime, a homogeneous culture with very little strife, virtually no immigration from the third world, etc.) The Western lifestyle won’t be so desirable for much longer, if things don’t change.

With the catastrophic collapse of white birth rates in Western nations the world over, with the breakdown of civility in political discourse, the open calls for violence against anyone who commits heresy against the Church of Wokeness (be it on the topics of climate change, abortion rights, female equality, gay marriage, anti-capitalism, globalism, or -God forbid- the sacredest of sacred cows: universal suffrage), and the general late-stage decadence of Western Civilisation that is tearing us apart -one pumpkin latte and aborted fetus at a time- it is absolutely clear that (if the current trend holds) the future is Islamic.

By the time our depravity gets to its deepest depths in the West, an Islamic conquest will probably be an improvement, in all honesty. They don’t tolerate the hedonism that our media propagandists have been pumping into us year after year after year. They don’t tolerate the trans delusion. They have already successfully put an end to the gayification of children in Birmingham UK, after demonstrating their intolerance loudly and without equivocation. The Western establishment fears the political action of the Islamic community, and so they should. If we Western Christian men aren’t willing to make ourselves equally fearsome, we might as well lay down and die, because our destiny is gene death, and our women will (as they always do) willingly subjugate themselves to the men who run the show and who provide the protection and resources that we refuse to offer, because we’re just so damn woke.

I mean, we buckle at merely being called ‘racist’, ‘homophobic’, or ‘misogynistic’. Why? Do these words really have power over us? If we have the courage to retort at all, we pathetically respond with “no you’re the real racist,” giving credence to the terms our enemy has chosen, and then we endlessly lay out our logic to ideological opponents who abandoned logic and dialectic more than a century ago. We are currently the biggest losers, because we let our enemies set the terms of warfare, instead of setting them ourselves to our biggest advantages. Our need to be liked by those who will always fundamentally hate us, and our need to be seen as nice by the Western women who desperately want us to be dangerous instead, is spiralling us towards vanquish, and our women towards their future enslavement under Sharia law. Muslims know it, and celebrate our coming demise. Given the trajectory of the West, there’s not much left to want to save. An Islamic future might just be better than the progressive liberal future akin to Sodom and Gomorrah towards which we are racing.

But we can make a different choice before that time. The Patriarchy must return to the West, and it must return NOW. If Western men have any love for their people, their country, their traditions, their church, their children, or any hope at all for the future, the time to stand up and be a man is NOW. We don’t need the permission of the feminists. Do you think the Muslims will ask for permission to take charge and to roll back the female vote, or to completely end democracy, and install a masculine hierarchy based on nothing more than the ability to mobilise an army of men to take ACTION and claim that which they desire?

We did a terrible disservice to the women of the West by believing that the minority of crazed, satanic equalitarians who demanded equal voting rights (at the behest of a much sneakier group of foreign invaders) without offering anything in return, were representative of the true desires of all women. Many women today understand, at least intuitively, that politics is not their natural realm, nor is business, because ultimately politics and business are the realms of resource acquisition and property defence, and when the structures of civilisation begin to crumble, these matters are dealt with in one universal language: violence.

Islam is right about women. It knows that they lack the talent and biology for violence that we men were born for. Politics is a proxy for violence, and it is the “liberation” of women in the West that has brought us to our knees. It’s time to bring back the Christian Patriarchy. The woke women of today may kick and scream in defiance, but the wise women of today, and the girls and women of tomorrow will thank us for saving them from the alternative.

So, with the horde of foreign invaders on the horizon, and the Trojan horses already firmly planted within our countries, it is time to stop asking women what they want, and start providing for them the civilisation which we and they know in their hearts will give them the most joy: Family; Church; Country; Civilisation. All of these things are being steadily eroded, and most tragically of all, as the ship is sinking, the passengers are screaming in an orgy of delight as they hurtle towards their own annihilation. But do not listen to the siren’s call. Plug up your ears, pluck up your courage, and steel yourself for battle. We are fortunate that there is still time to win this culture war without arms. We simply need to become as active and intolerant as our enemies, and then more so. The least tolerant group always wins.

“Islam is right about women.” This five-word meme is the ideological whirlpool to the hydra of liberal progressivism we have been waiting for. Let’s drive the beast into its vortex, and re-declare our sovereignty as Western Christian men. Deus vult.

Hollywood's Decline Is Increasing Demand for a New Renaissance by John Mark

by James Fox Higgins

RRTV Space Logo.jpg

Note from John Mark: James Fox Higgins is an author, entrepreneur, friend of the Propertarian community, prime example of a "muscular (non-cucked) Christian”, and overall class act who is starting an exciting venture - part winning Right media company, part winning Right Patreon alternative - called RationalRise.tv. You will be hearing a lot more about it from me. I will be making an announcement and interviewing James about it soon on my YouTube channel. If you want to support me financially, RationalRise.tv is the best place to do so - just go to the RationalRise.tv Patrons page. I am currently working on exclusive content for RationalRise.tv subscribers, and when I make my announcement I will be encouraging my Patreon supporters to move over to RationalRise.tv.

portman-thor.jpg

We should all be REJOICING in the fact that every year Hollywood is finding it harder to create anything that isn’t completely inverted, subversive, nihilistic, gay, and disastrous, and that one-by-one they are slaying each of our beloved franchises.

Why rejoice? Because the cultural decline paves the way for a cultural renaissance, and where there is conflict, chaos, and change, there is great opportunity.

Batgirl. Black Ariel. Star Trans. Elf/Dwarf Romance. Tiny Female Jewish Thor. 007ette. Prediction: The Marxist: Reloaded, starring Neo(Con) defending Zion against hate speech. 

They’re doing the red-pilling for us! It’s great. That’s the thing about red pills: they emerge naturally from a saturated blue pill market. Why? Because red pills are truths, and there are no falsehoods or contradictions in objective reality; lies only exist in the minds and chatter of men. The world is ruled by lies, as proxies for their originator, Satan. But the world is a subset of creation, as are we all, and our Creator is the Logos, the Truth, the Way, and the Life. 

Now is the time to be practising, learning, and considering what positive contribution you can make in this culture war. It’s all well and good to discuss the problems, flaws, coming wars, and imminent calamities that the West is facing. But what are you doing now to ensure that, when the dust settles, your children and children’s children’s children have a Western legacy to enjoy; one that is good, true, and beautiful?

Enjoy the decline! 🤡 The truth will out. The next renaissance cometh! What will you make?

Leftists: We Are Done With You, and You're Sitting Ducks by John Mark

by Curt Doolittle

—“Your little AR-15 isn’t going to do shit to protect you from the government — who has tanks and nuclear weapons. That is a pathetic fantasy.”—Matt Rogers @Politidope

Matt.

What will happen to urban centers without electricity, cash machines, cash, rail, and truck transport in the depth of winter or heat of summer? What happened in Baltimore, LA, St Louis? How many days before people with AR15’s don’t have to do anything but wait?

Why will police do anything under those circumstances except stay in the barracks and defend themselves and their families? What makes you think the military will do anything at all against its own people? What happened each time they have? What will foreign powers do?

Our soldiers have lost every 4GW war that they’ve fought. Why do you think they won’t lose this one? How long did the government last before collapsing due to violence in the 60’s? 3 Weeks. The USA’s standing in the world is predicated on an illusion of power rapidly dispelled.

You see, you think of marches in the streets. We think of the gradual sieging of population centers dependent on trade networks, power, communication, and redistribution checks. It takes 500 men to end American dominance in the world in just 90 days. And then we come for enemies.

The Roman Empire like the American was destroyed in about seventy years, by the same people by the same method. Fool us once shame on you. We will not be fooled twice.
Either we end the liberal program and fundamentalism like we did communism, or we lose 100m people. Choose.

There are at least 6M men like me. There are as many as 22M. There are less than 2M active forces, of which only 200k are available, and they cannot use combined arms on populations in population centers. Only two cities, NY and DC have police forces that can hold out for 3 days

So do not speak in confidence of grave matters, as if you have any idea what you speak about. You want a revolution you are probably going to get one. And everyone knows it. You know what else they know? The right wing always wins in every simulation and war game.

If you think you can get rid of guns door to door why don’t you think we can get rid of every illegal immigrant, and revoke the citizenship of every immigrant legal or not back to the 1965 Hart Cellar immigration act door to door?

What will you do when those men with AR15’s get $2000 per person to deliver these illegals to work and deportation camps?

Why do you think it’s not possible when the Chinese are doing it today.

We are done with you – and you’re sitting ducks.

Feminism Does Not Make People Happy by John Mark

By John Mark

Sex & City author.PNG

In this article Why Are Marriage Rates Down? Study Blames Lack of “Economically Attractive” Men, we see one of the terrible effects of feminism given the reality of female hypergamy (women’s hardwired, biologically necessary drive to have sex, date and marry “up” with men that are higher on the status hierarchy than they are).

In 1950s America, most men were inherently “higher status” than most women (in the eyes of women’s hypergamy instinct) simply because most men had jobs and huge numbers of women (many or most) didn’t. Today, millions upon millions of people are lonely because almost all women are in the workforce and most college degrees are earned by women (most of the degrees earned by women are nonsense degrees, but it gives them a sense of status and in some cases does improve their earning power).

More women in the workforce and with college degrees + hypergamy = loneliness for millions more people than necessary. Today in America, most men don’t seem very high status to most women. We see this in dating studies as well - 80% of women are only interested in the top 20% of men. That’s somewhat of a reality regardless of time or place (hypergamy is always active), but feminism makes the challenge for both men and women harder by pushing the narrative that “women must be 50% of every high-status job”, affirmative action for women, etc. Women with mostly garbage degrees and/or who are the beneficiaries of affirmative action suddenly feel higher status than men working blue collar jobs. Then many of these women feel like “there are no good men” while the men feel like it is hard to get a woman attracted to them.

(The feminist narrative does not help men figure out how to be attractive to women either, because everything feminism tells men to do - submit to women, put them on a pedestal, etc. - is the exact opposite of what a man needs to do to be attractive to a woman. If this concept is new to you, study “game” - the science of making women’s hypergamy instinct tell her “I want this man”.)

When I got my masters degree, every consulting firm that helps people apply to top programs in this particular field states directly that if you are a woman or person of color it is drastically easier to get accepted to the good schools. I got into my target school anyway, because my test scores were elite level. But even in my program it was obvious that there were some women and people of color there that were not at the level of everyone else. The quality of the white men, of course, was consistently outstanding, because only the best made it in. The standards were significantly lower for women and people of color. Also, fewer women apply (men feel a stronger need to succeed because otherwise they are nothing, whereas any decently in-shape woman is valuable just because she has a womb), fewer blacks apply (lower avg IQ means smaller pool of men who even think of getting a masters degree and who can get decent test scores), and thus allowances must be made to meet diversity quotas.

The thing is, in order for a woman to feel “happy” with her man, she has to feel that he is higher status (stronger, more dominant, higher on the status hierarchy) than she is. Millions of these women have either a garbage degree that doesn’t increase their earning power but increases their sense of status, or a degree that does increase their earning power along with their sense of status. Either way, millions of these women end up lonely. They buy wine and take trips around the world and wonder where all the “good men” are. (By which they mean, men who make as much money as they do or have a college degree like they do.) These cat ladies are miserable. Buying more stuff does not make people happy, family does.

Feminism constitutes an attack on the family. It destroys the ability of millions of women and men to be happy, who in a non-feminist society would be much happier.

Case in point, recently the female author of “Sex and the City” - a hugely influential book and TV show that teaches women to have sex with a bunch of men and live the “glamorous city single life” - came out and said she regrets not getting married and having kids. Duh.

As Curt Doolittle says, these leftists and feminists are little children running with scissors.

Also of note in the article: Black women have an especially hard time finding economically attractive mates. The problem for black women is that a large percentage of black men who make decent money are more attracted to white, latino, or asian women than to black women. I do not say this to be mean, but because it is reality.

Reality is brutal folks. That’s why people lie about it. To feel better. But in the end it doesn’t help. The Western way (truth before face) is to tell the truth and then respect individuals and groups for doing the best they can with what they’ve got. Lying to make people feel better is what weak people and weak societies do (face before truth).

Hypergamy isn’t going away. And that’s a good thing. It’s a eugenic quality-control mechanism for humanity. A woman wants to mate with the best man she can get. That’s a reality. But when something like feminism teaches people lies that make millions of men and women unnecessarily lonely, we have a simple duty:

PUNISH THE LIARS.

Our Enemies Have No Comeback for the Word "Cuck" by John Mark

by John Mark

(Context: A new movie is coming out called “Cuck”. Yes, it is real. Apparently it tries to paint the “alt-right” - people who call leftists & centrists & civnats “cucks” - in a bad light, as dangerous etc. Obviously the word “cuck” hit a nerve with them and this is an attempt to do damage control and weaken the power of the word.)

THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THE WORD "CUCK". WHY? BECAUSE IT COMMUNICATES THE CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY IN ONE EMOTION-LADEN, DISGUST-INDUCING WORD

The best they can do is "cucks are good, non-cucks are bad and dangerous."

Essentially, "Be a cuck because otherwise you're bad."

Their problem is, no one wants to be a cuck. The very concept of it disgusts people. It implies the worst form of weakness. Any man that is cuckolded has experienced one of the worst events possible in a man's life.

Extremely difficult or impossible to spin as a positive.

The word is also powerful because it carries within it the concept/assumption that something valuable and sacred is being destroyed. It hits the civnats/middle between the eyes with "you are losing something priceless because you're trying to be nice". And the Left doesn't know what to do with it because all their lying, their whole narrative, consists of pretending that they impose no costs on anything or anyone, and that anyone who opposes them is just being mean and unreasonable. Yet it is inherently reasonable to oppose being cucked.

Calling someone a cuck means “you are a disgusting weak loser who is passively accepting or encouraging the destruction of something valuable, precious and sacred (accepting the imposition of costs).” The pairing of the (accurate) accusation of causing destruction with triggering the disgust reaction is very powerful.

Arguing with the left will not defeat them, but discourse can and does affect others who are willing to learn. Our word "cuck" is kind of the equivalent of their word "racist", the difference being the word cuck carries much more truth content, and thus will gain efficacy over time, in contrast to the word "racist" which loses efficacy over time.

Freedom of Speech or Truthful Speech? Which Should We Defend? by John Mark

By Curt Doolittle

(Note from John Mark: One of the most important shifts the grassroots Right must make is from defending free speech - which contains the seeds of its own destruction because it allows our enemies to rally masses of people to the cause of parasitism and destruction of our civilization - to defending truthful speech and punishing false public speech. This codifies the #1 secret of Western Civilization - truth over face, speaking the truth regardless of consequence, whereas every other culture puts face over truth - into law.)

Freedom of Speech Under Propertarianism?

—“Could you offer a brief explanation of how freedom of speech would be codified under Propertarianism?”—The Last Scout II @last_scout2

Think of it this way. What can you testify to in court? What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons).

(Note from John Mark: Holding people accountable - punishing them if they lie - in matters of the commons would produce a massive breakthrough in our civilization, similar to the scale of the discovery and application of the scientific method.)

So …

When engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends etc), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or irreciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech.

Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades.

The reason is that government is violence.

You the only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE.

Now what does this mean in practice?

It means that there are three common sense tests:

Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
.

Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
.

Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim, or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding you claim, or are engaging in deceit?

In Scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent? (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency).

In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bais, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits, and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong?

It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by roman roads.

Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking. Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as christianity and islam were to antiquity.

In this sense we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech.

Which is exactly how the Enemy Left operates: Proportionality without Reciprocity, under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality.

Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way.

Curt Doolittle

"Privilege" Is a "Commons" - Our Ancestors Invested In It For Us, and We Invest In It for Our Children by John Mark

By Eli Harman, from his blog

(Note from John Mark: Eli Harman is one of the leading Propertarians, and he is the best of us at doing and explaining “full accounting” - identifying what is actually going on in any given human interaction, and fully accounting for all the costs imposed and benefits produced. I highly recommend his blog and his YouTube channel. You can also find some of his writings by searching for his name on Propertarianism.com.)

PRIVILEGE AS A COMMONS

Critics of privilege allege that it is unearned, and therefore unfair. Well, part of that’s true, so far as it goes. I didn’t earn my privilege. I inherited most of it. But I do pay to maintain it. And I must pay to add to it, so that I may pass on more to my children.

Every time I’m extended privilege, I’m necessarily given the opportunity to abuse it.

When I go into a store, say, and am not followed around by security, I’m given the opportunity to steal. By foregoing that opportunity, I’m bearing an opportunity cost, and in so doing, paying for my privilege, and at the same time, maintaining it as a commons for others like me to enjoy.

When I am pulled over by a cop, and am polite and cooperative rather than belligerent and reactive, not only do I purchase a better outcome for myself, but for everyone who resembles me (in whatever way.)

Every time I seek to do my share, rather than to shirk; to pay my way, rather than to free ride; to give, rather than take; I pay into the privilege bank. I can only ever cash in a fraction of that. But if I can count on others like me to do likewise, we all come out ahead.

Now, if someone would be willing to bear those costs, but their coethnics are not, or are less willing than others, that’s unfortunate for them.

But if they demand the same privilege, it is they who are demanding something unearned, and that their coethnics have not demonstrated a willingness to pay for, or at least an equal willingness to pay for. They are demanding that others take a risk for their benefit; one that has not been shown to be a good risk, one worth the cost of taking.

If you want privilege, pay for its construction as a commons. But do not attack those who do and demand that they share their privilege with you, and offer nothing in return.

Now some might object that this is “collectivism” or “collective responsibility” and we should instead only judge anyone as individuals.

But that is not a reasonable objection nor a reasonable suggestion.

Now, if someone doesn’t want to be profiled, or discriminated against, there are three ways they can realistically attack this issue.

They can help make it easier (and therefore less costly) for me to distinguish them from less reputable elements by using signals (dress, mannerisms, speech etc…) which demonstrate that they are not a threat, that they are successful, reliable, etc…

They can increase the value of what they can OFFER me so that I have more incentive to invest in telling them apart.

Or they can suppress the misbehavior of the disreputable element within their community to reduce the NEED for me to tell them apart; to reduce the risk for me of failing to tell them apart.

It's Not FEAR, It's DISGUST - We Don't Fear the Left, We Find them Disgusting by John Mark

By Curt Doolittle, from Propertarianism.com

SJW pink hair.png

Just Tell the Truth – They’re Disgusting

—“The Leftist tendency is to conflate the Rightist Disgust response to various things as phobias. In other words, the Left confuses Disgust for Fear.”—

The right is just too well mannered to say:

Actually it’s because we find your/their ____________ behavior disgusting and revolting because it is a genetic defect, and harmful to the tribe.”

I mean. Why can’t we just say that?

“You know, We don’t like dogs dragging their anuses on the carpet, or ___________ doing ________.” 

Genetic defects are disgusting to us. And you’re advocating for genetic defects that are disgusting.

(We have a purity instinct. They don’t.)

Higher Disgust Sensitivity

Conservatives (empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.

That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by tests of reciprocity.

—”There is a distinction between endocrinological & neurological conservatives, driven mostly by disgust, which tend to be within a SD left of the mean, and market driven (agency) conservatives who recognize cost on longer time-horizons & are able to organize a body law which facilitates the cooperation & trust, necessary for the functioning of enterprise. The former group are right for the wrong reasons & the latter group are right as a matter of agency & incentive.”—Ferdinand Pizarro

We Can’t We Just Tell the Left the Truth?

1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution.

2) We find you disgusting.
3) and it’s because you’re unfit.
4) and you are unfit because you lack agency.
5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated.
6) and as undomesticated still an animal.
7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that.

8) We cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency.
9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons.
10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you.

Because you’re disgusting.

My SECOND YouTube Channel! And Where to CONNECT With Us! by John Mark

By John Mark

Short version: You need to do 2 things, right now:

First, click here to go to my second YouTube channel, and hit the SUBSCRIBE button (make sure you are logged into YouTube or on the YouTube app on your phone). My new video “Civil War 2 in America - What Comes After?” will be released on my SECOND YouTube channel on Saturday, Aug. 31, 2019.

Second, go to Propertarianism.com and register for the site by clicking the Register button in the upper right of the homepage. This will be our primary social interaction and learning hub (it operates much like Facebook - posts, comments, etc.)

Detailed version:
Our enemies have kicked their censorship up yet another notch. Within the last two weeks, several influential conservative/right-wing YouTube channels have been deleted, Curt’s Facebook profile was permanently deleted along with a few other influential Propertarians, and my YouTube channel received a 7-day ban where I could not upload a video or comment, “Strike 1”. (Three strikes within 90 days = deletion.) (I count myself fortunate - to my knowledge, the other YouTube channels I mentioned were deleted without notice or even going through the “3 strikes” process.) Thankfully, my main (original) YouTube channel, which has about 68k subscribers at the time of this writing, is still up.

As best we can tell, this new round of censorship was put in place after the dual shootings in El Paso and Dayton, and it may have specifically hit Curt etc. on Facebook largely because a group of feminist harpies stumbled onto him and mass reported him, even though he said nothing illegal and everything he posted was within the boundaries of Facebook’s policy (he was always very careful about this). On both Facebook and YouTube they seem to be retroactively applying new rules to old posts and old videos (that’s what happened to me, an older video was deleted). There may be other causes as well. No matter.

There are three pieces of great news here, and only one piece of mildly bad news.

Great news: Our enemies have lost control of the narrative and this is their only play. They know it backfires, but they have no other choice. They are trying to pull off a very delicate balancing act of silencing and marginalizing normal, sane people, while increasingly antagonizing us by doubling down on social justice warrior commie craziness. Their only hope is that the grassroots Right wing is passive. So they are trying to intimidate and discourage us, and shut us up. It’s not working, but they have no other choice but to double down. So that’s what they do.

Great news: For a long time Curt has needed to move beyond his personal Facebook profile, which served as a place for him to “hold court” and teach. I personally learned immensely via this format. His personal profile only allowed him 5,000 friends. He was maxed out, and had 1,000 pending friend requests. It artificially limited his reach. When Facebook deleted his profile, it forced him and the Propertarian community to make a shift that was a long time coming - moving our primary social/learning/interaction hub to the Propertarianism.com website.

The website operates much like Facebook once you register. Curt made some significant improvements to the site in the last few days, so that it loads much more quickly, better layout, easier to interact etc. I will be posting there, as will Curt. You can post and make comments. Once registered, click on “The Feed”. There is also great opportunity for us to grow and create local groups, meetups, etc. All without censorship.

We still have a Facebook page - The Propertarian Institute - and we are working on a plan that will enable us to reach the masses on these big-traffic platforms without Curt having to do any of the work other than produce posts (usually article-length or shorter) whenever he feels the inspiration. The rest of us will spread these to other platforms and we will also bring out past writings of his and “feed” people with that, starting on Propertarianism.com and then moving out to the other platforms. Again, the best place for you to interact with us is on Propertarianism.com.

Great news: Curt is now dramatically more productive since he doesn’t have 100 Facebook notifications per minute competing for his attention. He can and does still put out posts, but instead of on Facebook these will now be shared on Propertarianism.com. (This shift is very recent so you will start to see activity picking up there. Keep coming back, and you will learn - I guarantee it.) Curt is simultaneously trying to finish the updated/upgraded Constitution, his book, and several courses that will form part of the curriculum for the ultimate antidote to the Frankfurt School (Marxist intellectuals). This is what he should be spending most of his time on, and now he can. And, he reports, he is much happier for it.

The only piece of mildly bad news is that my YouTube channel may be at risk. I am mitigating that risk by starting a second channel, and by sending people to my Bitchute (like YouTube but doesn’t censor) channel where I am also posting all my videos. I will be posting different videos to BOTH YouTube channels, and Bitchute. I will be doing my best to keep my YouTube videos within their rules, and I will be releasing some videos only on Bitchute where I can speak more freely.

Even if YouTube deletes both my channels, I have a backup plan for that as well. They can’t stop me because I know how to get traffic. But right now, it starts with you making sure you are subscribed to both my YouTube channels, and knowing where to find me on Bitchute.

P.S. We are going to win. Worst case scenario, there will be successful separation movements. The grassroots Right has seen this movie too many times before. We’re wise to it now.

Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web Are Losing Influence - Here's Why by John Mark

Curt Doolittle asks,

“Am I out of the loop or has?
(a) Jordan Peterson petered out?
(b) the intellectual dark web gone dark?
(c) everyone given up on the pretense that they can make wisdom statements at the current rate of change of the Overton window?

Could just be I’m workin' too hard but the magic is gone?”

My response (John Mark):
Peterson & Co. are a reaction to the Left that ultimately puts its hope in persuasion and dialogue, which simply doesn't go far enough. People are realizing that the Left doesn't listen to anyone including Peterson & Co. Thus the idealism (classical liberalism - "Hey everybody, let's not play identity politics!") of Peterson & Co. is powerless as a solution.

Many have graduated from Peterson & Co. to the Winning Right, and as we have had many tell us, to Propertarianism.

The Peterson & Co. solution might work if America was still 90% white. Because their audience is primarily white men. But if America was still 90% white, we wouldn't be having the problems we're having with the crazy Left in the first place, because no one would take them seriously. White people have voted majority right wing in every election for decades. Immigration (nonwhites vote 70% Left) is what's powering the crazy Left - giving electoral power to the minority of crazy white leftists (the priests of political correctness) and their nonwhite "victim" groups.

Now, it's a bit hard for me to tell if I'm just speaking from my own perspective or if this is backed up by data - I'd love to see hard data on YouTube views, social media engagement, and internet searches for Peterson & Co. over the past couple of years. If it's dropping in recent weeks and months, that would mean people are moving on. I don't have that data so I can't judge. But that doesn't change the lesson:

Graduate to sovereignty. (Team defense against parasitism. Necessary because huge numbers of people, including the minority of white leftists and the majority - 70% - of nonwhites in America who vote Left, cannot be convinced by discourse and reasoning.)

Also, a related dynamic, I had a very red-pilled radio host tell me the other day that he used to feel like he was shouting at a wall, people were too comfortable, didn't want to listen. But he says it's not like that anymore, the craziness of the Left is driving people to be very open to what he has to say.

Update - An admin of one of (if not the) largest Peterson groups on Facebook messaged me telling me that they have seen a big shift to the Right in the discourse over the past 6 to 8 weeks. A quote from this admin: “It’s all weirdly predictable but it’s wild to watch the speed it’s changing at right now, you think something might come 3-5 years down the line and all of a sudden I’m seeing it 3-5 months later, sometimes 3-5 weeks.”

More from other commenters on the original Facebook post:

Alain Dwight: “Peterson & Co. spread half truths, often using abrahamic allegory. Even if reason alone may have been enough to convince European nations in the past, it wouldn't have been enough to maintain the commons.

We've already seen what incomplete, non explicit strategies get us.

There's just no getting around an operational understanding of co-operation, including ethnocentrism.

Peterson was the one who gave me that western civ and building on my culture was the answer (previously I hated my culture for how corrupt it had become).

Curt was the one who provided a model for how to do that, whereas Peterson was unwilling to really build out the west and expand our culture.

Peterson talks a big game but doesn't hold fast to the principles he claims (since they contradict each other, anyways).”

Stephen Thomas:
The time for the "talkers" ends. We are reaching an age of "doers".

Howard Van Der Klauw: Wisdom statements can’t hide the revealed truth of the Wizard of Id.
“The peasants are revolting”.

Luis Rodriguez: What to do after your room is tidy, you have a job and become a “productive member” of a society that uses your money to subsidize the reproduction of parasites stupider than you?

MJ Street: Preaching of individualism eventually falls on many deaf ears when they realize the change needed requires a group effort. He served a purpose, empowering men at the individual level (sans Noah J. Revoy ability to do so) only for them to realize the greater world around them requires a pack to change for the better.

Nationalism for All, Not Globalism - Here's Why by John Mark

by Curt Doolittle

I do universal nationalism. (Note from John Mark - what Curt means by this is that the optimum order in the world is for each people group to be nationalistic in their own nations - no globalism.)

Why? Because natural law judges it as the only not-immoral means of cooperation. But that doesn't tell you much. Instead it's because "all men are distant relations cooperating to raise their people by the production of commons information, goods, and services, best suited to doing so despite our differences in rate of development bias in temperament and bias in distribution of abilities."

And if we construct states as extensions of the family, household, clan, tribe, and nation, we have elites who serve the interests of their people on their terms, and the smallest proximity-to-influence-and power that is possible. And we ameliorate our differences not through politics, power, and commons, but through trade of information, goods, and services.

If we do otherwise, under globalism, we put those people into competition, where there is one small global elite with interest in one another, and a host of common people suffering their rule.

So there is no system of rule superior to universal nationalism, with tolerance for migration of elites for trade purposes - but prohibiting them from local political enfranchise and social involvement, and public speech.

Tools Propertarians Use by John Mark

argonath2.jpg

By Ahmed Reda

A Propertarian is expected to (and must) use:

Mathematics (as a universal language of measurement)

Science (as a universal language of testimony)

Law and Economics (as a universal language of decidability)

Natural history (as a universal language of evidence)

Literature (as a universal language of meaning)

Mindfulness (as the means of preventing addictions).

And a Propertarian is expected to (and must) demonstrate Agency in pursuit of political power, instead of fantasizing about it.

Constitution Update - 8/22/19 by John Mark

received_2033232633437912.jpeg

Three Insights Today

1) Constitution

I made a two mistakes in sketching a draft of the constitution:

… i) Not separating the law from the constitution itself. The Law is The Law regardless of the constitution created under it. The constitution is an application of the law. The policies are actions within the constitution AND the law. So I have to reorganize a bit and make the law ‘the law’.

… And ii) I conflated the Law, the forms of government we can choose under it, with the restitutions due us for abuse of the previous constitution. With the threats of what terms we will impose if that constitution and those restitutions are not granted. (escalation terms).

2) Western Group Rhetoric doesn’t Consider Fraud and Deceit

We have been high trust so long we forgot the alternatives. And as such our rhetoric and our position in debate is one of ignorance, or error, or cognitive bias – we discuss cognitive biases and fallacies at length. But we do not discuss deceits with the same depth. Largely because we are not practitioners of them. So our Enemies are however, not engaging in ignorance, error, or cognitive bias -they are engaging in deceit in order to perpetuate a fraud. And no Thief submits to reason, nor abandons his theft except under punishment and forcible restitution.

So part of the work we have ahead of us is systematically training people in not only the errors and biases, but deceits. And adding the deceits to our listings of fallacies and Cognitive biases.

3) Honest Discourse Terms on the Taboos

The systematic attempt to render subjects taboo has to end. So I’m going to specifically address the taboos, and campaign against their suppression.

I’ll add this to the class action.

- Curt Doolittle

Do Your Due Diligence! (Unintelligent, Lazy People Pollute the Informational Commons) by John Mark

By John Mark

I learned something important as I read the comments section after a recent video interview: Unintelligent people who mean well, even those who are “on our team” (the grassroots Right) and have the same instincts as us, can still cause problems. Lazy and/or uninformed people do too. These people end up being irrelevant, but they can waste valuable time and energy. They won’t stop our progress toward victory, but they can slow things down a bit.

The interviewer himself, as is usually the case, was smart and well-informed, and he is not at fault for any of what I am about to say. However, when I read the comment section, I observed a pattern:

IGNORANT PERSON: Makes a blatantly false or misleading statement or claim, from which it is obvious the person has not done any due diligence, or else their IQ, knowledge and awareness is only slightly higher than that of a rock.

INFORMED PERSON: Takes the time to correct the false or misleading statement. Sometimes an argument ensues (mostly consisting of insults and evasion from the ignorant person).

REPEAT.

Examples:

“Curt Doolittle is a boomer” (Incorrect, irrelevant, lame GSRRM)

“Propertarianism is just warmed over libertarianism” (False, and “warmed over” has no meaning) (anyone who says anything similar to this knows nothing about Propertarianism) (I think low-IQ, lazy people hear an “ism” and they assume it’s another weak ideology that won’t get the job done; total failure to do any due diligence)

”The concept of reciprocity this guy talks about is vague and not well-defined, it’s not helpful" (False. This person has obviously done zero due diligence, since Propertarianism defines reciprocity very specifically.)

“Haha this guy talks about 4G warfare unironically” (Um, the entire military, the entire leadership class of every nation on earth, and all experts in the field talk about 4G warfare unironically.)

You get the point.

In an environment where time is of the essence, where we are trying to reach as many new people as possible to build consensus around a solution the entire grassroots right can support as the American political volcano is getting ready to blow, this utter stupidity, laziness and outright lying hinders and/or wastes people’s time. It is the equivalent of soldiers spreading disinformation to their fellow soldiers and leaders in wartime.

So do your due diligence. Ask all the questions you want, but study thoroughly before making claims and pronouncements. Before you say anything, ask yourself, “Does this help our team win?”

Because good intentions are not good enough. Good right-wing (civilization-preserving, civilization-advancing, anti-parasitic) instincts are not even good enough. The right wing has had these great intentions and instincts for a long time, and look where it has gotten us in recent decades. We must know how to win, which means first and foremost we must operate in truth.

The only thing good enough is doing your due diligence so you don’t lie and pollute the informational commons. And if you’re not smart or hardworking enough to do that, just shut up. Because all lying in the public sphere requires somebody to do twice as much work to go around and clean up the mess you made. It imposes a cost on our movement and on our civilization. It slows down the progress of our civilization by pushing backwards, against the grain of our #1 civilizational success secret (seeking and speaking the truth), which then forces someone else to expend valuable time and effort pushing back in the other direction.

If you’re going to criticize, fine, then make an argument and offer a better solution. When it comes to Propertarianism, we are about 9 months into our “wider popularization phase”, and at this point, while a very large number of people have been exposed to it and “like the idea”, the number of people who have done enough serious due diligence to even try to make a real criticism of it, is still small. And the number of people who have a better solution to offer is zero.

If you do not have a better solution to offer, it is extremely unlikely that you are knowledgeable or intelligent enough to make a valid criticism of the best solution on the market. And if you’re such a genius that you casually call the 160-IQ multi-millionaire tech entrepreneur founder of Propertarianism “stupid”, then go create your own solution and sell it to the masses. You won’t, because you can’t. Because you’re a poster boy for Dunning Kruger.

This touches on an important concept in Propertarianism: operational thinking. Some of the offhanded criticisms we hear are simply the result of people indulging in idealism. Classic example: “I want a restoration of religion. Nothing else will do!” Sure, you can have your religion if you want it (as long as it’s not parasitic), but is that “the big fix”? No, because what religion are you going to successfully shove down the whole grassroots Right’s throat? Think about what’s possible, not what’s ideal in your little mind. Can you sell your solution to the entire grassroots Right? No? Then it’s a fantasy. Get real.

Propertarianism provides an updated and upgraded constitution. The grassroots Right will buy that, because they are accustomed to a constitution. And they will embrace the changes that constitution produces, because it will improve their lives dramatically. Instead of criticizing that which you do not understand, how about this: Go produce your own constitution. Go ahead. Sit down and start writing. Suddenly you will realize how difficult it is.

I should also note, part of this dynamic I’m highlighting here is just people in the lower half of the IQ curve who happen to be on our team, expressing a desire for a solution framed in terms they can understand. They hear “ism” and say, “I don’t relate to that.” They hear “rule of law” and they say, “I don’t relate to that” (despite the fact that in the West they benefit from it every day in a thousand ways they take for granted). They want an inspirational strongman or king to tickle their ears, or a religion to tell them what to do without requiring them to understand much more than simple rules.

We can’t really blame the unintelligent for acting unintelligent. But we do need a way to reach them. This is something I’m thinking about. Part of the solution is that the wider our net reaches, the more we sell the policies and the less we focus on the nuts and bolts of Propertarianism. At the same time, we can teach the average grassroots Right-winger the basic definition of reciprocity - if you can memorize the Pledge of Allegiance, you can memorize the definition of reciprocity - and we can make the word RECIPROCITY our one-word narrative (the counter to the Left’s one-word narrative of EQUALITY), because it captures the right-wing instinct in a nutshell.

In closing, if you’re new to all this, do Western Civilization a favor. Do your due diligence. Asking questions is fine. Making statements and expressing “I’m not sure about this” if you’re not really sure about it, is fine. Making confident statements without doing due diligence is not fine. And if you’re short on time or ability to properly do due diligence, trust those who are smart and have done their due diligence - get behind the movement that the smartest, best quality people on the Right are latching onto: Propertarianism.

Many people are busy with life, and that’s fine. Not everyone has the time or mental horsepower to study Propertarianism in-depth. And that’s fine. They can tell from the policies we recommend, the basic concepts, and the simple fact that we are planning and strategizing for the future rather than just wringing our hands, that we are sharp and have something great to offer. Many people end up deciding what to support largely by saying, “What are other people like me supporting?” and “What are high quality people latching onto"?” Propertarianism meets this description.

I’m a pretty good example. I have a good amount of ability - I think that’s obvious from my results from 9 months on YouTube. I could have lent my abilities to anything. But I’m choosing to lend my abilities to spreading Propertarianism. (Because when I found it, I felt like I’d found what I’d been looking for my whole life - a whole new level of explanatory power, and the holy grail of politics.) And I’m far from the only one. Great ideas attract great people. The people I interact with in the Propertarian community are impressive. We’re being interviewed, recommended, and contacted by many of the major influencers on the right wing.

And we’re just getting started.

Productive People Prefer Propertarianism by John Mark

Lady Justice sculpture.jpg

By Curt Doolittle

(Note from John Mark: This is one of those epic Curtposts that he is famous for.)

When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law

—“Your version of Propertarianism requires oppression; denial of equal political rights and full free speech – your dude Mark is already posting how your society will require the first amendment to only allow speech your “truth-judiciary” greenlights.”— N6 @SignHexa

Propertarianism (Natural Law) would restore Defamation & extend commercial liability and warranty to the content of economic, political, and scientific speech, made to the public, and convert Free Speech to Free Truthful (meaning Scientific) and Reciprocal Speech. No More Lies.

How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public?

How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum?

How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral?

Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exchange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’?

You see you have nowhere to go.

1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.
2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.

So;

Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment?

You see, we are happy to let you continue to spread your favelas in your urban “Plantations” (ghettos in training), but we are not willing to let you take our Ethnic groups, our Civilization, our Institutions, our Culture, and our Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom with you.

But you are not willing to Reciprocate by Separation (Devolution or Secession) because you cannot survive on your own without the vast middle – the central achievement of western men: a middle class civilization of Reciprocity, Contract and Law: Markets.

So you leave us no choice but civil war.

You are exposed for what you are: a mob of undomesticated, ignorant, barbaric, thieves, ungrateful for the prosperity, freedoms, provided for you by the middle classes of the ancient and modern world, and happy to return to the gutter of equality in poverty you came from.

One needs equal protection UNDER the law to have ‘RIGHTS’. But may only have political ‘POWER’ having demonstrated OBSERVANCE of that law, and achievement under that law: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Voluntary Cooperation in every aspect of life.
(You don’t)

So you do not want rights, you want power to violate the rights of others. There is only one natural law, one right, from which all other rights descend both logically, operationally, and empirically: Reciprocity. Because other than reciprocity one can only harm, steal & defraud.

Now, do you see what I did there? I used categorically, logically, empirically, operationally consistent, fully accounted, speech to end your ability to engage in False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Undue Praise, using Sophism, Critique, and GSRRM.

That is what I teach people.

I teach:
– The Natural Law,
– The Science of Testimony,
– The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
– The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
And their application to:
– The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

I teach:
– The Natural Law,
– The Science of Testimony,
– The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
– The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
And their application to:
– The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

Now you are a naturally dishonest, deceitful, polluter of the informational commons as a practitioner of Abrahamic False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Pilpul and Critique. A useful idiot for smarter men. But….

I am quite willing to bet, even my life, that the majority is not like you, but ethical and moral, and when given the choice of a truthful reciprocal commons where genders, classes, races can conduct exchanges (disciplined behavior for redistribution) in Government – We win.

Because the truth is that the reason people are unhappy is YOU and the rest of the Useful Idiots who took the genealogy of Abraham > Marx > Stalin > Alinsky > Feminists > Postmodernists > Political Correctness to create conflict between genders, classes, races.

When you offer, as did the jews, christians, and muslims, ignorance, poverty, and decline during the last abrahamic dark age. And you are in the process of creating the next – in a long oscillation between the prosperity created by western man’s truth, reciprocity, and markets…

… and the ignorance, poverty, suffering, of those who destroy them.

The only problem facing western man in the ancient world and in the modern, is that we lacked a book of parables (histories) and scriptures (laws) beyond which no man or woman may tread.

That’s not true any longer. We have our “scripture” of the ancient and modern world.

We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law.

Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities.

Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation.

Political power that is Egalitarian (open to all of merit and observance of the law) not Equalitarian (independent of merit and observancy of the law).

The only possible counter proposition is that a given group is of such failure in genetics, ability, habits, culture, religion, and institutions, that it cannot engage in productive, voluntary cooperation with others.

Meaning they were demonstrably inferior, and those who could compete were demonstrably superior, and that the central problem is one of self perceived status as inferior.

The solution is separation, separate political, economic and status systems.

Which is how we evolved. So when John and I get to that point, of making a series of videos that explain our position vs yours. And present a constitution that is pure, and another than is tailored to the condition in the west, it is very hard for me to see that you and yours win a moral majority.

What Was the Root Cause of Cuckiness in Western Civilization? by John Mark

FB_IMG_1545625331480.jpg

A commenter: “The trend shows the less Christian we've become the more cucky we've become. Look at the West in the early 20th century. Full of strong men and almost entirely Christian. Look at now, over 50% atheist and weak. The destruction of the Christian Family is not by accident. They knew it was gonna erode our culture and national identity along with it.”

That's a correlation. Correlation can equal causation, or it might not. One could just as easily look at that correlation and say "Christianity was too weak to defend itself, and too weak to defend the West."

Yes the left hates Christianity and has purposefully sought to destroy family values. But many Christian churches have allowed themselves to be infected by leftism, and were not strong enough to defend themselves. At the same time, other churches have been staunch defenders of family values. But even a huge number of those churches have been, and still are, hesitant to boldly call out what needs to be done to save Western Civilization (no more non-white immigration, because they vote 70% left, unlike whites who have voted majority right wing in every election for decades).

Walk into a dozen churches in your city and implore the pastor to use his next sermon to talk about the need to stop all non-white immigration because it’s politically suicidal for the grassroots Right and for traditional Christianity. None of those pastors will do it. Cuz they’re cucks.

Meanwhile I’m out here preaching the truth on this every day, but people have the gall to say it’s bad that I’m calling out the cuckiness problem in Christianity. It’s amazing to me, how some Christians will say “I prefer a Christian leader to someone who’s more agnostic”, when none (or only a tiny few) of the Christian leaders are saying what needs to be said about immigration and the lie of that all people groups are equal. The current crop of Christian leaders are not, and will not be, at the vanguard of the winning right. Because Christianity has a cucking problem. Not all Christians do, but many do, and almost all Christian leaders do. This cannot be denied.

What you will see is some new Christian leaders arise, who are not leaders in the current Christian status quo, but will fill the demand in the market for non-cucked Christian leadership both politically and in the church.

Now, let’s answer the question, “What is the root cause of the cuckiness in the West?” This is not just a Christianity problem. I never said it was. (I’m just responding to Christians who try to say Christianity doesn’t have a cuckiness problem.) It’s not just Christianity - white people of Western European descent regardless of religiosity have had a cuckiness problem. Thankfully, the data shows that we’re learning pretty quickly that extending trust to those who are not like us and do not operate in reciprocity, was a mistake. (See my video Conservatives Reaching Consensus for more details on this data.)

The root cause of the cuckiness, as far as I can tell, is not primarily a Christianity vs. secularism issue, but has more to do with white people of Western descent in general falling for an understandable deception that feels good: the deception that everyone is equal. The deception that everyone else in the world is or can be like whites of Western European descent. The deception that it is possible to have "an aristocracy of everyone" (full-franchise democracy) - and include millions of third world immigrants in that "everyone" - without everything going to hell. This equality deception was purposefully pushed by Franz Boaz etc. (the usual suspects), but white people of Western European descent, both Christians and non-Christians, fell for it en masse, because we were susceptible to it.

Why were we susceptible to it? Because

a) we assumed everyone else in the world was like us, or could be like us (we take Western Civilization for granted not realizing it is the result of a unique combination of instincts and best practices built into whites of Western European descent over millennia by unique events in our history), and

b) for whites of Western European descent it is sort of possible to have a democracy without everything going straight to hell. (Because as we see from the data, most whites in America have voted right wing in every election for decades.) Introduce millions of third world immigrants that vote 70% left, however, and the road that democracy paves toward communism accelerates drastically.

So the root cause goes beyond Christianity vs secularism, because we see the problem affect both a large segment of white Christians and a large segment of white non-Christians. Christianity, depending on how it is taught, can (and often does) add another layer of susceptibility (or an excuse) if the universalist passages are cherry-picked. But we also see some non-Christian whites turning "equality" into its own religion. The root cause for both sides is the equality deception, the deception that other people groups are like western Europeans and that an aristocracy of everyone is possible when including millions of third-world immigrants.

No more lies. People groups all around the world are not equal; they differ significantly on all sorts of extremely important metrics such as average IQ, average testosterone level, average degree of neoteny, level of ethnocentrism, etc. Our attempt at an aristocracy of everyone has turned into a frenzy of parasitism of the rest upon the West. Let’s abandon our failed experiment, learn our lesson, and win.

Christians - Together Let’s Purge the Cucking from the Grassroots Right! by John Mark

Church spire.jpg

A commenter: "Your idea of Christianity is so dumb...in no way does the church teach multiculturalism."

We (myself personally, other members of the Propertarian community and the Winning Right) have no problem with Christians like you. We are on the same team - the Winning Right.

We hear this frequently from non-cucked Christians (the good kind) like you: "Cucked Christianity is not real Christianity." Basically you're accusing us of strawmanning Christianity. But the thing is, we're not. Millions of western Christians have a serious cucking problem. And it's because of things they read in the Bible and are taught in church.

You are basically saying, "They're not real Christians, they're misinterpreting the Bible." Fair enough, I know the Bible well enough to construct a reciprocity-congruent interpretation of it. But these cucks call themselves Christians, they use the Bible as their reason/excuse for being a cuck, and there are millions of them. They use certain ideas they pick up from the Bible, cherry-picked interpretations of the Bible (pilpul), and/or church teachings, to excuse or encourage parasitism. For example, I had a Christian friend who said, "It's good that all these foreigners are coming here because it gives us a chance to witness to them so they can be saved."

The argument that “cucked Christians aren’t real Christians” is just like a Muslim saying, "Don't say Islam has a violence problem, suicide bombers are not real Muslims." The problem is, these people call themselves Muslims, and there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who believe violence against infidels is justified, because they read stuff in the Koran and interpret it that way.

We are calling out a real problem that infects many people who call themselves Christians. There is no denying that. And of course, it’s not just some/many Christians that have a cuckiness problem. Many non-Christians also have their own excuses for cucking. (Virtue-signaling, quasi-religious belief in "equality", etc.)

We are not anti-Christian. We say all the time that teachings of Christianity are the optimum strategy for the in-group. The problem comes in when Christians use something they heard in church as an excuse to extend trust to and spend various civilizational resources to benefit outside people and groups who do not deal in reciprocity and engage in parasitism. We are anti-anything that encourages or allows violations of reciprocity that would hurt us or our descendants.

No more cucking (excusing/encouraging parasitism). Reciprocity. Together let’s purge the cuckiness from the whole grassroots Right, Christians and non-Christians alike.