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

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 Lilley

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


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.

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

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 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 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 and then moving out to the other platforms. Again, the best place for you to interact with us is on

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 (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.

Tools Propertarians Use by John Lilley


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 Lilley


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 Lilley

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).



“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 Lilley

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.


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.

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

Church spire.jpg

A commenter: "Your idea of Christianity is so 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.

We Finally Know How to Express Our Instinctive Strategy in Scientific Language by John Lilley


By John Mark

(Also see this related post.)

One of the huge favors Curt Doolittle has done the grassroots Right is giving us scientific language to express and explain our strategy. (Watch my video "Welcome to the Winning Right" for an example of this regarding the LGBT issue.)

This is something we didn't have before. So we *were* inept at expressing our strategy. The only language we knew how to use was moral and instinctive language - "That's bad because (supernatural/religion reason)" or "That's bad cuz it's icky (digust response)."

This type of language makes sense (is instinctively understood) by those with a right-wing instinct, but for those whose instincts are different, or who are not religious, it falls short. It is also inadequate for writing law. If you try to base your law on supernatural claims, you are in the position of having to shove supernatural beliefs down the throats of millions of people; and it is difficult to build a solid reasoning for rule of law based on “that seems yucky and it disgusts me”. The scientific language Propertarianism teaches us to use gives us, for the first time, the ability to put our instinctive right-wing, civilization-building, civilizational-asset-preserving strategy into law in a specific and thorough enough manner to withstand the onslaught of our enemies.

Most of the grassroots Right is still inept at expressing our strategy in empirical, scientific terms, because Propertarianism is only a few months into its "expansion" phase.

So Curt's not wrong when he says most grassroots rightwingers are verbally inept compared to the left. At the same time, the left's verbal expression of their instinctive strategy doesn't have to go beyond GSRRM and cherrypicking - in fact, it can't. In contrast, our expression of our instinctive strategy can and does need to go beyond GSRRM and cherrypicking, and this is much harder both in terms of work/time investment and emotional impact on audience (limits on consumption & parasitism, and reality that most humans are very close to useless in a modern economy, is a tough sell).

What Is GSRRM? (The Female/Left Persuasion Technique) by John Lilley

Gossip ladies.jpg

By Curt Doolittle, from

What does GSRRM stand for?

The Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument by use of undermining, poisoning the well, reputation destruction by use of (G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, (P)sychologizing,(U)ndermining, (R)eputation destruction. and solving for (F)ace or consent – instead of Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” using rejection or approval vs male “reals” of truth of falsehood.

(R)eputation destruction.
…and solving for…
(F)ace, approval, or consent – instead of truth.

Men generally make an argument and let the argument do it work. We use shaming if necessary in response to GSRM. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on GSRM as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it.


Leftist speech is not protected speech.

It is always either:

Fraud – promising benefits that will never be delivered at costs that will never be disclosed.

Slander(oral) and Liber(written) Defamation – malicious lies designed to slur, marginalize, and dehumanize rivals or critics.

Obscenity – Transgression of taboos for the purpose of subversion, demoralization, and/or parasitic profit.

Blasphemy – Attacking the sacred for the purpose of subversion, undermining, the destruction of intergenerational wisdom, and the erosion of necessary and helpful moral rules.

False Alarm : relentlessly fear-mongering and sensationalizing imaginary threats as a means of obscuring/justifying real ones.

Abrahamism : False Promise

Pilpul (Sophism) – Overloading. Misdirecting. Obscuring. Disputation by sheer volume and variety of fallacy to overwhelm resistance to false and pernicious conclusions. Can include sophism, pseudoscience, fiction, fictionalisms, or supernaturalists.

Critique (Undermining) – Criticism of a straw man to undermine without proposing an alternative or superior solution open to equal analysis and criticism. Includes loading, framing, obscuring, suggesting, fictionalizing, denying, deceiving and outright lying.

Heaping of Undue Praise – Advancing a hero in order to create an appeal to authority rather than advancing an argument to test whether it survives application to the context.

Propaganda – narrative manufacturer by sheer repetition to fill the “marketplace of ideas” with bullshit congenial to the gatekeepers who control the broadcast chanels and media.

Psychoanalysis (Psychologising) – pseudo-scientifically pathologizing legitimate disagreement as a means of obtaining and exercising social control and marginalizing and silencing dissenting voices and views.

Feminine Coercion – Rallying, shaming, gossip, disapproval, moralizing, mockery, ridicule, nagging, scolding, and character assassination to raise the emotional and social cost of disagreement and dissent without addressing their causes.

Or some combination of these and other categories of parasitic, deceptive, and destructive speech.

In western history GSRRM was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace. During the democratic and marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM.

GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

This is why the abrahamic (jewish in particular, or semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony.

Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost.
Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth.
Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth.

Yet it is truth over face that is the reason for the ‘western miracle’ – why the rest is so different from the rest.

The middle east uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and the west use the male reproductive strategy, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end.

The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so.

Many Libertarians Are Maturing into a "Group Defense" Mindset by John Lilley

By John Mark

A libertarian commented, "You don't need to punish liars, parents just need to educate their children better. How are you going to punish liars, have the government enforce this? Bad idea. Consolidation of power breeds parasitism."

My response:

"You don't need to punish murderers or thieves, parents just need to educate their children better. How are you going to punish murderers and thieves, have the government enforce this? Bad idea. Consolidation of power breeds parasitism." See what I did there?

A. We're not talking about deciding what's truth or not on a whim. We're talking about very specific empirical falsehood tests. It won't be 100% perfect just like we're not 100% perfect about punishing thieves and murderers, but it will be light years better than not having laws that allow for the punishing of public lying, just as it's light years better to have laws against murder and stealing than not to have them.

B. We're talking about punishing lying to the public (by public figures), not regular people in everyday speech.

C. Education doesn't work sufficiently because there is a huge market for lies. You cannot educate most of the world not to lie because most people in the world have an IQ below 90 and thus are not able to discern truth even if they try, plus they don't *want* to speak the truth because it limits them from operating in their optimum short-term strategy (parasitism). The truth only benefits the strong in the short-term (but benefits everyone in the long-term). Watch my videos "Why the Left Never Learns Pt 1 & 2".

D. Libertarians will never have any power, because the very definition of power is the ability to punish what you don't want (in our case, parasitism and lying) using group force, and libertarians *take the government's role in this for granted* as if it just magically "is", while claiming "government is (always) bad". The "good" function of government is punishing parasitism. We've done it so well for so long in the West (while still being imperfect) that everybody takes it for granted. Government (organized use of force) turns "bad" when it engages in parasitism rather than suppressing it. Libertarians claim that "government is bad", by which they mean "government or more goverment is *always* bad". This misses the fact that 1) government (organized force) will always exist because there will always be demand for leadership and organized force (a group cannot survive without it), 2) if you don't have government (organized force to stop crime, parasitism, & to protect your people & your stuff from invasion), you have no power. Anyone who claims "the government can't do any good" is lying (cherry-picking) and anyone who advocates for "no government" is advocating for something that will never occur.

The solution is "better government", not "no government", for the simple reason that "no government" is impossible.

Those who advocate for "smaller government" usually mean "less parasitism". Which is great. But sometimes advocates for "smaller government" make the mistake of assuming that "less/smaller" government is *always* the answer and "more government" is *always* bad.

Classic example: military. (You can make the military more efficient or even shrink it but if you make it too small you put your group and its property at risk of invasion/theft/parasitism.)

Another example: Rule of law & judges. In third-world countries, judges are often paid very poorly. They have "smaller government" as the government does not spend much money on paying judges. But this opens the door wide to parasitism because judges are then strongly tempted to accept bribes. In the West we pay judges well (we have "bigger government" as this is very expensive) and thus judges are high-status, greatly reducing parasitism. (The problem we have with our judges now is due to lack of clarity on jurisprudence in our constitution - in which case the solution is "better government", better-written law, rather than "less government" e.g. paying judges less or having fewer judges.)

This is why Curt Doolittle often says that good rule of law - eliminating parasitism - is "a very expensive investment". Because it is. It takes massive effort - time, organization, money - to punish parasitism. Libertarians take this extremely expensive investment, and its fantastic (especially compared to the rest of the world) results for granted. This is why they get called "lolberts" - because they operate in fantasy-land. "If we can just teach everyone to have the same 'don't be a parasite' values that I have..." They don't realize that most people on this planet do *not* have the "don't be a parasite, leave me alone to produce" instinct. White people, especially white men, are often fooled into thinking they can "teach the world" because half-to-most white men *do* have the "leave me alone to produce" mindset. But most of the rest of the world do *not* have this instinct. Right now we are seeing many libertarians "mature" into "sovereignty" mindset (team defense against parasitism, punishment/power instead of teaching as primary strategy) simply due to the obvious total failure of our ability to teach the left and the parasitic-minded, non-reciprocal foreign masses they are importing at warp speed.

So it is more clear and accurate to speak of "better government vs worse government" rather than "smaller government vs bigger government". Because in some cases an investment in "bigger" government is necessary to punish a certain form of parasitism. The terms "better" and "worse" government more accurately convey the reality of the Right's optimum strategy than "smaller" and "bigger". Similar to how the words "reciprocity/rule-of-natural-law vs parasitism" are more accurate than "capitalism vs socialism". In both these cases the improved terminology more accurately conveys the fact that the master key to a long-term successful/wealthy/competitive group is enforcing reciprocity (eliminating/suppressing all forms of parasitism on all forms of property).

The problem with terms like "capitalism" and "smaller government" is that they have less-specific definitions and cannot be applied 100% of the time with a good result, whereas enforcing reciprocity and punishing parasitism *can* be applied 100% of the time with good result.