Right Wing Strategy

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

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 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

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 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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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 Lilley

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.

The Right's Only Possible Strategy After a Century of Lies by John Lilley

By John Mark

WickRain.jpg

(Riffing off a Curtpost where he said, "The degree to which the right is verbally inept versus the left, is equilibrated by the degree to which the left is physically inept versus the right.")

It is much (much) easier to speak in GSRRM (Gossip Shame Rally Ridicule Moralize - the language of the Left) and selective accounting (cherry-picking data and effects of an action or policy) than to seek truth, speak truth, and perform full accounting. Add to that the fact that the truth in the social/human realm is insulting, discouraging, and depressing to the great majority of humanity.

That's why the Right appears verbally inept compared to the Left. I wouldn't call it ineptness, I'd simply call it difficulty. One side is gliding down a verbal ski slope dragging humanity with it into dysgenia, the other side is trying to climb a rocky verbal mountain dragging humanity upwards eugenically.

This is why it's come to violence. Imagine you're the Winning Right's CEO and chief marketing officer. Your job is to "sell" the concept that most of humanity is low-IQ and immoral and that's why they fail. Meanwhile the competition's job is to "sell" the concept that everybody's equal and the most successful group just cheated. As CEO of the Winning Right, you'd realistically just have to say, "Our only shot at survival is for the minority of humans who can handle our message to keep the competition away from us by force. Otherwise they are more numerous and they will devour us out of hatred and envy." Thankfully the Right is way better at force than the competition. It's what puts the winning in Winning Right. Truth is relatively unpopular, so without force to protect the truthful, we would enter another dark age.

This is also why it's so important, once we separate from or conquer the liars, that we punish public lying. The lies tickle the ears of vast masses of people and mobilize them against the truth-speakers.

The truth will win. But only by force.

Note: This website contains analysis and predictions. Nothing in this post or on this website should be considered a call to violence. I advocate for peaceful separation of Right and Left in America. At the same time, I warn that it is very unlikely to be peaceful, and I predict that the Right will win in a conflict scenario.

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.

A Coalition is Forming - In Fact a Big One Has Already Formed by John Lilley

Propertarianism+Winning+Right+United+meme.jpg

by John Mark

A commenter: "You're going to need a coalition."

Yes, and the consensus/coalition is forming out of sheer necessity. Pain is driving learning.

The coalition will not include everyone on the grassroots Right, but it will include everyone who's not a cuck, not a wishful-thinking civnat, and not a "we can't do anything" weakling. This coalition is moving past early adopters to more mass adoption, and already at its current size it is big enough to do what needs to be done.

The grassroots right masses will accept what we put in place because it will be massively improved over the current situation. The most significant challenge will be to ensure that virtue-signaling civic nationalists don't oppose the "no more immigration" policy. That's why I pound home "nonwhites vote 70% left" at every opportunity.

On the Grassroots Right Wing, We Can Learn from Our Leaders Who Have Experience in the World of Ruthless Men by John Lilley

CurtOnTV.jpg

By John Mark

As grassroots Right-wingers, it is extremely valuable to have a leader (Curt Doolittle) on our team that has extensive experience in the ruthless world of "the people who run things". The western, mostly white, working and middle class is fighting a two-front battle against the left and the elites. One of the middle class's weaknesses (which is a weakness for almost all humans and groups) is thinking that what "makes sense" or "feels right/good" to us must make others feel that way too. (It doesn't.)

So when it comes time to talk solutions, the middle class instinctively wants to teach or moralize to the left & the elites: "Be like us. Don't be a parasite. Be truthful. Earn your way and don't cheat." Fatal miscalculation. The Left needs to be parasites (their best short-term strategy)(amoral seizing of opportunities) and the elites just calculate without regard for morality (amoral seizing of opportunities). Only the working/middle class has the incentives (enough ability to succeed on merit, not enough power to seize parasitic opportunities) to keep a moral structure in place (truth, reciprocity) that will keep our civilization ascendant.

So the working/middle class is learning that we must ruthlessly suppress/punish parasitism by force rather than persuasion, which has limited to zero effect on our enemies. I have enough experience at the decision-making levels of influential organizations to know that people at this level simply calculate. (For example, the leaders of big corporations are giving in to the Left’s social agenda because they calculate that it benefits them more than it costs them, right now.) But there are men with a lifetime of battle scars, victories, losses, and survival in these arenas. It is not an accident that the leader at the vanguard of this movement, Curt Doolittle, has a lot of experience with ruthless people. Similar dynamic with Trump, but with less intellectual output - a lifetime of dealing with snakes. Men like Trump and Curt, men of means and experience, almost always end up on our enemy's team - the elites. One of the strengths these men bring to the table is their understanding that utter ruthlessness is required to deal with those (our enemies) who will ruthlessly exploit any opportunity for parasitism.

This is why it took me awhile to grasp why some people complain about Propertarianism or a rule of law based solution in general, saying things like, "But it doesn't have a spiritual/aesthetic component." I eventually figured out that it's because the people saying this a) take the powerful positive effects of good rule of law for granted, and b) have never had responsibility for much of anything, and are simply expressing desire for solutions in line with what they understand and are familiar with. People with real responsibility, the people who run things, don't care about that. They only care what the rules are and how much they can get away with so they can win, regardless of the costs they impose on others. (And the Left cares not for rules at all.)

Teaching is not going to stop them. Moralizing is not going to stop them. A religion is not going to stop them. Aesthetics is not going to stop them. All of these things can be valuable, but they are not our ultimate solution. Only rule of natural law enforced by a team of sovereign men organized into a militia and institutions will stop them.

It took a man with great experience in the world of amoral ruthless men, combined with a love for the truth and a love for his people, to help us learn how to stop amoral ruthless parasites.

And I, for one, am grateful for it.