John Mark

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.