Winning Right

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

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.

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

By John Mark


(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.