The Private Mind and Home vs the Sacred Commons

(trigger warning – some comments may be offensive)

[S]ome people cant manage separating what’s acceptable in their living rooms from that which is acceptable in the commons. And conversely, what is unacceptable in the commons is non of our business in the bedroom.

We must always be cautious, and understand that we are not terribly wise. And that over thousands of years we have developed a set of norms and taboos needed to ensure that the bedroom, home, and commons operate by different principles

We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.

As far as I know, when nursing, the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.

I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.

Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.

Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.

Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.

To preserve the difference between home and commons we show purity (deference) for doing so.

This is why some societies have foul commons (most of the world outside of the high-trust west) and a few societies (the protestant west) have high trust societies, and beautiful commons.

Covering yourself is signaling respect for the high trust society and the commons, and the distinction between the home and commons.

It means you’re a good person, and not covering up means you’re a bad person. It’s pretty simple. Your opinion isn’t meaningful in the matter.

Notice how our commons looks in western civilization and how (shitty) it looks in the rest of the world. Notice how our commons looks in our middle and upper classes and how it looks in our lower and out-of-sight classes. Europe is a vast open air museum.

Western man evolved to consider nature and the commons sacred. This is why we have commons and lesser cultures do not. A commons is created when we deny ourselves consumption in order to save. A commons may not be privatized.

It was very expensive to develop commons. And commons are OUR MOST competitive advantage over other groups. Truth, Property, Property Rights, Trust are all commons just as surely as is Central Park.

Attacks on the commons are attacks on western civilization and all that derives from it.

Anarchism is an attempt to attack the commons and destroy the west’s advantage.

Cosmopolitan (jewish) immoralism is an attempt to generate impulsivity from which they can profit because of non-competition from high trust (Christian) moralists.

If you understand this it will change you forever.

Rothbard was a jewish, cosmopolitan, immoralist, attempting to attack the commons so that his people and others could profit from the impulsive immorality of the underclass that we have worked for millennia to reduce and contain through our norms and laws. Now he would not KNOW that. He would intuit it as merely mutually beneficial. Because his intuition was intrinsically immoral.

Again. Westerners solved the problem of the underclasses through hard work. And the jews do the opposite: they surrender the commons in order to profit from the underclasses at the expense of the civilization. This is what they have done to every host culture. It is their evolutionary strategy. I have no idea if it is genetic, but it appears to be likely at this point that it is a combination of genetics, religious duplicity, and sub-cultural tradition and norm.

Leave a Reply