FROM: Helikzhan
@curtd We continue as we have.
1. Informing
2. Boycotting
3. Withdrawing from their orgs
4. Reorganizing under our own banners, economy and culture.
5. Providing the existential threat to their survival by simply not engaging with it.
RESPONSE BY:
Curt Doolittle (PRO) @curtd Original Gabber
@Helikzhan All of those strategies have however consistently failed over the past century and a half, because they are entirely passive – we lack teh monarchy and universal military as means of organizational defense against the female means of social destruction of knowledge, tradition, and institutions. What you’re suggesting is a repetition of the libertarian fantasy that incremental separation is possible. It’s not. Libertarians are always wrong. Just as much as marxists are always wrong. For the same reason. There is no means of voluntary separation from kelptoparasites who depend on that parasitism and absence of competition.
1) The first existential threat to the enemy is forcible political separation, or forcibile political domination. Separation is superior becuase it eliminates the cost of spending the next 1000 years genetically pacifying their instinct for feminine kleptoparasitism. We simply separate, restore our evolutionary velocity and high trust by restoring society-as-army, under rule of law, and family as the purpose of policy, and leave them behind. There is no downside to this strategy because it takes the moral high ground.
2) The second existential threat is conquest and rule – which honestly is something we don’t want. Let them suicide into favellas. The problem with this strategy is that it makes the entire planet fear you and boycott you.
3) The third existential threat is one we find morally reprehensible – which is the even higher cost of deportation, displacement, or elimination. The problem with this method is that it makes the entire planet war with you.
Those are our choices. They are the only choices. Everything else is wet-dreams of adolescent boys afraid to pay the high cost of obtaining their sovereignty by the only means sovereignty is ever produced: the organized application of violence we call an ‘army’.13
