Category: 6.1-Ideologies

  • Love Doesn’t Require Debate

    We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little […]

  • Why Don’t We Have Some Form Of Communism?

    The problem is quite simple. It’s just unpleasant. But the universe is not kind. It has no mercy. And science tells us uncomfortable truths. if you cannot find a means of survival in the market, and others can do so but at lower prices, humanity does not need you. If humanity does not need you then your only choice is […]

  • You Want Me To Say Something Both Offensive And True?

    You want me to say something offensive? Ok. How’s this: what’s a greater crime? The holocaust (the forcible deportation to of a gypsies, jews, and other non-conformists) or the inventions of the infantilizing lies of the Abrahamic religions and Cosmopolitan pseudoscience? (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Adorno+Co, Rothbard/Rand, Straussian Neo-Conservatism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and “Political Correctness”?) What has caused more harm […]

  • Why Are We Not Better Off Killing, Dispossessing Or Enslaving You?

    WHY ARE WE NOT BETTER OFF KILLING, DISPOSSESSING OR ENSLAVING YOU? The fact that I don’t kill you, enslave you, or dispossess you, and instead cooperate with you for mutual benefit, does not include the presumption that I will sacrifice for you. If I must sacrifice for you then I am better of killing, enslaving, or dispossessing you. You presume […]

  • The Criminality of Rothbardian Ethics

    Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits […]

  • The Fallacy of Libertarian ‘Principles’.

    ( recorded here ) This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view. First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore […]

  • Time To Teach Elites They Are Nothing Without Their People

    (by Eli Harman ) Elites are naturally less racist, less ethnocentric, more cosmopolitan, than the lower classes. Elites can interact with *other* elites as peers. They don’t have to squabble over pieces of pie because they can make pie. But the lower classes are justifiably racist, nationalistic, xenophobic, because they are in direct competition over resources they don’t create, infrastructure, […]

  • The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias

    I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))). In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and […]

  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in […]

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument […]

  • Response To Tom Woods Speech To Libertarians

    I love you Tom, but we have two over invested generations alive today grasping at the straws of the hippie generation promise of libertarian communes. But Liberty and sovereignty have only been constructed and only can be constructed by the organised use of violence to prohibit the alternatives. Wishful thinking will die with the generation of over invested wishful thinkers […]

  • A Lesson In Natural Law

    FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”…. … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to […]

  • What Neo-Reaction Consists In? Three Points: The Cathedral Criticism, NeoCameralism, and “Formalism”

    (RE: http://freenortherner.com/2015/11/06/what-is-neoreaction/ ) ( Hoppe is a german rationalist cum cosmopolitan, yarvin/mencius is a cosmopolitan, and I am an anglo empiricist. This is not an opinion, but a statement of the method of argument employed. And the differences in our approaches demonstrate the weaknesses of the hermeneutic cosmopolitan, and german rationalist methods compared to the anglo empirical method. In this response […]

  • North Sea Truth vs Levantine Critique

    (profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology) [O]nce you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, […]

  • Neo-Reaction in a Nutshell: We Are Ruled By A Theocracy – An Evil One.

    (worth repeating) [T]he central proposition of neo-reaction is that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state; and that as a consequence, society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism: the promise of an aristocracy of everyone. It is another “good-news” religion, telling us what we wish to […]