Originally Posted by wizardwatson
One's ethics either permit defensive violence or not - which is it?
I think he's a real conservative because he's for socialized medicine, gun control, corporate bailouts, and abortion!
Trump is the least cucked of any candidate running, but he's still far to the left of your standard TRS $#@!poster. Definitely not a "real conservative," and cucked to a certain extent on various issues, but he's the only one I wouldn't need to hold my nose for. Personality trumps policy.
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/28/...del-white-man/
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/28/...-no-survivors/
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/23/...e-of-the-west/
And just for a change of pace:
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/07/23/...ove-the-trump/
Yeah, it's really been blowing up for the past week or so on twitter and various mainstream media outlets. It perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with the Right.btw, i like using this word, it's got a nice ring to it.
Trump reminds me of an Eisenhower Republican with strong nationalist sentiments. The nationalist sentiments are not appreciated, however, by our self-appointed superiors.So Bush cucked, and Rand's cucked. What about Trump? Do you think he's a real conservative? Or just a cuck in disguise?
btw, i like using this word, it's got a nice ring to it.
^^^why democracy is bad
Hey, we didn't make the system...........
Let's vote to abolish it!
Hey rev, are you familiar with Curt Doolittle? If you found anything of value in Moldbug, then I suspect you'd like him, too. Here's his website:
http://www.propertarianism.com/
I really enjoyed his most recent post, which I'll c/p here.
http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/...ry-revolution/
The Conduct of a Contemporary Revolution
by CURT DOOLITTLE on SUNDAY, AUGUST 2ND, 2015
THE CONDUCT OF A CONTEMPORARY REVOLUTION
1) Develop a political solution to issue as a demand, and a plan for orderly transition.
2) Raise the cost of the status quo until the status quo is intolerable.
….a) inform the population of demands, and warn them to inventory goods.
….b) begin civil disobedience and malicious compliance (raise costs of maintaining order)
….c) create lists of names, and issue threats (create fear in state, academy, and media.)
….d) start fires (cheap, effective friend)
….e) disrupt infrastructure (power largely)
….f) selective kidnapping and assassination (make locals unwilling to govern)
….g) tactical entrapment and assassination (make locals unable to govern or protect)
….h) draw in the military and hold them in many locations.
3) Allow transition to occur by any of the possible means:
….a) enactment of changes (modify government)
….b) nullification (incrementally replace government)
….c) secession (create new governments)
….d) coup-d’-etat (military take over the government)
….e) insurrection and revolution (replace the government)
….f) civil war (replace the government after costly warfare)
Each of these solutions is more costly than the previous. But thankfully, contemporary economies and governments are very fragile when subject to economic and infrastructure disruption. So lower cost solutions are likely.
It is easier to replace a government today than at any time in history. And it takes a smaller number of people to cause disruption than at any time in history.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Unrelated: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2...ade-and-peace/
Trade and Peace
Posted by spandrell on July 27, 2015
People used to ask me if there’s any libertarian movement in East Asia. And there really isn’t. Nothing. The very concept is very foreign to them. It hardly registers at all. Try to explain it to a random native and odds are they won’t even get what you’re trying to say.
The whole concept is so bizarre that I promptly forgot about the whole thing after living here for some time. I used to be a Mises.org reading teenager, and I have to thank my Asian hosts for making it so hard to parse the ideology that I also lost interest myself.
Now I guess there’s many theories about why is that the case; besides the obvious one that libertarianism is retarded, and the burden of proof is on Westerners to explain why they came up with the strange idea that the people would be free without the state. Whatever that means. I guess I’ll put up my own theory: Asians are not into theology. They’re into history. There are exceptions of course (the weird shenanigans of Neoconfucianism), but in general the study of history has been much more prestigious and pervasive than arcane discussions about social metaphysics.
And of course history is but a compendium of anecdotes about why libertarianism makes no sense. So let me show a very short and illustrative one.
Gengis Khan founded the Mongol Empire, and its Chinese branch, what became the Yuan Dynasty, left a lot of historical records about the great Mongol enterprise. These dynastic histories, especially when they concern the story of a newly risen tribe, tend to start by detailing the foundation myth of the tribe.
Tribal foundation myths often have a common theme, about the tribe having a single common ancestor, or sometimes a couple, this ancestor being some supernatural being who just came down from the sky. The Mongols claimed that Gengis’ 10th degree ancestor, Bodonchar Munkhag, was their great founder.
The story of this Bodonchar guy is very interesting. Let’s start by the name, which Wikipedia translates as “misbegotten simpleton”. Or in other words “stupid bastard”. This stupid bastard was born of Dobun Mergen and Alan Gua. Dobun Mergen was a fine lad, second of two sons, and was fooling around with his elder brother. His elder brother being blind of one eye, compensated by having eagle-vision with his one eye, and he saw a carriage of people on the distance. Among them was a very fine girl, who appeared single. So big brother said to Dobun Mergen, his dear brother, “hey this girl is single, I’ll go ask them to give her to you”.
And so the half-blind older brother with game, got this beautiful girl for his healthy yet gameless young brother, and they were married. Dobun Mergen and Alan Gua had two healthy sons, Belgunudei and Bugunudei. Years passed and their father Dobun Mergen died, leaving Alan Gua alone with her two sons, and one bondservant they had acquired some time ago.
As time passed Alan Gua had three more sons. Her two elder sons by his husband obviously started to suspect. ”Hey Mom hasn’t remarried and she’s bore three sons. The only guy around is this slave dude, they must be his”. So they wen’t to confront their mother, who completely denied the facts and said that some yellow light in the form of a man came to visit her at night, touched her belly, and that’s how she got pregnant. My young sons are sons of Heaven, you see, so don’t be bigots and be nice to them.
Eventually Alan Gua died, and her 5 sons had to decide what to do with the inheritance. They decided to divide the property in 4, and give a part to each of the elder sons. The youngest son, that is Bodonchar Munkhag, was given a flint stone, some rope, and a horse, and that’s it. On his protests of unequal treatment he was told that he was stupid so no inheritance for him. That’s the moment where I guess he got his name. Stupid bastard, go take a hike.
And a hike he took; he got his horse and left his tribe, finding a good hunting place and building a grass tent to live by himself. He then saw a hawk hunting small game, and seeing that he could use some of that, caught the hawk and domesticated it. This led him to became a pretty proficient hunter. Eventually he caught more game than he could eat, and found a nearby tribe living around, the Uriankhai. So he went by, and exchanged some game for mare milk, which he dearly missed. They never asked him where he was from nor treated him badly; he came every day, traded game for milk, and went back to wherever he lived.
Awesome, right? That’s individual grit and the free market working its magic. Lonely teenager must fend for himself, so he learns useful skills; then uses the product of his labor to trade for things he can’t make for himself with his neighbors. And nobody bothered to ask who he was, what he was doing living there by himself. This was a commercial transaction where both sides profited. Beautiful story. This stupid bastard should be made the patron saint of the economics profession.
But the story goes on. After some time one of his older brothers (also a son of the light, not of her mother’s husband, of course）felt sorry about his little brother and went looking for him. He then stumbled upon the milk-providing tribe, who told him they knew of his brother. He’s out there hunting with a black hawk; if you see a black hawk in the sky, your brother can’t be far.
So the brothers met, they hugged, cried, “sorry bro for sending you away”, “it’s ok man so glad to see you”, you get the picture. Big bro tells little bro to come back home, and so they pack up their stuff and get moving. But on the way little brother Bodonchar was kinda restless. After a while he told his brother:
“You know, this tribe I got the milk from. They have no leader, no man above all of them. They would be very easy to conquer, we could grab their stuff and have an easy life”.
Big brother approved of the suggestion, and just on getting back home, he recruited a bunch of able bodied men, put Bodonchar in command of them, and rode forward to conquer the tribe of the Uriankhai. They stole their livestock and their women, killed the men and enslaved the children to work for them. Bodonchar was a great hero, he had tens of sons born from the concubines he captured, who went on to found the various tribes of the Mongol people, among them the great Gengis Khan, who looked up on his ancestor Bodonchar, the great hero who destroyed the tribe that had been giving him milk when he was needy. He admired him so much he was especially written on the first page of all dynastic histories!
So that’s what free trade does to you. If the Uriankhai had grabbed this Bodonchar kid, cut his head off and got his hawk for themselves, they’d still be alive, and would have a game-hunting hawk as well. Because they didn’t, and let a stranger into their midst, they were all killed, their women raped, and their children enslaved for eternity.
Trade is mutually beneficial. But some things are much more beneficial.
Last edited by menciusmoldbug; 08-05-2015 at 12:39 PM.
I follow a couple of the NRx aggregators, so I've come across Mr. Doolittle before.
The themes he's developing are interesting, but it seems he never has anything more than a vague outline.
...it's like being dragged away from the table after having only a bite of salad.
Unsatisfying.
As for the issue in the bit you quoted, I don't see any real hope of bringing about any kind of change outside the normal (seemingly hopeless) electoral process.
At least for the foreseeable future, I think we shall have to content ourselves with this: things like supporting a Rand Paul and praying for incremental improvement.
...unless you happen to be a four-star general willing to stage a coup d'etat.
...you aren't, are you?
...yea, me neither.
So here we sit.
The reed warbler and the cuckoo bird.......Don't feed the cuckoo bird.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/cuckse...movements-nest
And this can be readily be made. I doubt whoever came up with the term “cuckservative” was necessarily thinking of the cuckoo bird, which is where cuckold’s etymological roots derive from. But I believe it is instructive to compare cuckservative’ place in America and the literally cuckolded hosts in nature.
The common cuckoo is the most famous brood parasite—organisms that rely on other species’ to care for their young. The cuckoo will lay an egg in the nest of a host species. While cuckoos lay their eggs in almost 100 different species’ nest, they most frequently cuckold the Eurasian reed warbler. Once born, the cuckoo chick will eject its host’s other eggs from the nest. While the cuckoo’s eggs have evolved to look like the warbler’s, the cuckoo fledgling itself looks nothing like them. Nonetheless, the warbler instinctively feeds the cuckoo, which has mimicked its’ own fledgling’s’ call and gape. Even after the cuckoo has grown over twice the size of the warbler, the cuckolded bird still feeds it.
This relationship is analogous to the way cuckservatives waste all their resources appealing to blacks and Hispanics who will never support their values, and are in fact undermining them—just as the warbler gives food to the cuckoo that killed its biological offspring.
Yet this is unfair to the warbler. The cuckoo at least tries mimic the warbler. But cuckservatives persist in believing in minority conservatism even when the non-whites have explicitly disclaimed it. Thus cuckservatives pretend that Martin Luther King, a self-described socialist who attacked Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, was a conservative Republican. And even though Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democratic and tell pollsters they support big government, cuckservatives blindly insist they are “natural Republicans.”The “Mafia Hypothesis” also applies to cuckservatives. They hope that if they accept various Leftist positions, the Left will not call them racists, extremists etc. and let them survive. The cuckservative’s implicit plea: “If I support gay marriage, Amnesty, and praise Martin Luther King, will you at least let me be pro-life, support tax cuts, and voice tepid demands for meritocracy and assimilation?”
Yet, again, this analogy is too kind to the cuckservatives. Under the “Mafia hypothesis,” the cuckoos are indeed willing effectively to give the warblers some room to breathe. But recent cuckservative capitulations on the Confederate Battle Flag and Gay Marriage were not met with any Leftist magnanimity in victory at all.
While the Cuckservatives surrendered on the flag in front of the South Carolina Statehouse—itself the result of an earlier compromise with the Left—the Left immediately went on to trashing other white icons, such as Andrew Jackson, while engaging in ISIS-like removals of any vestige of Confederate Heritage, from Dukes of Hazzard to calls to dig up the grave of Nathan Bedford Forrest and sandblast Confederate figures off Georgia’s Stone Mountain.
Moral: Each cuckservative capitulation leads to more Leftist demands. Unlike the brood parasites and their hosts, who eventually reach equilibrium, the cuckservatives continue to lose ground—to the point when they will eventually become extinct, along with the culture they purport to defend.
Last edited by AuH20; 08-03-2015 at 09:49 PM.
It would be awesome if he called Bush a $#@!ing cuck during the debate Thursday on live TV. That would be a gotcha moment for the ages.Trump is the least cucked of any candidate running, but he's still far to the left of your standard TRS $#@!poster.
Do you mind me asking what part of the country you live in?As for the issue in the bit you quoted, I don't see any real hope of bringing about any kind of change outside the normal (seemingly hopeless) electoral process.
At least for the foreseeable future, I think we shall have to content ourselves with this: things like supporting a Rand Paul and praying for incremental improvement.
...unless you happen to be a four-star general willing to stage a coup d'etat.
...you aren't, are you?
...yea, me neither.
So here we sit.
No, I don't mind, but I'm not going to tell you (interwebz privacy = good).
Why do you ask?
Yeah, that would be very entertaining, and I'm all for watching the fracas with glee, but don't trick yourself into thinking that Donald (CAN'T STUMP THE) Trump is some sort of savior. He's not. (Neither is Rand/Ron Paul). If you really want to do something meaningful, you need to get together with people offline. Communicating via internet on this subject is beyond retarded.
Just wondered if you might be interested in meeting up with some people in the area. No big deal.No, I don't mind, but I'm not going to tell you (interwebz privacy = good).
Why do you ask?
No, but thank you for the offer.
what prison are you and your storm troopers key boarding from?...
You are using the same line you used the first time we had this argument. So here is the same thing I quoted you when we had this discussion before.
One's ethics either permit defensive violence or not - which is it?
So you can post your smart-ass memes, but all you're showing me is that you don't remember our discussion, you don't understand moral theory, and you're generally intellectually dishonest and obtuse in general. And you still haven't read Rothbard.From Ethics of Liberty Chapter 20 on "Lifeboat Situations"
In the first place, a lifeboat situation is hardly a valid test of a theory of rights, or of any moral theory whatsoever. Problems of a moral theory in such an extreme situation do not invalidate a theory for normal situations. In any sphere of moral theory, we are trying to frame an ethic for man, based on his nature and the nature of the world — and this precisely means for normal nature, for the way life usually is, and not for rare and abnormal situations. It is a wise maxim of the law, for precisely this reason, that "hard cases make bad law." We are trying to frame an ethic for the way men generally live in the world; we are not, after all, interested in framing an ethic that focuses on situations that are rare, extreme, and not generally encountered.
Just because I would defend with violence my sister or someone else from being raped, doesn't mean I should or would support a violent government system (moral theory) or that I would be a hypocrite for promoting non-violence in society on account of my choosing violent means in a lifeboat situation.
Your philosophy of government is amoral. It shows through in your attempts to address the subject of ethics. You are unskilled.
Try again.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
Yeah, I'm sexist and homophobic too.
Trump is not going to be at this debate I heard.
Oh, he's gonna be there alright. And I can't wait to see him. I haven't been this excited to see a Presidential debate since Ron Paul 2008.
Not because I think he's the savior of the US, but because he says what's on his mind, and doesn't give a damn what anybody else thinks.
Last edited by DFF; 08-04-2015 at 12:42 PM.
Cuckservative, are those who want to violate the church must be seperated from the state principle
^^^not much of a thinker, not worth my time
Remember that in 1924 most blacks voted for Calvin Coolidge, a man who would be considered a dangerous right-wing extremist today. And they rejected Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan.
Stop believing stupid things
That was before the Civil Rights Moment and before the 24/7 Professional Grievance Industry came into vogue. Blacks were also a much more intact, prideful people back then. Since they moved to the Northern cities, that all changed.
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/great-migration-1915-1960
The Great Migration was the mass movement of about five million southern blacks to the north and west between 1915 and 1960. During the initial wave the majority of migrants moved to major northern cities such as Chicago, Illiniois, Detroit, Michigan, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and New York, New York. By World War II the migrants continued to move North but many of them headed west to Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, California, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington.
The first large movement of blacks occurred during World War I, when 454,000 black southerners moved north. In the 1920s, another 800,000 blacks left the south, followed by 398,000 blacks in the 1930s. Between 1940 and 1960 over 3,348,000 blacks left the south for northern and western cities.
Last edited by AuH20; 08-05-2015 at 08:47 PM.
What I am saying is that it goes against the idea that blacks are genetically programmed to support big government.
Stop believing stupid things
Agreed. But in the present and foreseeable future, they are culturally programmed to support Big Government. At least this phony culture that has been thrown upon them.
What we need to be doing is showing how big government is harming all Americans, in fact, it is harming blacks more than everyone else. We need to point out that government programs has only made the situation for African-Americans worse. I believe that more blacks will support right-wing causes in the coming decades especially when state and local governments try to force churches to marry same-sex couples.
Stop believing stupid things
odds are he works for the CIA
Are there people saying that? I see most arguing about culture and the basic tendency towards tribalism. So if you "tribe" happens to believe a certain thing, and your tribe also incorporates race, well, then what do you have?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us