Libertarianism Uses Marxist Argumentation To Deceive by Suggestion

 Non-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertarianism. With descriptive definitions rather than vague obscurantist “principles” the philosophical vacuousness of the movement is readily exposed. The reason these debates still occur, and the reason this article is just one of thousands of similar pretentions is the fact that the NAP is untestable. And as I have argued, it is untestable just as dialectical materialism is untestable: to allow for individual interpretation of scope of that which can be aggressed upon, and therefore creates a false consensus. NAP sounds meaningful to many but because it’s an incomplete sentence, it leaves the object of aggression substitutable by each individual. AS SUCH NAP IS MORALLY RELATIVE since each person interprets the scope to which aggression must be limited differently. Yet, to form a voluntary polity, one cannot posses moral relativity. The problem with any such polity is (a) whether it is a rational choice versus competing polities and (b) whether it is possible to sustain competition from within such a polity, and (c) whether such a polity would be tolerated by neighboring polities. )

The NAP is just another variation on dialectical materialism or the labor theory of value. It’s another bit of pseudoscientific nonsense. one does not determine that which is “right” – others do. One determines what is right by whether or not others retaliate against you for it.

Walter Bock and Murray Rothbard’s ancestors practiced the NAP in the wildlands and ghettos of eastern europe, and were almost always exterminated or outcast for it. And it is probably the reason why the polity was never able to functionally produce the commons that were necessary for the defense of and holding of territory.

The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which prohibits retaliation, because it is the need for costly that causes demand for the state.

Period. End of story. Individual moral choice is a lie. Morality is empirically determined by the value of cooperation and the cost of retaliation.

But it is a cognitive bias, probably born of developmental defect that causes people to become attracted to libertarianism in order to claim to determine morality on their own, of their own choice, rather than out of necessity. And why? Because as outcasts the desire to escape payment for normative and physical commons is a rational reaction to obtaining less value from the commons than one is required to pay in costs.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/WrHYx

Everyone Must Atone for Their Sins If They Are To Reform

I don’t have mercy on any enlightenment group. We were all wrong. My job is to solve it. Our job – together – is to fix it. High trust societies are much more vulnerable to moral suggestion. And the history of deceit is something that we must blame Jews for; just as a history of ignorance is something that we must blame muslims for; just as a history of hatred of the human being is something we must blame the Chinese for; just as parasitic colonialism is something we must blame whites for. Until Jews atone for over two thousand years of sins they will not reform. No free passes for the creators of most of histories most murderous frauds. Until the Muslims repent for 1500 years of sins they will not reform.  No free passes for the destroyers of the ancient worlds.  Until Chinese repent for 3000 years of sins, they will not reform. No free passes for the most murderous liars on earth.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/DuAQz

Yes, Portland is Not for Muslims

Portland and Seattle are relative paradises because they escaped the great society movement, and remain almost entirely white Heterogeneity, and moving people to capital, is a failed experiment. Then normative costs are higher than the discount created. Move capital to people and cause local reformation do not move people to capital and cause local decapitalization of civic society.

(response to FP Magazine)

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/3t0fq

La revolución operacional

Texto original de Curt Doolittle, traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

Disponible en inglés: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-operational-revolution/

(Nota importante)

Uno puede describir los eventos que ocurren de forma subjetiva (sobre cómo nos sentimos al respecto);
uno puede describir los eventos que ocurren de forma objetiva (sobre cómo los observan terceros), y;
uno puede describir los eventos que ocurren de forma operacional (por las acciones tomadas).

Uno de los métodos más útiles para sobrecargar, trampear y falsear los hechos es describir los procesos que los desarrollan de forma subjetiva. Por ello es que los científicos físicos describen los hechos de forma operacional, razón por la cual las matemáticas requieren la prueba de la intuición, y por la cual la psicología requiere una prueba de operatividad, y es la razón por la cual en la economía (cooperación) se escribe en materia de acciones humanas.

La innovación bandera de la izquierda fue legitimar la pseudociencia que es la psicología con el propósito de sobrecargar, falsea y trampear. El postmodernismo y la propaganda son los mayores logros de la tecnología del “mentir”.

  • Si vemos mitos como intentos de explicar verdades, nosotros entonces podemos ver al monoteísmo como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
  • Si vemos a la razón como un intento de explicar verdades, podemos ver a la filosofía como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
  • Si vemos al empirismo como intento de explicar verdades, podemos ver a la filosofía racional (itálicas del traductor) como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
  • Si vemos a la revolución científica darwiniana como un intento de explicar verdades, nosotros podemos ver a la revolución pseudocientífica como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
  • Si vemos a la revolución lógica (filosofía analítica) como un intento de explicar verdades, podemos ver a la revolución del postmodernismo como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.

Si vemos la revolución operativa fallida:
-intuicionismo en las matemáticas
-operatividad en física
-construcción estricta en las leyes
-operatividad en psicología
-praxeología en la economía
-e-prime en los idiomas
-verdades basadas en su desempeño en la filosofía
Entonces nosotros podemos ver como se ha desempeñado la academia desde que la izquierda nos la arrebató, los intelectuales públicos previos al movimiento conservador de 1980, los medios de comunicación antes de Fox News, como una forma de prevenir la consolidación de la revolución operativa.

PROPIETARISMO

Yo puedo reparar todo esto incluso solo, distribuir la tecnología para derrotar a los mentirosos. Los únicos medios de derrotarlos es por medio del derecho consuetudinario, los bienes informativos, el significado universal, y el mandato de la garantía y debida diligencia para el discurso público.

La izquierda siempre inventará un nuevo método para mentir. Sin embargo, ya tendremos las herramientas para evitar que eso ocurra durante siglos.

Curt Doolittle
El Instituto Propietarista
Kiev, Ucrania

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/xnQrj Tags: , ,

Islam: Somos competidores, no somos ni aliados, ni amigos, ni semejantes

Texto original de Curt Doolittle, traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

Disponible en: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/04/06/islam-we-are-competitors-not-allies-not-friends-not-kin/

 

Nosotros somos competidores, no somos ni aliados, ni amigos ni semejantes

  1. Somos competidores, no aliados, en el sentido de que cooperamos económicamente para ganancia mutua. Pero si la cooperación requiere que nos sacrifiquemos para aumentar los números de nuestros competidores entonces eso es beneficioso sino parasitario y suicida.
  2. Usted no entiende de economía. Para mover a todo ser humano en una red, se requiere de la aplicación de diferencias mínimas en incentivos. Esto requiere de un vasto capital. Es por medio de ese vasto capital aplicado como incentivos que nosotros podemos producir la organización voluntaria de la producción.
  3. Los errores que usted comete son los siguientes:
    a. Creer que somos semejantes en vez de competidores
    b. Que es posible organizarse por otros medios
    c. Que el mundo pobre no nos genera pobreza contínua de forma perpetua.
    d. Que el objetivo que debemos perseguir es la prevención reproductiva de los pobres.
  4. El Islam es un cáncer que la civilización occidental, los rusos, africanos, hindúes y los asiáticos orientales necesitan erradicar de la faz de la tierra. Los musulmanes son el único pueblo no civilizado de la tierra – y – fuera de los buenos cristianos africanos, son los más tontos del planeta.
    Es necesario ponerle fin al Islam. Para siempre.

    ¿Así o más claro?

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/gVQD9 Tags: , ,

¿Necesitamos de un gobierno?

¿Es necesario que tengamos un gobierno?

Necesitamos mercados para la producción de bienes y servicios, y necesitamos un sistema legal. Todavía no está claro si necesitamos un gobierno. Yo diría que “no”.

La sociedad podría ser privatizada, pero necesitamos aplicar nuevas leyes que promuevan la cooperación, el intercambio y prevengan el parasitismo.

Una ley, una ley natural, prohibición total del parasitismo: físico, verbal y por exterioridad negativa. Un mercado que regule la producción de los bienes y servicios. Y hasta donde yo sé, no hay gobierno allí.
Es útil tener un departamento de estado con el cual las naciones extranjeras puedan intentar negociar.
Pero es aún más útil que dichas negociaciones sean del dominio público.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/SbPYR Tags: ,

So, Do We Need A Government?

–“So we **do** need a government?”–

We need a market for the production of commons. And we need a legal system. Whether we need government is still unsettled. But I would argue ‘no’.

–“So it could still be privatized society, but we need to apply new laws to promote cooperation, trade, and prevent parasitism.”–

Correct. One law, natural law, total prohibition on parasitism: physical, verbal, and by externality. A market for the production of commons. And as far as I know there is no ‘government’.

It is useful to have a state department that foreign nations try to negotiate with.

But even this is better conducted in public.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/oNPTA

Terrorists Use Drama, Revolutionaries Use Attrition

HOW THEY TAKE OUT A POLICE DEPARTMENT

A molotov cocktail on a moving vehicle.
A molotov cocktail to the side of a stopped vehicle.
A distraction across the street.
A rifle at a distance.
It’s a 3 man job.

Two motorcycles.
One is backup.
Patience. Follow.
A along side at stop light
A Pistol.
Wingman with suppressing fire if needed.
it’s a two man job.

A Road. Roofing nails.
Patience.
A rifle.
it’s a one man job.

Attrition.
This is how they do it in the ‘developing’ world.

 

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/YZZmI

Islam: We Are Competitors, Not Allies, Not Friends, Not Kin

WE ARE COMPETITORS NOT ALLIES, NOT FRIENDS, NOT KIN

1) we are competitors not allies. We cooperate economically for mutual gain. But if cooperation requires that we sacrifice to increase the numbers of our competitors then this is not beneficial but parasitic and suicidal.

2) you do not understand economics. To move every human in a network requires the application of marginal differences in incentives. This requires vast capital. It is through vast capital applied as incentives that we produce the voluntary organization of production.

3) The mistakes you are making are a) that we are kin rather than competitors, b) that it is possible to organize by any other means c) that the world poor would not continually breed us into perpetual poverty d) that the objective we must pursue is the prevention of the poor from reproducing.

4) Islam is a cancer that the west, the Russians, the Africans, the Hindus, and the East Asians need eradicate from this earth. Muslims are the only remaining uncivilized people on earth – and outside of Africa’s good christians, the dumbest people on earth. We must end Islam forever.

Is that clear enough?

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/m5yjL

The Next Era of Domestication: Ending Islam and the Religion of Ignorance

—“Curt Doolittle, Humans are not businesses; we’re interdependent for survival. Even cooperations across the world have stop competing to complement each others weaknesses in the business space… not to talk about humans.”—

We are -because we evolved to be – super-predators that choose to cooperate ONLY when it is MORE beneficial to cooperate than to enslave, or exterminate.

The west advocates meritocratic trade because as a more advanced society and can compete better than others on the basis of merit. So it is to the west’s advantage to advocate trade and commercialism and consumer capitalism. But if cooperation by trade (or any other method) has become parasitic, then it is to our advantage to return to rule. If not rule enslavement. If not enslavement, extermination.

Invasion of our lands by semi-human, ignorant, mystical animals is enough of a reason to return to rule, if not rule, enslavement, if not enslavement, extermination.

Since all societies want to exterminate muslims EXCEPT the west, if the west stops protecting freedom of religion then all societies will justifiable exterminate islam and mulsims.

The muslim is teaching the wetsern man that he must not tolerate freedom of religion, since muslims do not practice a religoin, but a law, and a law is a political system not a religion.

End the west’s protection of islam, and we end much of world conflict. Islam is the source of world conflict. It is a cancer that infects the west, Africa, hindus, and east asians.

‪#‎NewRight‬

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/Rgemt