Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Strengthen the Role of Private Property Owners Over All Forms of Law Enforcement

A return to private property and freedom of association is necessary for communities to start functioning again. The tenth amendment, it seems to me, ought to apply here as much as anywhere. If states can legalize pot based on it, certainly states can end the anti-discriminatory regimes that do not allow good family formation.

Depending on their ability to execute, the free-state libertarians may get the last laugh (or not, because they might not like what could happen) over the white nationalists. This is because, if the libertarians actually institute liberty, then suddenly white nationalists would have a place to go do what they want. Sure, there'd be pots smoking fun parts of New Hampshire, but there also could be large developments of people who have agreed to live a certain way via freedom of association and private property rights. Thus, there might be large areas where pot is not allowed because the property owners just don't want it on their property.

But anyway, even deeper and perhaps more structural than the tenth amendment, or whatever sort of law one might pass, is the procedure by which laws are ever refered to in the first place. I would suggest something like this: let it be property owners in the county who initiate any investigations- i.e. police are not looking to bust people to make a quota or whatever, and have a process by which property owners could hold hearings on particular police officers and fire them. Of course, it would also be helpful if the county administration felt federal agents coming in and meddling with local affairs was a particularly bad idea worth getting into a conflict over.

The basic idea is this- bad laws don't have to be used, and presumably, the property owners aren't going to use bad laws on themselves. Sure, the Hatfields might rat out the McCoys on something, but the other property owners in a county would likely want to stop that sort of things. Perhaps most importantly, people who want the community to accept behavior, contraband, or even people, that the community doesn't want to accept just shouldn't have any standing because they aren't already existing property owners in the county.

Not that the covenants between property owners as to the way they want to live need extend through an entire community. There could be city blocks- some pot smoking hippy type places, and then maybe a traditional Catholic area two blocks over, or some white nationalist enclave somewhere nearby. Differentiation then occurs. People begin to notice where they want to live, how they want to behave, and where they want their children to grow up. If they can't join a particular group, they can find some property of their own and try to replicate what they perceive to be the healthier model of living.

This is one of the things I found out when I started following some anarchist blogs a while back- some of them didn't respect private property, so their anarchy was a big like a scam, where they wanted to impose their costs on everyone else. Obviously, this happens with all sorts of people, but what I am suggesting here, is, especially in a hypothetical future New Hampshire with freedom project fully implemented, if there were people who intentionally went around trying to violate various norms people agreed to via private property right and freedom of association, then they could make a fair assessment that these people deserved banishment.

Being able to find the troublemakers and expel them- not by resorting to law, mind you, but by noting whether or not the person is capable of understanding and respecting the private property owner and his wishes- would strengthen such a place immensely.

Friday, August 19, 2016

A Synthesis Of Sorts

William H. Briggs posted Essence Is Of The Essence, to which I needed to reply, not because he was necessarily wrong, but because people generally get in trouble with essence.

This led me to think again about Jack Kruse's DIVORCING EINSTEIN USING TIME’S POINTED ARROW, in which he said, "It turns out all life, is a dissipative system."

Which makes me wonder if biologists should read St. Palamas' discourse on essences and energies.

Well, that, and a commentor at Briggs' blog mentioned red as an aristotelian accident.

Well, you can experience red as energy. As a wave. But I know there's a photon there so you can go back to saying the photon is a thing and has an essence. If you want to.

I was also reminded recently, somewhere, about how the Eastern Orthodox hold God's energies will be given to all, but that we shall either experience it as light or as fire, depending on our disposition. Of course, in the West, we developed purgatory. Apparently, we needed some otherworldly geography to house the thing, and thus the essence, of purification.

But the biological explanation sounds more like the Orthodox theological one. We get energy from our environment. If we know how to use it correctly- especially how to dissipate it correctly we get healthy and strong. If we don't know how to use it, problems build up. Illness and death are a robust collection of these problems. Oxidation is a fire.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Pro-Life Identity Politics

A while back I asked Is There A False Christian Identity?.

My hypothesis was that the cultural Marxists had managed, in addition to more normal identity politics, to shoehorn in an identity or two for Christians.

Oh boy, does Trump bring these assholes out of the woodwork.

They don't appear to know they are assholes, but they are, in no small part because they've done well, compared to the rest of America, under the Bush/Clinton/Obama regime, and they are so uppity about how we should have all voted for some normal conservative candidate.

To which, if you happen to get into an argument with these people, please tell them, Hillary is preferable to a normal conservative candidate.

We need this shit to end now.

I don't really know if Trump can end it. I do, however, know he is not a normal conservative candidate. And he is not Hillary. So, presumably, he should be prefered, especially if your goal is pro-life, rather than pro-life being your identity. Foreign policy alone should tell you a Trump presidency probably means less dead people.

But, whatever, the real point to bring home is to make sure they understand we aren't going to be swayed by whether or not Hillary might win.
In fact, it might end things quicker if she wins.

I've come up against this too many times. The small groups of people actually able to have large families, decent jobs, and perhaps they can spend enough money to find a church that doesn't totally suck. They can do all those weird things doctors and lawyers do, nowadays, right before their livelihoods are going to be driven through the floor by automation, where they do things they must know are wrong at work, but then have church on weekends for some exculpatory feelings.

They want to vote, because they have the little god of democracy hidden in their little idol box, right there next to equality and niceness, but they are all bent out of shape because Trump doesn't talk purty like they want him to.

Trump talks like a builder, which is interesting. He actually does have policies. You can find his website, if your aren't a prick, and read them. And, if you've got a twelve year old reading level, you could tell they might not be stellar, but they are better than Hillary's as well as the twelve fucking dwarves' Trump beat to get to this point.

But if Hillary wins, well, she'll push too hard left, and whatever America's version of the Berlin wall is, will fail. Who knows? Maybe we'll even see Trump standing on a tank in front of Congress, doing a Boris Yeltsin impression- though that is unlikely, mostly because Trump doesn't drink.

If you've done well during the past years, you've got insulation. You've got, maybe, some insurance. You kind of want things to stay the same. There's a whole bunch of us, growing every day, who don't have the insulation. The generation younger than me are either overmedicated SJWs, or some really aggravated RAAAAAAACISSSTTSS! who took a good long look at these dysgenic states of America, and declared it degenerate. They look back fondly on the white old days of Henry Ford, innovation, and being extremely suspicious of the Jews.

Nobody cares about the normal conservative candidates. Pence is probably a bigger drag on Trump's poll numbers than any of this nonsense the media spouts off about him, because Pence is another one of these scammers who doesn't deserve to be anywhere near power.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Why Estate Taxes Are Degenerate

I believe we will experience a decentralization of sorts, which is good, but depending on your local effects, it may be bad. The impulse to nationalism seems good, given that this seems to be a non-militaristic nationalism. But nationalism alone is no guarantee of success. The large modern state, if allowed to exist, will continue to attract parasites just as assuredly as flames attract moths.

So, a return of family estates, passed down through time, means a return of decentralized loci of power. Family money fueled the enlightenment. Government money keeps fueling these retarded nutritional studies out of Harvard, and other recapitulations of the so-called validity of the government's actions.

Now, what we are encouraged to see is the demise of family estates, and the pitiable nature of certain trust fund babies. Understand something- this is a problem for them, not for society. I don't even know how true it actually is. It could be more of a myth.

But as people are allowed to build family wealth, these families become biological targets. The ambitious turn from trying to get their daughters married to doctors and lawyers, to marrying into this or that particular clan. And the long slow process of breeding that was so effective at raising IQ rates in Europe before the 1800s begin to come into effect again.

Ending estate taxes would be a first step in a somewhat uncertain process of releasing ourselves from the modern state, and returning a governance more strongly attached to property rights. If you've listened to Lew Rockwell, Jack Spirko, and/or about a half dozen people with a certain mindset, you'll they are anarchists, and they've got this statement- anarchy means there are no rulers, but it doesn't mean there are no rules.

Technically, that's true, but only if you are talking about the word anarchy. It is a definition of the word, not of them. They are for private property. If you are for private property, but you don't like the modern state, then what you want to achieve is many rulers, and few rules. The rulers are, of course, property owners, who decide what happens on and with their property. Consider that what we have now is much closer to their definition of the word anarchy than what we want to achieve- we now have a huge bureaucratic class. They do not take the mantle of 'ruler', rather they make rules as 'experts.' They use the conceit of 'oppression' to explain inequality and then pretend like there is a legitimate and objective reason to redistribute assets based on this oppression.

And they keep making more rules everyday. Then they hire more of their own kind to keep track of all these important things that they have been writing down.

Comparatively speaking, the number of rules in a private property society would be trivial.

And another thing that would happen is that the people who were good at administrating property would slowly increase their holdings, while those who weren't so good would probably end up looking a lot like peasants. But the IQ research shows even they improve over time, as the wealthy used to have more children, many of whom would marry into the lower classes, bringing the genes for higher intelligence with them.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

In This Economy, Production Is Like Exercise

Production is good for you. So is exercise. A long time ago, it used to be that work was really work, and you expended a decent amount of calories in order to provide for your family. Now we pay so that we can go to a gym. Most jobs are sedentary (and probably unnecessary).

We live in this oddball economy, wherein I think payments (linked to a good credit score) have become more relevant than the currency they are denominated in, or the goods one expects they will eventually purchase.

So production is likely to be a hobby. The most obvious case for this is in books, blogs, etc... Few of us can quit our day jobs.

I have a funny feeling a lot of the local food movement is going to find itself in a similar vein. People figure out a way to raise something themselves, which is good, but it takes out a share of the market. I've already seen price drops as new small farmers enter the local market- what about when automation makes it trivial to have a better-than-organic garden?

The idea of this post came to me due to my objectivist brother. I try to be in a particular mode. I want to observe reality, hypothesize, and try to come up with good experiments. Hopefully one of these experiments will help improve my life. I found out about retail arbitrage. I don't want to do retail arbitrage. I don't like being in stores that much, and already I can see there could be trouble with stuff like warranties. But, it fit in with this idea of payments being overvalued relative to goods. It seems pretty nuts to me a store would mark down something to the point where it is profitable for some random guy to buy it and put it up on Amazon or Ebay. But stores do this sort of thing, and, at least for a limited amount of time, a few people have been making money on this.

Unfortunately, my objectivist brother might as well be a caricature of the worst sort of Christian. It was nothing but value judgements. No observations. No hypotheses. Certainly no proposed experiments. And he picked up on none of the other ideas I presented in the emails. This was particularly frustrating, because I put several observations. Even a direct question- why is gasoline going down?

His advice is to ignore everything. I pointed out this seemed like Christians today, rather than Christians of old who would actually fight to defend Christendom. Just pray to St. Rand and everything will be okay.

But meanwhile, we've got objective reality here, in the real world. Among those of us who are amenable to free trade, a startlingly few actually make money.
Anyone making a living is usually an academic. And few are above replacement level in terms of reproduction, nor does it appear to occur to very many to think about breeding, whether the question be quantity or quality. So we can see there's a problem, probably with the theory, but even more obviously, with the intellectual structure of the ideology. Knowing that, in a certain sense, the modern economy is a scam makes it really hard to find the situations in which we can make money, and then actually build that which we value.

Instead, we live in a world were the left wins politically, but they also often win economically, and not just through evil political machinations. Value is subjective, and the leftist values things in a emotional way, but it seems to be the same way. The dysfunctional group-think actually works for the leftist producer, because he'll find a good chunk of fellow leftists who will value whatever he is doing at or above what he values it at. Sure, he has to put up with the "everything should be free" statement from younger leftists with no money, but he's not really selling to them- usually he's selling to people rich enough to buy stuff for the signalling value.

But I digress. We all ought to be producing. It is good for us. A healthy practice. But a novena to St. Rand ain't gonna make it pay. In fact, one of the reasons that we need our own communities, cities, etc... is because we need to be able to do the things that provide life without the exploitation that surely comes from this globalist economy.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Desperation borne of Criminality

I've mentioned this in a place or two, and I figure I should put it on my own blog too.

The hysteria over Trump. It isn't just normal politics. There has been tacit agreement for years between Democrats and Republicans not to go after each other.

Both Republicans and Democrats are afraid that they won't just end up out of power- they are afraid they'll end up in jail. Of course, Hilary Clinton is the most worried one, but plenty of politicians and bureaucrats are too. The F.B.I. obviously has investigations that it has never gone anywhere with- apparently they are only able to go after people who upset their own party bosses.

But the main political action against Trump, should he get in, would be to stonewall. In addition to existing investigations, there's C-SPAN. There are hearings about various things and various bad actors talking about those things. The simple thing would be to replace anyone who is not amenable.

Even if he isn't thinking about it, he probably will. That's why they are screaming like babies. The game is about to be up.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Our Homegrown Vote Hackers

Hah! While the hysteria over supposed Russian 'influence' in an American election continues, evidence that the illegal manipulation is happening closer to home continues to mount. Anonymous Conservative links to FRACTION MAGIC – PART 1: VOTES ARE BEING COUNTED AS FRACTIONS INSTEAD OF AS WHOLE NUMBERS.

One Bev Harris appears to run the site, and she thinks she has found code- from as far back as 2003- that allows votes to be counted as fractions. I am not sure of her credentials, besides being so completely against these voting machines that she started a site and got pretty organized. Here's bit on hypothesized execution of fractional voting:

For 15 years, GEMS has been described as flawed and full of security holes. Smith may be one of the first researchers to express respect for GEMS’ sophistication. Researchers have pointed out that with GEMS, votes can be flipped to reverse candidate totals. Smith counters that in a real election such an approach would appear almost cartoonish, with Black Democratic strongholds voting for White Republicans and vice versa. At the very least, simple vote-flipping is reckless and imprecise. On one level, GEMS enables crude manipulations by local users, but on a deeper level it offers refined and scaled-up control to persons who are provided with a specific kind of utility.

So, when voting manipulation of the type that Schneier warns about will it be Russians, or the usual American suspects?