Enemies are honourable. The left is not the enemy, it is the traitor. The so-called right are cultural leftists who agree to be the betrayed. They can't give up Democracy or the government - they can't fail to [conserve] these things. It goes back to the fact taxation is treason. Under Democracy, the betrayed tax-farmed class is supposed to agree to be betrayed. Soyciety becomes a cosmic play and someone has to perform the role of the heel. They're not oppressed, they're cucked. Women and peasants do what they're told, therefore, they agree to get cucked. The show must go on. Until it can't.
Naturally the taxed are lower class and the taxers are upper class, which is why so-called rightists are stereotypically rednecks et al. Bumpkins, low-university, and so on. [Die in wars] instead of [war profiteering] or declaring wars.
Again, it comes back to the fact taxation is treason. The very foundation of soyvilization is a cancerous tumour. To be truly right-wing is to fail to conserve the tumour, but instead persecute it like it's a criminal. Which, given it is the foundation or keystone of soyciety, would unavoidably cause collapse.
No [conservative] has the slightest chance of being right-wing. No [conservative] can be the enemy of the left.
Re: formalism; to honestly define treason as treason would necessarily delegitimize the treason. The cancerous tumour soyvilization is founded upon inherently relies upon lies. Satan couldn't open with, "Hi, I'm Satan, Father of Lies, and I'm about to peddle a falsehood." Lies have to presented as truth, or they don't work. Soyvilization is inherently informalist.
Incoherent, you might say. As if it is Nameless.
To be explicit, it is long past time to discard soyvilization and start over. Never mind the rotten wood, the seed is rotten. Which is why the tree of soyvilization collapses reliably. Everything about soyvilization is twisted around having to justify the unjustifiable. To have an untwisted society, one must conscientiously cleanse one's self of all soyciety. Anything salvaged from soyvilization has to be dismantled and reassembled sans the putrid parasitism.
Conveniently soyvilization is weak and can't stop you. See: the Amish. You could elect a king tomorrow, and there you go, you have a king, thus a kingdom.
Traitors aren't enemies. They're not opponents. If they could fight you straight up they would have done that in the first place. The use of treachery is an admission of inhabiting an untenable position.
You can just have a kingdom, whenever you want, as long as you're not a [conservative], who can only bow to to power of violent, treacherous taxation. As long as you're not anything silly like a [tory], lol.
13 comments:
I am wondering who could count as non-soy right, or come closest. Maybe the free staters in New Hampshire. I especially like how they have their libertarian community organize something to do for everybodys homeschooled children, and also how they openly admit to passing bills in the state house whose main purpose is to make progressives emigrate. On the other hand they get elected to lower taxes instead of just doing the grey economy thing, and their children still pass tests in order to go to university (homeschooling, but still dependent on credentials that are government subsidized, and certainly not unschooling). So not sure if their approach is good enough. Also gulf monarchies, where the king can finance the government off oil, but bussinesses in saudi arabia still pay taxes, so i guess it might be just the king who is the non-soy right, since if he gets what he wants than by your definition of "responsibility is what right wing means" he is the right wing. And maybe oil executives admitting to having voted republican solely based on taxation of their profits, which are massive and unhideable from the taxman.
I do not think there are non-trace amounts of non-soy right even in a single place on the european continent. Even putin, because he publicly endorses democracy, christianity and the ussr at the same time. I don't believe he has to do all three lies to keep power, because those are supposed to be favored by different constituencies, and if it is in fact the same constituency, than not being able to secure russia from folk who believe all three while running a nuclear-armed police state able to command domestic banks to debank anybody is sorta like soy-right, although not exactly the same thing, but something similar. What is the word for someone who agrees to run an organization(the russian state) whose assets he cannot reliably secure(I don't think lies count as reliable, at least not often)? And one for somebody who doesn't stop lying even when the scam is not needed? I don't think putin is both, but i do think it is very likely he is one of those, otherwise no need for the three endorsements, because security is in good shape and lies not desirable.
Generally agree.
The Amish are the closest to non-soy right. Anarchism approved, apart from the pacifism. Doing this while nominally christian is impressive. How do they secure themselves against their own religion? It is a mystery.
Hoppe is pretty good. He's old and getting left behind, but if you factor that out he's genuinely right-wing.
Vitruvian incel.
Aside from the Amish none of them are groups, they're atomized individuals. Hurlock, who is too smart to post on the public internet. (Or possibly to even read it.) Wowex, who is too smart to post on the public internet. I have to assume there are others, who are likewise too smart to post on the public internet, thus I haven't met them.
Ultimately if you employ or endorse taxation you're centrist at best. I'll be posting more about this soon, but in short a white government pays you to follow the law. Literal reverse taxation. If they can't pay you enough you simply don't follow that law - they obviously don't care enough to justify the hassle.
I have Thought some about what would defending from invasions look like absent taxes and other necessarily-government-making features of society. I have conjured five cases, meaning five invasions of Ancapistan. The first is William the Conqueror, The second Grand Vizirs Kara Mustafa's ottoman army of 1683 siege of Vienna, The third the soviet union in 1980, and the fourth is the soviet union in 1952, while the last one is a hypothetical empire combining American weapons technology, Soviet military to GDP ratio, Chinese economic system of state owned weapons manufacturing Financed by taxation of a robust and weakly-regulated Private sector, and Mongolian policy of exterminating every Settlement which doesn't surrender upon warning delivered through loudspeakers (but you can come to them on your own to be a willing taxpayer within 48h of the warning).And basically none of this goes well. William the Conqueror is the easiest case and can be repulsed by people who buy their own weapons and pick their own leaders including a chief leader, who could be one man elected for life by warriors with only military function in mind, and removable by resignation or by dying in a till-first-blood duel where the accuser has to wait till the correct day of the year, than pay a large sum of money and than defeat in a similar duel anybody willing to defend the chief war leader. The main problem would be making everyone fight instead of freeloading on the fighter who protects their life and property from the normans. This doesn't required neither conscription nor taxation, but does require forcing a choice between fighting to defend Ancapistan and exile abroad. I think this might not count as government, as long as there is no specialized coercion apparatus, basically no cops or gendarmes paid to arrests or kill. Instead the freeloaders neighbours will kill him or sell him into slavery if he stays past the exile deadline and give his wheat field to closest compliant relatives(never themselves, thats theft) . But until the exile deadline he could sell the field and get a nontrivial amount of money. There would always be more than one bidder, perhaps even more than 10, as land was a better investment than money in the middle ages. But all this still sounds like at least Road to government, and I don't see any way round, Thought not sure. Also war requires having a specific territory to whose violation there must react a big army, which means that the territory must not be small neither. Which creates a problem when people in an area want to secede rather than defend the opposite side of Ancapistan. Either the rest of Ancapistanis Institute a government to prevent them from leaving, or let them secede from the defense pact, such that Ancapistan will Fall despite having defended the break away region in the past, and then the secessionists will Fall also, because now alone.
Also this is just the William the Conqueror problems. Just wait until you have to somehow make thousands of ground attacked helicopters and guided missiles without taxation in the 1980 scenario. Or go from knowing nukes exist in 1945 to having enough of them to deter their use by the Soviets in 1952. Overall I think that if we take police, prison, border guards in the checking passports sense, taxes, central banks and conscription as well as central population register to be necessarily-government-forming Institutions, than William the Conqueror seems to be likely to be possible to be repulsed without any of them, given that he himself only used taxation, and that, due to being at this "tech level" mainly used as a motivating force, it can be replace with not want ing to be plundered by foreigners.
But the Grand Viziers army is a likely no according to me, because the ottoman army had relatively more expensive weapons and training, and because of the need to coordinate a response on a vast scale and quickly without coercion or tax funds. I mean maybe a coalition of seven Ancapistans could beat back the ottomans, provided that some of the wealthiest and economically tied to a location people such as mine owners and large landowners would have decided to noncoercively donated to the war effort, perhaps with no business deals and marriage ostracism as consequences of falling out of line. The donations could begin in peace time and be used to create a basket of army owned profitable assets such as banks or foreign Trade companies whose proceeds would fund war preparations. And even so, such an army with good training, weapons and coordinations could seize their own country and rename it empirecapistan-taxland with themselves being rich funded by taxes. They would have to be freedom loving patriots straight outta hollywood.
And the case of 1952 ussr seems hopeless. Also you wrotek about this, about defence pact failure. But if Universal defence pact failure obtains, and no one can defeat 40 brigands alone, than it follows that due to security needing to be done by oneself brigands victory obtains, and thus government, and consequently the blegh and yuck of politics. Which seems like sith reality, where everybody has to try to dominate, due to dominance trumping everything else. Do you have any idea how could the Grand Viziers army, or the Soviets, be thrown back without a government???
As i read all i wrote now, it just doesn’t seem satisfactory. I will just say that when I say "the viziers army is a likely no", I meant that the Vizier likely can not be stopped without taxes to pay for weapons, and likewise "the Soviets being thrown back without a government" means without tax funded weapons. Also, "would have to be freedom loving patriots not to seize their country for tax-generating estate".
Another topic: I have reason to believe that leftists are more than just weak traitors who can't win a fight upfront. That is because leftism as measured by the inverse of Wilson-Patterson index of USA conservatism was found to be about 55% heritable in two fairly large old twin Studies in the USA, and some more in Australia , and more heritable among the well informed about politics. And There are three reasons why two populations might be different in a traits level, drift, level of deleterious mutational accumulation regulated by overall strength of selection, and differences in what was selected for in the past, or shape of selection. USA and Australia were always too large populations to have this large drift effects, and there is not enough difference between the old and the Young for the genetic difference to be mutational (this is the Joseph Bronski thesis), as in the current state of no purification selection sixty years of age difference should be sixty years of mutations with all associated traits level differences , but there is only about 20 percentage points of party id difference between 78+ and 18-24 year old usa cohorts in 2022, which would imply 225 years of difference in accumulated deleterious mutations between cons and libs, which is a little bit more than the time between when us infant mortality with acompanying purification selection started to decline and penicilin, when there again can not be a difference because everybodys children survive, plus there should be in this case a massive health difference in favor of conservatives, including 9 points better IQs, which is not happening. So that leaves leftism as something that was selected for in some environments in the past, different from those of rightwingers, and thus not likely to be just a weakness.
Defending against rational invaders is easy. Bomb your own stuff. If they penetrate your fence, destroy what they were trying to conquer, ideally while they're standing on it.
Bombs are so cheap you can do this three times. Bomb their army so they can't penetrate your fence. If that doesn't work for some reason, bomb their territory so they lose more than they were trying to gain. If that still doesn't work, poison pill.
Knowing this in advance, nobody rational tries to invade in the first place.
--
Leftists are absolutely weak traitors who can't win a fight.
However, nobody fights them. Demand for truth and virtue is, on net, negative. Treated like toxic waste. Demand for treachery, other vices, and suffering is not only positive, it is high.
Rightists don't lose, they surrender. Leftists don't win, they are bought. If the left didn't exist, voters would have to invent it.
I agree that "poison pilling" might work in the present time when a lot of Wealth is in the form of capital, but this is basically what ukraine did in donbass, and it didn't work, so not sure. Did ukraine not poison pill hard enough, russia not rational, or something else? And in middle ages the main goal of conquest was land, that remains valuable even depopulated and burned down, since it's just possible to move some other peasants in, and their population will grow, and fill the space, and recreate any lost wealth. In particular destroing yourself and your Wealth to avoid rewarding the Conqueror didn't work with mongols, they benefit less from post-urban pastures than from taxes, but it's still a plus.
Also I remembered where in europe are non-trace amounts of non-soy at least centrism located: Liechtenstein, where they gave their actual Prince power back in a referendum and are content with the results, "you can just elect a King", but literally.
Post a Comment