Donnadogsoth

From my reading I'd say the Nazi Holocaust is what killed the West. Before, the West could have been taken to task for the Great War or for colonialism or for busting up Gay bars or for disputing whether women were persons under the law, but, the Holocaust laid bare a festering potential for total evil that demanded a social response, whereas Communist crimes were too peripheral and unknown to have a similar effect. The response was the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, which spawned a hydra movement known as cultural Marxism, to annihilate the white, the male, the heterosexual, and the Christian by hook or by crook. Totalitarianism and libertarianism are goals, not groups. The groups in tension are the oligarchs versus the republicans: the rule by the few for the few, or the rule by the all for the all. The grand strategic methods these groups use are, respectively, synarchism and conservatism. Synarchism involves funding and fostering contradictory political movements to achieve the end of totalitarianism: these movements include cultural Marxism/international socialism/communism, national socialism, corporatism/free trade, zionism, and include such strategies as mass migration, television/Hollywood, pornography, anti-male/white/Christian censorship, drug legalisation, and the drug war (as currently constituted). Conservatism, on the contrary, as I use the term, involves the deployment of Christianity, Classical humanism, and nationalism to provide standards, templates, and principles for the construction of, as Schiller says, "the most beautiful of all works of art...true political freedom," Oligarchy --> Synarchism (Marxism/fascism) --> Totalitarianism Republic --> Conservatism (Christianity/Classical humanism/nationalism) --> Liberty Christianity without Christ essentially equals Marxism, but without the checks to totality and cultural liquidation that Christianity imperfectly gives. Christianity serves as a partial innoculation against Marxism but now that Christianity has been all but hounded out of the public sphere we are open to infection.

Fair points. I defend against attacks on Christianity which is what is usually being absently referred to when people use the saw. But, I've met people in real life who still utter it. My OP was more of a probe to see if anyone believed it.

This is fascinating stuff, Mishi2, thanks for posting this. I agree that the West has effectively pronounced all real violence an evil, as we see for example with schools where boys who start fight clubs are seriously reprimanded amidst scandal and all the good people get a chance to feel "shocked," rather than organising the boys into a nice, healthy boxing club. Paradoxically, Western movies and tv shows are filled with horrific and extreme violence, murder, and torture. You say this attitude has come from the World Wars, I would second that, but ask, why the West, why then? Other times and places have endured terrible wars, China has been bathed in blood. Did the major bloodspillings there lead to ages of pacifism? Also, could this be related to Western obsessions over what constitutes consent in romantic relations?

It's my understanding that the US federal State came into being to protect the 13 Colonies from the rapacity of British free trade, thereby allowing domestic American industries to flourish. Force or coercion?

Rereading what you wrote, you talk of what amounts to honour, that mutually agreed-upon fights are honourable. Yet what mechanism should there be to police and punish dishonourable men who are simply bullies or thugs dressing up their assaults as "duels"? EDIT: Yes, I'm curious, what are the Mongolian rules of engagement? And, why ask you here instead of in a new post?

Perhaps if you rephrased the matter in terms of sports. Men often define themselves in terms of ritualised conflict like sports and games, so perhaps that is where you should locate your argument.

I'd be happy to, but where did your original post go?

"I'm a dick, and I want to break your nose" is the epitome of masculinity? How about a nice rap battle? I hear Mr. John Skelton's got some rhymez...

You know, you can hit me but I can't hit you back, so you are therefore encouraged to hit me, and you do. Is there a word for that somewhere?

Since not all States at all times cause wars, it seems more accurate to say that the State is the vehicle of all wars. Hard to have a war without some kind of organisation whose power approximates that of a State's. It would be more reliable to say that the cause of all wars-as-evils must in some sense stem from the root of all evil: the love of money or worship of Mammon. That is, sin proceeds from false idols, and false idols proceed from the love of money as force-concept, the idea of the irresistibility of the dollar obsoleting the need for rational persuasion. Still, a specific cause of war needs to be found, between State and Mammon, which we can locate as the wicked principle of oligarchy, or the few Olympians ruling over the many Greeks, and ruled over entirely for the former's benefit with the latter being as livestock. Oligarchy is not the root of all evil, it is merely an evil, but I surmise we would be hard-pressed to find any example of a war that didn't depend on this false principle of human relations, this false idol of human rulers. The difference between oligarchy and the State is that the State is a machine, the oligarchy are people organised to use the machine for their benefit against the interests of mankind. A Stateless country, if such a thing could be brought about, would have to have all the organs of the State distributed and absorbed into its fabric, even taxation, reduced to the extent that a Stateless economy would be more efficient than a State one would. The question is, what would the Stateless country do if attacked by a neighbouring State?

There may be two levels to this, the absolute NAP level and the everyday level. Most of what a police officer's everyday job entails is concerned with things that a DRO officer's job would entail. Very few police are out there arresting tax evaders. Most of them are arresting people for assault, rape, murder, arson, fraud, and theft, or giving people tickets for speeding. So, presuming we need such social-defense activity--which we do, one way or another--it's not unreasonable to move to screen for psychopathy during hiring.

What if WaterCo has a water monopoly and merges with ElectroCo, FoodCo, and GunCo? And then makes a move for hegemony? At what point does the enlightened populace decide to break up the monopolies or prevent the mergers?

I think Trump's only mistake in reigniting the War on Drugs will be if he doesn't go after the banks that launder the $360 billion annual global proceeds. Illegal drugs are a modern Opium War designed to pacify the citizenry.

Why wouldn't the monopolies collude on reinstituting the state, before the upstarts can grow large enough to challenge them?

Aren't monopolies anathema to ancap?

The best ground for discussing these matters is that of principle. Suggestion: what is the principle of "conservation" that Western society should deploy in order to save it from the unfettered principle of "egalitarianism"?

Oh, but it is racist to speak facts that are politically incorrect. Remember the Left is playing a Machiavellian game with these words, using them to push, prod, and goad whites into the concentration camps. Objectivity and rationality left the building a long time ago when it comes to Left hot-button issues like racism and sexism &c.

An atrocity would, by definition, have more shock and horror value than would an attack on a military installation. Soldiers tend to think of themselves, at their best, as defending their innocent populations from foreign depredations. Targetting those innocents directly would undercut the very raison d'etre of their military, in a dramatic and patent way.

You make an interesting point. Why didn't they drop the Bombs on military targets?

The problem I see with your premise, of not killing innocents, is that if this catches on, then in order to win the enemy merely has to exploit this weakness in our resolve. They can chain innocents to their artillery pieces, they can strap them onto their tanks, they can embed them in their infantry platoons, and so forth. While we revel in our morality, they proceed to kick our ass.

I think it was more like, some guy in a bar sucker punches you and kicks you in the ribs, telling you, "I'll be back" while going around the neighbourhood on an assault, theft, murder, and rape spree. You calculate, correctly, that if you burn his house down, he will calm the heck down and stop what he's doing. In the process some of his family members die. He's unhappy, you find it regrettable, but in the end peace has been restored to the neighbourhood.

Was that the instance where the Japanese sent a message to the US, and the wording was, shall we say, overly delicate and somewhat ambiguous, thus leading the US officials to dismiss its value as a surrender letter?

Whilst I appreciate how horrible the effects of the A-bomb detonations were, all else I know is that the Japs were stubborn sods and needed an atrocity to get them to simmer down. Well, they got two for the price of one.

The apparent brute facticity of human will is resolved by appeal to a necessary Creator as origin. The apparent brute facticity of the Creator's will is a necessary component of consciousness which is a necessary state. It resolves to “why is there anything rather than nothing?”, the answer to which is, nothingness cannot be predicated (it can have no attributes, including existence), cannot be indicated (there is no indicable nothingness in the world, only rarefied states of somethingness), and cannot be generated (generation requires a something to do the generating). Therefore, consciousness, and so will, is the necessary, not brute, fact at the origin of reality.

Christianity calls it "original sin". Freud called it "the id". It's in there.