Donnadogsoth

Donald Trump will either flame out of the GOP nomination race or he will win the Presidency. If he becomes the Republican candidate it will prove he has a strong enough base to defeat the Democrats.

Yes, I see what you mean, Des. Possibly this helps explain why Africa failed to invent the wheel and axle, being witchcraft-ridden. Which makes our current society's ever-closer proximity to witchcraft, magic, magical thinking, and the like foreboding.

Trump is a self-made man, more real than the others, more candid, more willing to take risks. Those are Ancap traits that Stefan admires, no? Surely a Trump victory places us closer to Ancap than a Hilary Clinton victory or a Bernie Sanders victory.

Wouldn't most discovery be based on love, Des? Love of discovery, love of improved the lot of one's society?

What is most likely to open women's eyes, do you think?

I've heard of this theory before, Mantis. Good on you for eating the negative rep needed to post such an enlightening thing here. In my case it was paradoxical: My absent father himself was an atheist, my mother a theist. Thus I'm caught, do I rebel against Dad and be...a theist? I tried atheism for a long time but could never finally kick God out of my head, no matter how many tantalisingly close logical arguments and no matter how much antitheistic hatred I mustered. Did I accept Christ in the spirit of rebellion? Now with the destruction of the nuclear family I imagine atheism will wax in popularity to an all-time high.

Human creativity is directly connecting with the Universe as a whole, and obtaining a thought-object or idea that corresponds exactly with a universal physical or other principle. In this, the person is outside of time, where past, present, and future merge into a single instant. That is immortality, regardless of bodily death. EDIT: Anonymous -1's really are cowardly and stupid, without the individual bothering to mount an argument or give an explanation for their displeasure. Vox populi et vox Dei, eh, Brutus?

A wonderful and useful new take on the subject. Thank you, Rosstronic.

So, then, we are in agreement thus far. Would you like to enumerate the principles you know so that we can see which are most applicable to being armour and sword? I'll go first: Principle of Identity, or Contradiction, as the basis for logical analysis of necessary truths. Hard to get more fundamental than that, as literally everything that exists falls under its rubric, and someone without a grasp of logic is at a severe disadvantage when dealing with the world. More on micro-aggressions, from a Leibnizian standpoint. Leibniz held that all existing things have both perception and "appetition" or desire/will. Some perceptions are so tiny as to be subconscious, but a sufficient amount of them can impinge on consciousness and become noticeable. A micro-aggression would be analogous to a single subconscious perception, like one grain of sand on a slowly increasing pile. Someone with well-trained intuition will pick up on these "grains" and identify that they are forming a pile. Thus one cultivates one's grievances and trains white people to be medieval Japanese statesmen bowing and fluttering and apologising for their existence before daring to venture any observations or commit any action.

"Do as thou wilt..." is a more potentially benevolent or at least neutral principled position than one might think. It presumes every man has his own destiny, and therefore his own sovereignty, and may thereby do anything to further that destiny, with the understanding that one must tread carefully amongst the destinies of others, lest they "wilt" to kill thou for thwarting them. Sounds a lot like an Anarchy, doesn't it? I'm not claiming the last word on Thelema, but it is interesting; Crowley was a clever bird. When you say a "solid, rational set of moral principles that they live by," I'm reminded of the Armour of Christ which Christians are advised to don to strengthen them against the Devil. On Earth there are plenty of real, live, fleshly devils that we need protection from, and the idea of a set of principle as you have described it rings true. Put on the Armour of Principle for protection against many of the predators swimming in the social waters.

If only Authority Man would find his way into his proper venue: an S&M club.

Lots of great philosophers have or would have disagreed with Leibniz, whom I rank among the greatest, particularly for his theory of monads, whereby the mind is a monad (unity), and the body-as-a-whole is a separate monad, and they exist and coöoperate in a preëstablished harmony. The body can live without the mind, with the help of machines, but the mind dematerialises ("passes away") without the body. View it like this: Mind | Body..........O | O The key thing to understand is that the mind is a unity, it is indivisible. You can't have half a mind. Your mind may be cloudy to knowledge or clear, but it remains an indivisible unity regardless. If the mind and the body were one, the problem would arise where the limits of the body are? Isn't Terra herself part of my body? She's my immediate life support system, my bodily cycles are related and comingle with hers. And what about the Solar winds that shield me from terrible cosmic rays? Isn't that like another skin for me? We can't say it's not part of me because I can't feel it; I can't feel my appendix either, is it not a part of my body? We face the prospect of my body extending to infinity, and overlapping and merging with your body and everyone else's. Unlike the mind, the body is divisible, in the following manner: The monad of body-as-a-whole begins to dematerialise when the body is divided, such as with an amputation; that body monad, or ideal body, is partly hidden, like how you can hold up a catenary chain and have a third person grasp midway up the curve, when you release one end of the chain: the curve is still there in full, but part of it has become invisible. So your amputated foot, for example, is its own monad, but your body's full monad is partly dematerialised. Of course the foot will die and its own monad dematerialise into the multiplicity of putrefaction, until only a volume of dust remains. The answer may be cellular. Consider the healthy nuclear family like a cell: 2 sovereigns agreeing to mutually beneficial alliance in order to raise 3 wards. That family unit can then sign a contract with its small, immediate community, as you say. Now that community, like a tissue, can work on confederating to form a larger entity, like an organ. All of this depends on principle, the more principled people are, the more classically cultured, the more they will see their common interests and begin to view their mutual General Welfares as best served through a harmony of interaction. And this process could continue, carefully, ligament by ligament, block by block, up to the level of a body of a pseudostate, and finally an interaction of pseudostates in a concordianta catholica.

?

Thank you for your reply. Yes, you've characterised the modern liberal media well, "cowardly neutral and faux" with stacked panels and mostly fluffy/sordid distractions. However, as white Christian who opposes Islam on the grounds that it is (a) un-Christian, (b) culturally backward (Sharia), and © a terrorist breeder reactor, I sympathise with those Americans who appreciate Trump's message. Although he hasn't stated it, people in the know know that Christianity is under attack around the world by Moslems in Moslem countries. Islam gradually but inexorably squeezes out Christianity whenever the former is hegemonic. And it's common knowledge that Islam does breed anti-Western terrorists to a unique degree. And the U.S. does bring in way too many immigrants. His methods, his proposed solutions may be ham-handed, but they speak to a malaise that white, Christian culture is experiencing in response to wave upon wave of unassimilating aliens. Have you heard anything about Trump's position on either (a) re-institution of the Glass-Steagal law, or (b) provoking a thermonuclear war with Russia? Those, in terms of the present onrushing financial collapse and the threat of such war provoked by the encirclement and pressuring of Russia, are our crucial existential threats at this moment. Has he addressed them?

"Would you like to play a game?" "Yes Joshua." "What game would you like to play? "Global thermonuclear war." "Would you like to play tic-tac-toe instead?" "No, Joshua. I want to play global thermonuclear war."

Good observation, ResidingOnEarth. Would it square with the need to, always, everywhere, operate on principle? That principle is what separates us from the "sociopathic controllers" and their dupes?

If so, then all the more reason to amp up the scientific investigation then, worldwide, to develop new ideas for their safe dismantlement and clean-up.

I almost agree, but there is the issue of mastering the flesh, which is an ancient theme. The body must be mastered by its sovereign mind, or else all manner of problems ensue. That involves force of will, and is not poetic. The flesh is different from the mind, and must be mastered by the external force of the mind if the mind is to do justice to the world's feast.

I'm guessing (1) my Classical humanism, (2) my Christianity, and (3) my demand Ancap be based on more than just the NAP.

One can be conflicted of mind and have to force, through will, oneself to act one way rather than another. Example: mustering the courage to oppose the State. My language is correct. I wish to convince you of the principle of principle, so that you might thereby help me delve into the classics of literature and art and science, to elevate yourself toward greater political efficacy, for the benefit of yourself in your quest for liberty, and for that of all mankind. This convincing does not involve force, so long as you are not attacking the interests of civilisation as a whole or of sovereign individuals in particular, which are the same thing, ultimately.

Yes. You are capable of going against your instinctive desires, are you not? You can force yourself to do things you don't want to do, for the sake of a greater consideration. Your body would rather not eat its vegetables, but you can force it to obey your will to eat them.

The creation of the modern, [almost-] perfectly sovereign nation-state, as through the passion of Joan of Arc leading to the creation of modern France under Louis XI and later modern England under England's Henry VII, manifested an idea implicit in all of history to date, but which had been suppressed by oligarchal deployments of propaganda and terror since the dawn of time, and most specifically notably for relatively recent European history the Democratic Party of Athen's judicial murder of Socrates in the 4th Century BC. The implicit idea, which is the basis for the nation-state as such; "nation-state" is a factual way of referring to this implicit idea. The idea is the same as is embedded in the U.S. Constitutional Preamble, and similarly in the Constitution of Argentina. It is the idea of the General Welfare, which is the most specifically uplifting political conception man has ever known, for it, in the countries in which it has been enshrined, legally raises up the masses of hitherto subjects implicitly living as livestock under the overlordship of their oligarchal and other forms of tyrannical masters, to the level of citizens, for whose benefit the government exists. Prior to that innovation, the people, as in Fascist Italy under Mussolini, and similar modern expressions of the fraudulent, negative, oligarchal principle, existed for the benefit of the State. Joan of Arc died defending the reverse case, died as one of the greatest heroes of history. Were her efforts and sacrifice in vain? Now, you may ask, as an anarcho-capitalist, why should you care about the political shenanigans of centuries past? The reason is simple: You are sovereign. You, and your property, as such, as defined by the non-aggresssion principle, are, when collected under the leadership of your mind, a creative, Agapic, potentially principled mind made in the living image of the Creator, and thus sacred, and with thereby a unique quality of meaning that makes mankind an end in himself, rather than a means to others' ends, then you are sovereign. Until now, the best mankind has been able to do is to generate political sovereignties of groups of sovereign individuals, and this has led, at best, to great advancements in culture and technology, when liberty has been crafted like a work of beautiful art, and at worst, to the depredations of war and intentional democide. It is not hard to tell that there have been more and less benevolent incarnations of the nation-state, as is observed in the difference between the history of the Russia of the Soviet empire and the American republic, respectively. There is progress that is possible, that has been achieved, through the sovereign nation-state principle. But, as American President, emancipator, and martyr Abraham Lincoln stated, the Constitution of the U.S., was intended to form a “more perfect union” between its constituents. And here is where anarcho-capitalism as such should be entering into history, not in a “Year Zero” manner of thinking, whereby all previous history of the principle of the nation-state is wiped away, but as an organic evolution and refinement of that principle. For just as there is not a point at which a heap of sand, when removed grain by grain, ceases to be a heap, so there is not a point at which a nation-state, when its citizens are removed one by one, ceases to be a nation-state, until the points at which neither grains nor citizens remain. So, in essence, in principle, you are a nation-state of one. You exist under the clause of the general welfare, referring not merely to your bodily aggrandisement but to the benefit of your social, loving soul, your higher, creative mind. This lack of political union between yourself and other people, is ironically the greatest union, because the more you embrace and embody principle, the more you will work to recreate, in simulacra, innovatively, those structures and institutions which serve as ligaments binding together human beings into a single condordianta catholica, “on all-embracing agreement,” as coined by the great pre-scientist, jurist, theologian, and philosopher Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa. This speaks not to the negative, "leave me alone" non-aggression principle, here, but what I call the ligamental principle, that humans need in order to avoid what Bruce K. Alexander in his book Globalization of Addiction, termed “psychosocial dislocation.” This, he argues, is a condition of vulnerability to deleterious addictive behaviour, in large part brought on by free market society as presently constituted. Man is not an island, he cannot exist apart from nourishing social structures that have hitherto worked to bind him in a multiply-connected nation-state, as by religion, culture, history, race, language, and territory. The “concordianta catholica” is the ligament principle, the idea that we must, if we are to be free, sound, and progressing in art and science, grow connective structures and bodies among us, societies, institutions, and, especially, families and most especially fertile families. Anarcho-capitalism by itself without the ligament principle is a hopeless pipe-dream that plays into the hands of the oligarchs who want more psychosocial dislocation. An anarcho-capitalist society, therefore, will necessarily be based on three principles: (1) the non-aggression principle which merges with the general welfare principle, and is a more logically thorough working out of that latter reflection of this principle; (2) the aforementioned ligament principle or principle of psychosocial integration; and (3) the principle of creative mentation, of being made in the image of the Creator, which is the basis for all discoveries of principle whether philosophical, artistic, or scientific. Thus, we have the basis for a successful, sovereign, and sacred society.

What about immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of harm to one's civilisation? War is not merely kill-or-be-killed tactics, it's also strategy, and in many strategies innocents are killed in strategic maneuvers that, strictly considered, are not faced with immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm. Sometimes it's just an ammunition dump with a few bottom-dog guards that the warplanes destroy.

Words are real, hroc, they just aren't of absolute importance. They're very important but if we take them too seriously we destroy everything. What we're seeing here is an attack on truthfulness. If I can't say "God bless you" after your sneeze, I can't really be Christian around you, as far as it goes. My Christianity must, here, be concealed, for fear of offending the multiculturalist religion that you belong to. YOUR religion of multiculturalism, which is based on the lie of equality of all cultures and religions, can be trumped to the skies, but MY religion, which is rationally true, scientifically true, based on a Leibnizian understanding of space-time, cannot, because of you and your lying multicultural religion which is currently, briefly, hegemonic. What this calls for is a flanking action. Attacking them directly is costly of time and effort. We're never going to convince them directly. So we need to flank, philosophically, as by addressing them or their circles in terms of the NAP, and in terms of principle in general. Right now the principle-engine of the West is off-line, the West is presently dead, it's already dead, and what we are seeing with "microaggression theory" and "hate speech" and the like are blossoms of decay on the rotting body of the West. Take away the living principle of the cell and the cell dies and begins to dissolve. Principle is our flank.

Why The Grinch Stole Christmas You have all perceived the story of the Grinch and his plan To rob the Who’s in Whoville of their Christmastime élan, But, have you heard the story that no one told to you, Of why the Grinch he hated those small and darling Who’s? Gather close, O Children, and huddle to the fire, That you might know the truth that painted his desire; For, not all things are as they seem, and history be sly, So, hang on tight and learn to see out through a Grinch’s eye… Long ago, in distant past, the world was green and fey, And Pagan Grinches frolicked on the Saturnalia Day. The Grinches’ fur was pink back then, and joyfully they danced, Conducting nighttime rituals to worship and enchant The Nature from whose soil they sprung like magic, pink-furred plants, And back to whom they would return when finished their life’s dance. But, in a sere land far away a Star shone white and fine Down brilliantly to tell the Wise of the first Christmastime. And, slowly, down the centuries the news of Hope arrived: That Agape [AH-gah-pay] – the love of man – could fill all people’s eyes. But, some, you see, had tearless eyes, and, so, the news they buried – Fanatics they became instead of zealots fierce and merry. And, since they had forgot their names, consumed by selfish malice, They were called Who’s, who drank as swine out of the Christian chalice. On one fell day in Wintertime the Grinches pink assembled; Saturnalia would soon come, and, oh, the Grinches trembled! The song! The wine! The meat and lust! And, best, the smiling mirth! As worship they would give unto their sacred Mother Earth. When, unexpectedly they paused and cocked ears to the wind, For sounds of queer and buoyant singing that moment did begin… Over the hills from far away came Who’s in booted march, With Sword and Cross and flaming torch, and chests out with backs arched. “We come in peace!” Their leader cried, And Grinches came to them, to welcome Strangers to their home… …And that’s when Grinchdom died… The Who’s took meat and wine, and looked at all the trappings Of something they could only see as Death in Pagan wrappings. They rose and said: “Forsake your rites! “Come to the Cross! “Do as we say “Or you are lost!” The pink-hued Grinches stood nonplussed, then started laughing – ho! This crazy Whoish Army could surely nothing know. They laughed ‘til they turned purple, and clutched their aching guts, Not seeing how the Who’s looks darkened into the snarls of mutts! “Burn the heathens!” Cried the leader, and his pack of mutts obeyed. And, in the nightmare of that night, to Mother Grinches prayed. But, as the awful flames rose up and ate the pink to black No help did Mother Earth provide, for Hope had turned its back. And, so, the Grinches perishing, transformed from pink to green, In envy of the Whoish power, and ‘twas this they screamed: “Blackest evil we will be! “Ye cannot get us all! “And always plotting sin shall we, “Until Christmas shall fall!” And laughing did the Grinches die, consumed with malice black, And all the Whoish murderers felt shivers up their backs… But, for centuries did Who’s march, seeking to spread the news, And any stray Grinch that they found was forced to speak it too. These frightened Grinches blended in, and married with the Who’s Until there was left only one pure Grinch who history knew. It broke his heart to see the Grinchy race absorbed, Its history erased from time; its pink and joy, a corpse. He clutched his chest, but would not die – For he’d the bluest Grinchy eyes. That Grinch turned power into pain, that flesh’s loss be spirit’s gain. “And I say two can play that game!” Frown metamorphosed into smile. “Now, all I need’s a Crocodile, “And a Wolf to stand upon it, “That they might pull my Sled of Doom, “And pull me up to my cold room!” Crocodiles were hard to find, and Wolves were all extinct; Instead, he settled for a dog, and up the slopes he slinked. Thereupon the two they dwelt, Grinch pondering his fate, And, in time, malice mellowed into joyful hate. Now, hate is only bad if it be shone at the wrong thing – A Bald Eagle only flies if it hates to waste its wings. The Grinch’s hate was bad only because he did not see That the modern Who’s were zealots, lamblike, fair, and merry. But, if not for his hate to drive him on to naughty deeds He never would have sliced Roast Beast upon which he now feeds; For Agape did triumph on that fateful Christmas day When Grinch, the would-be Thief, arrived, and for his sins did pay.