Skulls

The 'Skulls', notes from Anthony Sutton's work on the subject

An Example of Elite intermarriage.

Is George W. Bush the product of inbreeding?

“From time to time their plans go awry.” p. 53

“The left leaning segment in the press can always be relied upon to automatically assault ideas and information from the right, and vice versa” ibid

“....the in-group lacks morality and diversity. Its a kind of jet set politburo. Charming, power hungry and myopic at the same time...”

“It is doubtful if John D Rockefeller or Mrs Russell Sage, and certainly the Ford family, ever understood how these funds would be used for a long term conditioning plan”

The elite need shadows, hence the plethora of secret societies existing for their private needs, outside of even the confines of a secret government.

'The point to hold in mind is that both groups use Hegelian theory of the state as a start point, ie the state is superior to the individual. Prussian militarism, Nazism and Marxism have the same philosophical roots.'

p.63

'all that exists publicly for the order is the charter of the Russell Trust and that tells you nothing'-p.66

'Hegelian absurdities have thoroughly penetrated the U.S. educational system....'

-p. 118

“Some of the biggest men in the US and in commerce and manufacturing know that there is a power so organized, so subtle, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when condemning it.”

-Woodrow Wilson

Ethos

How free are men to choose their path in life and what are the limits of what one can do in life? Are they on the plains or in the mountains?

Our bodies remember the hunter gatherer days, and there is no reason to assume that it is not buried somewhere in our psyche, and all the collectivism versus individualism comes from this memory.

If our bodies are sick in cities, eating the agriculturalist’s diet, how about our spirit?

Nozick/Rawls Notes

The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society.

1. Nozick's discussion of Rawls's theory of justice raises the dialogue between libertarianism and liberalism to an epic level. The entitlement theory is sketched. In slogan form it states, "From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen". It comprises a theory of (1) justice in acquisition; (2) justice in rectification if (1) is violated (rectification which might require apparently redistributive measures); (3) justice in holdings, and (4) justice in transfer. Assuming justice in acquisition, entitlement to holdings is a function of repeated applications of (3) and (4). Nozick's entitlement theory is a non-patterned historical principle. Almost all other principles of distributive justice (egalitarianism, utilitarianism) are patterned principles of justice. Such principles follow the form, "to each according to...

Nozick’s view, is that all non-entitlement theories of justice are false. For all such theories claim that it is a necessary condition for a distribution’s being just that it have a certain structure or fit a certain pattern; but the Wilt Chamberlain example (which can be reformulated so that D1 is, instead of an egalitarian distribution, a distribution according to hard work, desert, or whatever) shows that a distribution (such as D2) can be just even if it doesn’t have a particular structure or pattern.
Moreover, the example shows that “liberty upsets patterns,” that allowing individuals freely to use their holdings as they choose will inevitably destroy any distribution advocated by non-entitlement theories, whether they be socialist, egalitarian liberal, or some other theory of distribution. And the corollary of this is that patterns destroy liberty, that attempts to enforce a particular distributional pattern or structure over time will necessarily involve intolerable levels of coercion, forbidding individuals from using the fruits of their talents, abilities, and labor as they see fit.

Secession

Pros:

The federal government has failed to secure the border, seceding would allow Texas to secure itself against the failed country it borders to the south.

Everyone in Texas would cease paying the illegal income tax. This would mean a mass of capital available.

Texas could get away from using the dollar whose value has been dropping consistently

Texas national guard would not be deployed to the Eurasian landmass to fight low intensity conflicts when they are supposed to be weekend warriors who assist in disasters

Texas would now be able to negotiate its own trade treaties, to benefit its workers. This would mean no NAFTA/ CAFTA with its economic dislocations

Texas could follow the will of its people in regards to abortion as Roe v. Wade would not apply

Texas would be free to develop without the mass of federal regulation. This would mean high international competitiveness. Texas is a globally competitive-sized economy as is. This would also mean more small business

Texas could uphold its anti-drone statutes, extend protections to the right to bear arms, and opt out of the Obamacare disaster as well as any future disasters legislated by Washington

Texas would be free to set its own minimum wage laws. This would create jobs

Texas would be free from Corporate Taxes. This could mean even more companies headquartering in Austin and more activity in the Houston Port. Federal duties on shipping would be gone.

Texas would be free to enforce existing drug statues according to the model used by the federal government or revamp them.

No excise taxes on tobacco and liquor. No more environmental regulation at the federal level.

Cons: the U.S. Federal Government believes in a strong union theory of the Constitution that regards secession as illegal because the constitution represents 'government by the people as a whole' rather than by the states coming together as units and forming the federal government. This would mean they would respond with force as they have in the past when states tried to leave the union. Another problem would be all recipients of federal aid would be out of their benefits.

Frontier

Up to our own day American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West....The frontier is the line of the most rapid and effective Americanization....The frontier promoted the formation of a composite nationality for the American people....The legislation which most developed the powers of the national government, and played the largest part in its activity, was conditioned on the frontier....The pioneer needed the goods of the coast, and so the grand series of internal improvements and railroad legislation began, with potent nationalizing effects....But the most important effect of the frontier has been the promotion of democracy here and in Europe. As has been indicated, the frontier is productive of individualism....It produces antipathy to control, and particularly to any direct control....The frontier states that came into the Union in the first quarter of a century of its existence came in with democratic suffrage provisions, and had reactive effects of the highest importance upon the older states....
To the frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics. That coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients....What the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks, breaking the bond of custom, offering new experiences, calling out new institutions and activities, that, and more, the ever retreating frontier has been to the United States directly, and to the nations of Europe more remotely. And now, four centuries from the discovery of America, at the end of a hundred years of life under the Constitution, the frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first period of American history.

-Frederick Jackson Turner

Hiatus

College. I am entering my late 20s, which makes me a late-bloomer to this college thing, but I am on track to graduate sooner than any member of my family. My first job was as a VB programmer.

Here are my college tips:

College is a lifestyle. It is kind of like a march through a minefield. Sometimes you will get popped. The way people live in college his highly illegal and highly unhealthy in the long run. Keith Richards is some sort of freak- his lifestyle isn’t something you would want to do over time.

If you get out without a legal issue, you will have some personality ones. People work doubles and then try to pull off studying and people wonder why Adderall is popular.

-Take as much AP as possible in HS.

-CLEP testing

-Community college

-Pick your four-year school wisely

Drop out if you have to. You can always come back. Consider vocational training or a two-year degree. Expand your resume. Don’t get stuck in food service unless you are a well-paid manager.

Don’t get fucked over by landlords.

Debt isn’t good. Avoid it until your last two years. Pick your major. Stick to it, drop out if you need to find yourself. This isn’t your education. You will have to get that on your own.

Why get a degree if its worthless? To emigrate, become and officer in the military, or become a manger. Be careful with this last one- you can just work hard and get this without the degree.