WHY HAVE THE JEWS HAD SUCH A HARD TIME (A) ADAPTING TO MODERNITY, and (B) GRASPI

WHY HAVE THE JEWS HAD SUCH A HARD TIME (A) ADAPTING TO MODERNITY, and (B) GRASPING TRUTH, and (C) HOLDING TERRITORY? AND WHY HAVE WESTERNERS FAILED TO RESIST THE WORKS OF JEWISH INTELLECTUALS?

—“The problem [facing jewish culture] is not the [ancient] past it is the consequence of the diaspora– more detail plz?”—

A nomadic people, a low trust people, in the most competitive place on earth (the crescent), repeatedly conquered, lacking the resources to defend themselves against the landed aristocracies (mesopotamia, the nile, the aegean) develop a separatist group evolutionary strategy, a narrative religion to support it, a law to advance it, and philosophical arguments to defend it from criticism.

These people are unable (as are all the semitic post-pastoral peoples) to construct material commons. All cultures retain the metaphysics of their military origins – in the case of middle easterners, desert and steppe peoples, this is ‘raid and retreat’. The geography encourages it. And we have no way of knowing whether this is now genetic or not – it appears to have had genetic consequences for all groups. The combination of genetic, mythical, traditional, normative, and group evolutionary strategy are sufficient but over generations we all seem to evolve in favor of our strategies.

They then develop a false history in order to argue for the retention of property after the babylonians depart. This history is very useful at separatism through dual ethics, and assists in the formation of a body of cultural and tribal law – especially in an era where ostracization in a competitive land means near certain slavery or death.

The consequence is that this same law is formulated for successful survival within a host population by localizing all gains, rather than control of territory which socializes gains into the commons – particularly the very high cost of defense, and the norms that require us to defend the commons. And therein lies the problem.

They then are conquered repeatedly but finally by the Romans and Arabs, who forced them out of the territory. They are forced out of the territory for failing to contribute to the commons. This is the story of judaism. Failure to construct material commons must without exception end in parasitism upon the commons of others.

Economics explains what emotionally loaded arguments do not. People do not ‘feel’ for arbitrary reasons. They feel for material reasons.

The diaspora creates isolated communities of males that largely breed with local females, capturing local genes (a good thing), and then transferring to inbreeding and insularity – repeating the privatization of local commons and the non-contribution to commons – and specialization in many parasitic activities especially against the lower classes.

Worse, the need for literacy makes the jews good bureaucratic servants of whatever malicious state will provide them with protection, and the people retaliate against the jews as agents of the state.

This ethic persists over time. But because of the constant purging of the underclasses from the tribe, the constraint on reproduction of undesirable members, and the upward redistribution of reproduction through the ‘teachers’. Because of this the tribe cannot construct an army sufficient to hold land.

So the jews have been even more successful than the europeans at eugenic reproduction. But despite eugenic reproduction, jews have been less successful anywhere and everywhere they go because they are unwilling or unable, or genetically, culturally, or traditionally cannot intuit, the ‘good’ of production of commons.

Without having a territory, institutions, and fixed capital, the jewish people have not learned to intuit as ‘good’, and embody in their myths, traditions, institutional, and law, the high cost of investment in physical and defensive commons, nor the importance of militarizing the underclasses to defend that territory.

So this is why Israel is important, and the cleft in Jewish culture between those who integrate and abandon it, those who are hosted by westerners advocate for, but do not fight for their territory, those who live there and fight for it. This factionalization is evidence of the failure of the jewish people to learn the lessons of their history. And a failure of jewish thought leaders to change the narrative from one of victimization to one of self-failure that must be corrected.

The rise and fall of the kingdom of Israel is predictable given their mythology and tradition. The rise and fall of modern Israel is playing out now. I have very little faith in the ability of jewish intellectuals to learn the lesson of history since the self worth obtained from the mythos cannot tolerate critical reflection: “people don’t want us around for a good reason.”

Yet there has been great value in eugenic reproduction, literacy, and the necessity of economic success and survival through specialization in non-physical capital at the expense of not possessing land or the the military capacity to hold it.

It is common in jewish literature to misunderstand the western (or anyone’s) use of the underclasses as ‘army in waiting’. It is not uncommon in the west for the underclasses to be aware that they are an army in waiting and that this is precisely why we must invest in them and treat them with respect.

So the past reformation of judaism was not sufficient. Prior to the arrival of eastern european jews westerners had integrated german jews to the point where the difference between Scottish Presbyterians and american jews was a function of “which club we belonged to.”

A PEOPLE MUST SURVIVE

It is necessary for a people to persist. Separatism (non-integration) is a rational group evolutionary strategy.

BUT WHY SPECIALIZATION IN, EXCELLENCE IN, NON-TRUTH?

But why did the jewish people create pseudosciences? Why is ‘truth’ and ‘science’ a harder concept to grasp? Thats a very interesting question.

This ‘legalism’ or ‘verbal reality’ created by jewish people over Millenia is the reason for the rapid production of pseudosciences during the 1800’s and early 1900’s. And the use of propaganda and pseudo-rationalism during the 20th. Just as the poor and women were able to move and join movements in the roman era, the industrial revolution, the new continent, and the migration of people and classes, culminating in the world wars, made women and poor susceptible targets for pleasing pseudosciences spread by propaganda.

Do I think these men knew they were ‘speaking untruths’?

—Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, the linguists Roman Jakobson and Noam Chomsky, the literary critic Roland Barthes

…. and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser and Nicos Poulantzas, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Löwenthal,, Franz Leopold Neumann, Henryk Grossman, Siegfried Kracauer, Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Walter Benjamin, Jürgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Axel, Honneth, Oskar Negt, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer

…. and the postmodernists Martin Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, Douglas Kellner…

Although we must take notice that the french, german, american, and British postmodernists are making use of the german method of pseudo-moral, pseudo-rationalism: ADVICE – not the pseudoscientific: LAW.

… and Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard as well. The fact that Hoppe’s work on incentives is solid has no bearing on his nonsense-arguments advancing Misesian and Rothbardian pseudoscience (which I’ve written extensively about elsewhere).

Did Marx know he would be responsible for 100M deaths? Or that his work was wishful thinking and pseudoscience? Well, he did by the time he died, which is why he stopped working on it. He had read the Austrians. He knew he was wrong. But he would stave without the support of his benefactor, so he could not recant.

Do I think Mises and Rothbard knew they were damaging the case for liberty, as much as adorno’s crew were damaging western law and testimony, as much as the jewish pseudoscientists were damaging western truth and science, as much as jewish media was destroying a thousand years of gradual “aristocratic- ization” of european commoners into lower time preference and higher production of commons? No, It’s that they realized very late in life that they were wrong. And it was hard for them to accept.

Do I think that the jewish communist and postmodern attack on western art was intentional? Well we have record of those conversations, so yes.

Do I think that Adorno and crew knew that they were lying? Well, in his own words he said that they just did what was sensible to them: they made it all up.

THEY DIDN’T KNOW “TRUTH”

I think instead of lying, they did not know the difference between the true, the moral and beautiful (natural law), and the pursuit of power and competitive advantage by selling wishful thinking to a feminized population without experience and traditions of self control.

***Why did these people not know that they were speaking falsehoods? This is the interesting question. It is doubtful that they did. So why did they think in falsehoods? Why did they attack commons? Why did they ‘make it up?’. Why did they attack beauty?***

They had spent almost two Millenia creating an internal language of gossip, and a holy book of dual ethics, for the purpose of maintaining group cohesion as diasporic wanderers without land.

With eugenics, separatism, literacy, they created a very talented separatist minority that specialized in pragmatism, through verbal persuasion, gossip, and ridicule. They persisted as a separate group, and did not die out, for this reason.

And to no small degree, their ability to transition from martial management of groups to monetary and then credit management of groups was precisely because of their history without concern for commons.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH WESTERN MAN?

We can criticize other groups for their group evolutionary strategies. But this is not logical. The question is why westerners failed to resist untruths. Why were westerners defeated by untruths? Why did we let them defeat us? What is it about western man that he did not defeat these arguments on one hand, and why did it culminate in the nazi program to cleanse Europe of the communists and their advocates instead? Why were we intellectually unable to defeat untruth, and why did we resort to violence?

What was wrong with western man in the Ancient era? What was wrong with western man in the industrial era? What was wrong with western man in the postwar era? What is wrong with western man today that we do not close our borders and defend ourselves from fallacy and lie?

WE FAILED TO ARTICULATE OUR GROUP STRATEGY: COMMONS

We have no book. That’s why. It was too hard to create a bible of Truth: Testimony, Natural Law and Physical law – and we have failed to do it, and therefore failed to defend ourselves against lies, despite our preference for truth as a means of constructing commons.

We can categorize arguments by many different axis, but the one that I rely upon is group evolutionary strategy: what is the purpose of this set of philosophies? What group evolutionary strategy is advanced by this attempt? If the choice between truth, wishful thinking, and outright lying occurs, why does a group choose one or the other?

All groups seek to advance their group evolutionary strategies as universal goods. The question is whether they are in fact universal goods: “Natural Law”.

What I criticize is our failure to understand that the west’s competitive advantage was the production of commons: the commons of truth telling, of jury, of common law, universal standing, natural law, of civic society, of militial defense, and of sovereignty.

And that rothbardian LIBERTINISM is precisely libertinism and not libertarianism. It is an attempt to justify escaping payment for the commons necessary for the production of a condition of liberty by the suppression of all disincentive NOT to cooperate: the incremental suppression of murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by suggestion, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, fraud by free riding, privatization by non-productive exchange, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, invasion, colonization, conquest and extermination.

In my work I all but eliminate genetics, and focus on institutions. I think others do the opposite (MacDonald). It does me no good to focus on genetics since that rquires killing lots of people. Whereas focusing on institutions will eventually produce the same ends regardless of current genetic composition.

My goal of course is to destroy ALL the fallacies: Anglo Aristocracy of Everyone, French Peasant Equality, German Rationalism (moral pseudoscience), and Jewish Pseudocience, pseudorationalism, mysticism, and in general, the principles of dual ethics, and the morality of ‘cheating’ embodied in the statement ‘it takes two to make a deal’, when no, a deal is constrained by externalities produced.

So if I can create that ‘book’ and the test of truth, and I can disable all possibility of error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing-overloading-suggestion, outright deceit, and propagandism, by merely providing a set of tests for the common law, such that publication in the commons requires the same warranty as production of goods and services in the commons, then the only group evolutionary strategy left to man – regardless of genetic or cultural background – is truth and natural law.

And we need not worry about the pandora effect – the catastrophe of adding women to a democratic polity, nor the failure of groups to know when they are ‘lying’ by wishful thinking.

GOSSIP IS NO LONGER NECESSARY – POLITICS IS A NATURAL LAW FOR THE GOOD AND A CURSE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT.

But perhaps more importantly, there is no moralism that needs utterance. There is no political or religious movement that needs utterance. There is only truth, productivity, and consumption and commons that results from them. All else must be theft.

***We do not need to know what is ‘best’ – we need only to know what others will do voluntarily, and to assist them in doing it voluntarily. And we will discover what is best. ***

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine