[B]oth Jewish and Muslim cults include the original claims of Megalomania and utopianism that Abraham invested in the doctrine, and which is the excuse used to both create unity and prevent assimilation into host civilizations. The master race of the Nazis was the same argument made by genetic destiny rather than divine command. There is no difference. The middle east evolved separatism because it is an intersection of the races, and leadership wanted to prevent assimilation into assyrian, egyptian, and greek civilizations. And none could hold the territory against them. So they all failed to create a territorial ethic. It’s to be expected. They were traders and herders who raided and rain, not farmers who conducted war and held their ground. But there is no difference at all between Nazi Racism and Aesthetic-Culturism and Jewish Racism and Religiocity and Muslim Religiocity. None. They are group evolutionary strategies for landed germanic and unlanded semitic peoples. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less. We carry out history in our genes as well as our cultures. Non-integration is the premise of jewish and muslim societies. (That ought to ruffle a few feathers.)
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Prophet’s Words Are Wielded Only By Those Who Can Wield Them
[W]estern man, like eastern man, is poly-philosophical. UPPER – TRUTH – RULE – FORCE 1) Aristotle’s Law of truth, The Common Law, and The Martial Law of those who rule: aristocracy. MIDDLE – UTILITY – COOPERATION – TRADE 2) The Host of Middle Class Philosophers myths of aspiration for cooperation, 3) Aesop and the Nordic, Celtic, and Germanic Myths of household wisdom, LOWER – NECESSITY – INSURANCE – GOSSIP 4) Aquinas and the Nazarene’s philosophy of poverty, suffering, and hope. It is not a mystery that these philosophies roughly correspond to the IQ distribution. Both out of ability and out of utility.
-
Prophet’s Words Are Wielded Only By Those Who Can Wield Them
[W]estern man, like eastern man, is poly-philosophical. UPPER – TRUTH – RULE – FORCE 1) Aristotle’s Law of truth, The Common Law, and The Martial Law of those who rule: aristocracy. MIDDLE – UTILITY – COOPERATION – TRADE 2) The Host of Middle Class Philosophers myths of aspiration for cooperation, 3) Aesop and the Nordic, Celtic, and Germanic Myths of household wisdom, LOWER – NECESSITY – INSURANCE – GOSSIP 4) Aquinas and the Nazarene’s philosophy of poverty, suffering, and hope. It is not a mystery that these philosophies roughly correspond to the IQ distribution. Both out of ability and out of utility.
-
How Paul Krugman Uses The Big Lie
(important piece) (progress on the cosmopolitan method of lying) [K]rugman is one of the most artful liars in the modern world. We tend to criticize him on his errors. But casting his work as error is too generous: he is simply an extremely artful liar. If you could ask the Genii how to create the world’s most objectively evil lie, it would include the use of half truth, used as a means of suggestion, to evoke a moral altruistic response, to force an intertemporal predictive bias, that obscured the loss of difficult-to-measure-capital, as an increase in current consumption. You would convince the lion to eat it’s tail. This is Krugman’s technique. That this subtle technique is the origin of The Monotheistic Lie, (The First Great Lie), as well as the 19th-20th century cosmopolitan pseudo-sciences: Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Marx-Keynes (The Second Great Lie), should not surprise us. What Marx achieved through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion in dialectic, Keynes achieved by abandoning loading, and relying upon framing, overloading and suggestion, with innumeracy. This is Keynes’ achievement: to convert the pseudo-moral, into the pseudo-scientific. But the result is the same: obscuring the consumption of capital accumulated over millennia (k-selection for eugenic quality) into short term consumption (r-selection for dysgenic quantity). In other words, the Cosmopolitan’s second attempt at The Great Lie using the same means. In 2009 I wanted to start blogging about his technique, but rapidly I realized his ability to generate deceit was inexpensive, and the required effort to demonstrate the construction of his lies was terribly expensive. So I’m thrilled that those more capable of it – Bob Murphy – are doing it instead. Once you understand the mechanism of Krugman’s deception is merely an instance of the Great Lie Technique applied to economics, and his use of suggestion on one hand, and ridicule on the other, you realize he’s just using moral cognitive biases as a very sophisticated slight of hand by which to justify, encourage, and obscure the transfer of capital to consumption, so that the state can expand and the unproductive can obtain commission on the redistribution of capital to consumption. We can only do what we did in the past, and use science – the discipline of truth telling – to over come the Great Lies. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
How Paul Krugman Uses The Big Lie
(important piece) (progress on the cosmopolitan method of lying) [K]rugman is one of the most artful liars in the modern world. We tend to criticize him on his errors. But casting his work as error is too generous: he is simply an extremely artful liar. If you could ask the Genii how to create the world’s most objectively evil lie, it would include the use of half truth, used as a means of suggestion, to evoke a moral altruistic response, to force an intertemporal predictive bias, that obscured the loss of difficult-to-measure-capital, as an increase in current consumption. You would convince the lion to eat it’s tail. This is Krugman’s technique. That this subtle technique is the origin of The Monotheistic Lie, (The First Great Lie), as well as the 19th-20th century cosmopolitan pseudo-sciences: Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Marx-Keynes (The Second Great Lie), should not surprise us. What Marx achieved through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion in dialectic, Keynes achieved by abandoning loading, and relying upon framing, overloading and suggestion, with innumeracy. This is Keynes’ achievement: to convert the pseudo-moral, into the pseudo-scientific. But the result is the same: obscuring the consumption of capital accumulated over millennia (k-selection for eugenic quality) into short term consumption (r-selection for dysgenic quantity). In other words, the Cosmopolitan’s second attempt at The Great Lie using the same means. In 2009 I wanted to start blogging about his technique, but rapidly I realized his ability to generate deceit was inexpensive, and the required effort to demonstrate the construction of his lies was terribly expensive. So I’m thrilled that those more capable of it – Bob Murphy – are doing it instead. Once you understand the mechanism of Krugman’s deception is merely an instance of the Great Lie Technique applied to economics, and his use of suggestion on one hand, and ridicule on the other, you realize he’s just using moral cognitive biases as a very sophisticated slight of hand by which to justify, encourage, and obscure the transfer of capital to consumption, so that the state can expand and the unproductive can obtain commission on the redistribution of capital to consumption. We can only do what we did in the past, and use science – the discipline of truth telling – to over come the Great Lies. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Can We Construct A Fixed Constitution?
[A]lexander I am fairly certain that it is possible if not necessary to construct a finished constitutional basis for rule of law. It may be impossible to imagine the means of production of commons that we call government within that rule of law. Because the basis of the rule of law appears to be a universal logical necessity. Yet the basis of government production of commons under rule of law is a mere technology that must adapt to innovations in knowledge. Just as the common law must constantly innovate in order to prohibit newly found means of imposing costs upon others against their will. So from this perspective the hierarch of law is:
Which is a bottom up construction of a constitutional order. Curt Doolittle. The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Can We Construct A Fixed Constitution?
[A]lexander I am fairly certain that it is possible if not necessary to construct a finished constitutional basis for rule of law. It may be impossible to imagine the means of production of commons that we call government within that rule of law. Because the basis of the rule of law appears to be a universal logical necessity. Yet the basis of government production of commons under rule of law is a mere technology that must adapt to innovations in knowledge. Just as the common law must constantly innovate in order to prohibit newly found means of imposing costs upon others against their will. So from this perspective the hierarch of law is:
Which is a bottom up construction of a constitutional order. Curt Doolittle. The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Running Rothbardian Libertinism Into the Ground
[R]othbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense. There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules. The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists. So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government). Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs. There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself. And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem. There are no free rides. Liberty is rare because it is expensive. And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it. But the returns on the high trust society warrant it. Because westerners dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine SOURCE http://ex-army.blogspot.com/…/running-libertarianism-into-g…? AND ORIGINAL POST http://www.everyjoe.com/…/pol…/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
-
Running Rothbardian Libertinism Into the Ground
[R]othbard “appropriated” the term “libertarianism” and instead gave us anarcho capitalism as the reinterpretation of cosmopolitan ethics of the eastern european borderlands, under Russian, Lithuanian, and Polish rule. It is the ethic of the ghetto. Of the people who do not produce commons or defense. There is nothing ‘libertarian’ in Rothbarianism, and nothing moral in his or Block’s attempt to construct moral and legal rules. The word “is” remains extremely confusing for english speakers, since it refers both to “exists as”, and can be used as a shortcut for AVOIDING or CONFLATING, or DECEIVING the method by which something exists. So I prefer to state libertarianism as the reciprocal insurance of all individuals in a polity against the undesired imposition of costs upon that which has been transformed at the cost of individual actions or inactions – whether that cost be imposed by an individual(violence, theft, fraud, externality) a group of individuals (conspiracy), or an organization devoted to the construction of commons (government). Liberty can only be constructed by this means: mutual insurance against the involuntary imposition of costs. There is no free lunch. And arguments in favor of ‘belief’ in liberty, or belief that we should leave one another alone, are merely fraudulent attempts to obtain the experience of liberty without paying the very high cost of both insuring one another against impositions of costs, and the high cost of refraining from imposing costs upon others, and the high cost of creating commons that produce disproportionate returns, including the commons of Liberty itself. And as empirical evidence we should note that the cosmopolitans lost eastern Europe just as their ancestors lost Spain and Jerusalem. There are no free rides. Liberty is rare because it is expensive. And because only a militia of warriors possesses the incentive to construct it. But the returns on the high trust society warrant it. Because westerners dragged man out of ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds because of it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine SOURCE http://ex-army.blogspot.com/…/running-libertarianism-into-g…? AND ORIGINAL POST http://www.everyjoe.com/…/pol…/why-im-no-longer-libertarian/
-
The Power To Enforce Laws That Have Been Discovered
(by Eli Harman)
“Make lying illegal and you’ll outlaw the truth. So what other “LAWS” do you want to make? What other power do you want to give to those who have power?”
[Y]ou misunderstand. My aim isn’t to give power, but to take it, and to hold it. In specific, the power I seek is not that of MAKING laws, but of enforcing those that I DISCOVER to be conductive to human flourishing and cooperation, by such processes as shall prove most conducive to the discovery of such laws, meaning, in large part, distributed processes. But that is not the whole part, because hierarchy and authority have their place too. Some conflicts are not decidable under law, because there may be no objectively “right” or “best” answer. But the role of authority is in pronouncing judgement in such cases, when there is nevertheless some benefit to being on the same page. And in the never-ending clash and conflict between authorities, we must suppose truth, wisdom, and justice to confer some advantages, though not all will embody or exhibit them, and none perfectly.