http://www.kaotic.com/43519_War-Videos-%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%86-%D0%B8%D0%B7-%D0%A1%D0%A8%D0%90-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8E..htmlamerica is full of useful idiots on all sides of the spectrum…
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:54:00 UTC
(more thoughts)
Either libertarianism stands scientific criticism or it doesn’t. So far it doesn’t. And either an argument can be constructed scientifically or it can’t. I can and have constructed it scientifically where it is open falsification. It can be criticized by rational argument. It can be weakly falsified by surveys, and it can be hard-falsified by experiment. Why should libertarianism be buried in the backwater of pseudoscience? It would be one thing if it had to be, and therefore had to remain an ideology, and neither a philosophy or a scientifically supportable argument. But that isn’t the case. If we CAN state libertarianism scientifically then what are we afraid of other than the rather obvious fact that to construct a state of liberty one will require a high trust polity that suppresses unethical as well as at least SOME immoral conduct?
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:38:00 UTC
It’s Less than 9 hours from Dresden to where we are in Lviv, about 7-9 hours from Lviv to Kiev, and about 11+ hours from Kiev to Lugansk where the fighting is. That means the distance from us here in Lviv to Lugansk is about 18-20 hours drive, and the distance to Germany is about 9 hours drive. I hope that puts it in perspective.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:25:00 UTC
David Gordon pretty much eviscerates Lester’s argument on Lester’s terms – which is perhaps the most gracious way of doing so. I have a better understanding of Popper’s arguments than David so I’m producing my own criticism, not just of lester but of all cosmopolitan thinkers in the space, Lester included. It’s just odd to see someone so graceful about it.
What I like about David’s criticism, is it shows just why non-operational, non-testimonial arguments are so open to deception. I suppose that, from Lester’s writing (and my few conversations with him) that he merely applies the ideas of popper in an autistic but uncomprehending attempt to justify libertarianism, while at the same time claiming he does not practice justification. But as Gordon points out, he uses falsification as a means of distraction in the marxist tradition rather than as a means of hardening his theories.
Further, Popper’s arguments are warnings against the excessive use of certainty in science, where general descriptions of very causally dense theories an appear to be true (Keynesian and post-keynesian economic theory, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian Logic) but are merely useful allegories for conveying meaning. They are not scientific and therefore should not be used for the purpose of persuasion only for the purpose of conveying MEANING. Popper commits this sin everywhere. He conveys meaning, not necessity. ie: he creates meaningful narratives but rarely if ever constructs necessary arguments. Even his Critical Preference is logically but it appears not empirically true. Part of the verbalist era of logic in the early twentieth century: it is not clear that that many of our theories are erroneous, rather that they are as precise as the information we have, and that we seem to be fairly good at increasing precision via testing, even if we are not very good at increasing precision via modeling.
More later.
The problem is, we don’t have people in the libertarian movement capable of making these arguments. I think they exist in math and physics, but I kind of suspect that in the libertarian movement we just don’t have the talent.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 18:04:00 UTC
THE SECTS OF LIBERTARIANISM
(worth repeating)
Libertarianism: a preference for liberty as the first priority, where liberty is defined as a monopoly of control over myself, and any thing I have obtained through homesteading (first use), voluntary exchange, or transformation thereof. And that all political goods must be willingly constructed rather than involuntarily constructed. That is pretty much the extent of it. My work is an attempt to provide solutions for creating complex and desirable commons voluntarily rather than through a monopoly of majoritarian dictatorship.
Prior generations of ‘libertarians’ from the cosmopolitan sect (Jewish Enlightenment) of liberty have attempted to disavow all possible construction of the commons, whereas classical liberals (in both German and English Enlightenment sects) maintain the civic society as a means of voluntarily producing the commons.
However it is only possible to produce commons in a society where people refrain from consuming the commons, and only Europeans appear to have constructed a society where individuals do not consume commons that are reserved from consumption.
We can easily distinguish Jewish and European libertarianism by whether or not they deny responsibility to pay for voluntarily constructed commons versus whether they obligate us to pay for voluntarily constructed commons. The civic commons is the western European competitive advantage, while promoting consumption at all costs is the cosmopolitan evolutionary strategy.
There is nothing illogical about these opposing strategies. European martial land owners must pay high costs for preserving control over territory necessary to construct productive resources, while jewish transitory merchants benefit by the opposite strategy of profiting from trade and consumption.
Theoretically these are not incompatible strategies. In history they have been incompatible strategies.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 15:41:00 UTC
ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT USING THE WORD “FAIR” AS A INSTRUMENTAL MEASURE IS A LIE.
(worth repeating)
–“Fairness may be perceptible but it is not instrumentally calculable, and as such the scope of fairness is limited to members of the small, local group; and any use of the word ‘fair’ beyond the immediately perceptible is not only an error it is a deception if not an outright lie.”–
–“We have a sense of fairness – the correct term is ‘Proportionality’, and left and right value proportionality differently (equality vs meritocracy), however it is true that all people sense violations of proportionality. However, the fact remains that this is the projection of a sense-perception onto a scale requiring instrumentalism. As such, any statement of proportionality is a fallacy since such a thing is incalculable. Instead, we respond to people who are in need, but we do not SUPPORT people who are in need as a matter of course, because it is UNFAIR (disproportionate) to support people who systemically seek rents at the expense of others. We DO seek to insure each other against the vicissitudes of life, but we also seek to insure each other against free riding. One cannot make one statement without making the other without engaging in verbal deception.”—
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 11:09:00 UTC
THE GREAT CRIMES OF HISTORY
TEMPLARS: Bankers. Warriors. With Swords. Without Land. Is there any better strategy on earth than that one? The end of the Templars was on par with the christianization of rome, and the enfranchisement of the lower classes into the houses of commons instead of their own house, and the french revolution. Had we kept the Templars but prohibited them by charter from owning land, we never would have had the Rothschilds. We never would have had many of our problems today.
If I could get the holy see to enact one thing only, it would be to restate the charter of the Templars as warrior banker economists, obedient to the church, and requiring that we kill those who abridge that charter.
This act would alone, within four generations, restore the Church.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 10:06:00 UTC
THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE
(important)(pervasive Russian corruption and sympathizers in the bureaucracy)
Entry into the western family of countries requires the elimination of Russian Kleptocracy (systemic corruption) that was endemic under Russian backed administrations. It does no good to give Ukraine money or access to Europe, if this corruption is not eradicated. (And this is why Russia is fighting so hard in Ukraine, because if Ukraine can, like Poland, evolve out of a low-trust, high-corruption, kleptocracy in the absence of Russian influence, then so can Russia and the Russian people. To prevent loss of control (Putin is now wealthier than bill gates), Putin and his ThinkTanks have used the press to convince Russians that they are not white (european) and that the west is engaged in suicide that the Russians must defend against, thus making them non-european. And therefore justifying totalitarianism (russian kelptocracy).
UKRAINE’S COMING PURGE OF RUSSIAN SYMPATHIZERS
Ukraine has just started a new organization, whose purpose is to cleanse the Ukrainian bureaucracy of corruption (russian-sympathzing kleptocrats, as well as corrupt Ukrainians). This new organizatino is structured as a new independent police force in a rigid hierarchy and entry into these positions requires that applications possess experience in business and industry and NOT IN GOVERNMENT. (yes you heard that right. what if we did that in the states?) The salaries for these jobs are high enough that graft and corruption are hard to accomplish.
BIOMETRIC PASSPORTS
So, in order to issue biometric passports they must first purge the ranks, show europeans that they can reliably issue passports, and demonstrate that the passports themselves and the equipment will not fall into Russian and Russian-sympathizing hands.
Trust matters, everywhere and everywhere. Diversity destroys trust. You cannot invade ukraine with russians and create trust, any more than you can invade any other populace with a competitor and create trust.
WHY RUSSIA HAS A MORAL ARGUMENT: WESTERN SUICIDAL MULTICULTURALISM
The single argument that Russia has going for it is western suicidal stance on immigration. Russia promotes nationalism, as should the european countries. If not for this one problem in the west, Russia would have no argument to make. But as long as the west proceeds with its suicide through multiculturalism, equality and massive immigration, Russia will have a legitimate argument with which to separate Russian peoples from european peoples.
The means by which we unite all circumpolar people is to re-nationalize liberalism and end the divide between west and eastern Europe.
You might not like it but that’s just how it is.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 09:58:00 UTC
SUSCEPTIBILITY DUE TO TRUST NOT STUPIDITY
I don’t mean to call Rothbardians stupid and immoral per-se. It’s easy to be misled by pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science. It’s easy to be misled by half-truths. It’s easy to be misled by words that sound moral but which produce immoral actions.
I don’t mean to call Misesians stupid per se. It is easy for average and above average minds, to be misled by pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science when it is articulated with that great a level of detail. That’s the purpose of loading (emotions), framing (selective inclusion and exclusion of properties), and overloading (great detail, and repetition).
But the susceptibility of those minds capable of managing economic thought, which requires consideration of more dimensions that other forms of thought, demonstrates why so many are susceptible to the other forms of cosmopolitan deception via loading, framing and overloading: leftism in general, and neo-conservatism.
They manipulate our moral intuitions. We are the most moral people. We are most subject to pseudoscientific excitement of our moral intuitions. Whatever moral bias you adhere to, the cosmopolitans have a pseudoscientific and immoral argument to excite you: leftism, libertarianism, or neo-conservatism. And high trust europeans are readily susceptible to these false moral arguments.
Just as our scientists and philosophers have been subject to such pseudoscience in the form of abstract truth (Popperian truth as well), psychology, sociology cantorian sets, platonic truth, mathematical platonism, and modeling.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 09:42:00 UTC
TRUTH AND FEMALE MYSTICISM
(very controversial)
TRUTH BY CULTURE
German Protestant : Martial Duty. Truth and Duty are inseparable.
English Catholic (Episcopalian) : Aristocratic Paternalism. Testimonial Truth.
Italian Catholic : Utilitarian Paternalism. Objective Truth, Pragmatic action.
French Catholic : Authoritarian Paternalism. Pragmatism as Truth.
European Jews : Authoritarian Separatism. Results, not truth. (Truth unknowable)
Finns and Estonians (lutherans) : Pagans using christian rituals.
I don’t feel ready to express any confidence in the eastern european concept of truth because as most Russians have said, it is almost impossible for westerners to understand the depth of Russian nihilism. As far as I can tell, eastern europeans practice demonstrable truth, and non-demonstrable mysticism, although their mysticism can be expressed as the opposite of western optimism: a deep presumption that the universe conspires to cheat or oppress them somehow, and that the truth is hidden from them by the universe, and they must defend against both man and the universe.
ON WOMEN, PRE-SCIENTIFIC AND PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MYSTICISM
Women are easier to diagnose than men, since, for example, in the west, we have all the “crazy-chicks” that are into light therapy, pop psychology, postmodern sociology, horoscopes, feminism as an aspirational social model, yoga as religion, and reactionary religions in themselves. ***Western women have, at every single class level, and every single level of education, replaced traditional mysticism with pseudoscientific mysticism.*** The cosmopolitans have sold women every possible means of fulfilling their mystical desires.
Here in the east, women are still very likely to resort to pre-scientific mysticism. They believe in magic, spells, taboos, superstitions, talismans, gods and demons, female intuition as extra sensory perception, and ‘the order of the universe’ as anthropocentric. Although we do see a creeping expansion of female pseudoscientific mysticism in the culture, as pre-scientific mysticism no longer seems to fulfill their needs, and the various female cults of buddhism, yoga in particular, and other emotionally loaded forms of mysticism evolve in response to increases in formal education. But there is no sign here or in the west that women have abandoned mysticism, even if it is formalized as a pseudoscience in the extreme of academic feminism.
Women have been traditionally considered the root of evil. And given their impact on devolution of the aristocratic society, back to socialist and premodern forms, and their fascination by and expansion of pseudoscientific mysticism as a replacement for traditional mysticism, it is becoming statistically irrefutable that there is truth to this ancient caution.
The root is quite obvious however. Female reproduction and intuition evolved for the self and her genes, while male reproduction and intuition evolved for the tribe and advancing the tribe. For women, peace means that they can select preferred mates, but they select mates poorly for regressive (aggressive and impulsive) traits whenever possible (sorry ladies, I just go with the data). Males on the other hand want to band together as brothers to create a tribe, that can compete with other tribes of men.
For this reason women are politically and genetically destructive. The evidence is that under democracy women have sought to, and succeeded in, destroying their own civilization, mostly by their support of pseudoscientific mysticism as the new religion, and attacking traditional religion so that the could replace it with new pseudoscientific religion. That is why the other civilizations are rebelling against expansion of cultural suicide. They adopt central banking, fiat money, consumer capitalism, but not democracy. Because under democracy the lowest common denominator is expressed in law, and therefore in culture.
For this reason male dominated cultures will always conquer female dominated cultures. Because if males submit to female political preferences, the more aggressive males have, and always will, propagate. Which is in contrast to evolution that has shown us that the most advanced civilizations suppress impulsivity and aggression at the genetic level.
POLITICAL SOLUTIONS
I am not recommending that women be disenfranchised, only that we acknowledge that male and female votes are not of equal weight, or of similar interest. As such, just as we have had the monarchy, the aristocracy (the great families), the business class (the good families), and the church (the peasantry) as separate ‘houses’ of government, representing competing interests, we should also separate the male and female vote, representing competing interests. Competing interests with houses of government allow those houses to conduct exchanges rather than under a monopoly, conduct thefts (“takings”).
I promote compatibilism through voluntary exchange (cooperation). This promotes truth telling. Democracy requires that we lie (conquest). And the evidence is that all we do is lie under democracy. And anyone who tries will have a very hard time refuting this argument.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 09:07:00 UTC