Author: Curt Doolittle

  • ITS GENETICS YOU KNOW. I think we are up to something absurd like 20 papers a we

    ITS GENETICS YOU KNOW.

    I think we are up to something absurd like 20 papers a week basically confirming the nature side of the nature nurture debate.

    You can screw up your kids, but you can’t really make them materially better than your genes. So the whole trick is really, not to screw them up. 🙂 Which is pretty good, since evolution wouldn’t have been very good to us if we were dependent on pedagogy.

    JUST LIKE CONSERVATIVES HAVE ALWAYS ARGUED.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 14:57:00 UTC

  • NECESSARY, PREFERENTIAL AND LUXURY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT A) NECESSARY PROPERT

    NECESSARY, PREFERENTIAL AND LUXURY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT

    A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES

    The NECESSARY properties of of a government are

    1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.)

    2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights.

    3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.)

    These are the minimum properties of a government.

    B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES

    In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:

    4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons.

    5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes.

    6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency.

    7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes.

    These are advantageous properties of government.

    C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES

    In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:

    8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments.

    9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.)

    These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation.

    The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’.

    The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:43:00 UTC

  • Recent Interview “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues fo

    http://www.hanshoppe.com/2014/01/taxes-are-expropriation-interview-in-wirtschaftswoche/Hoppe’s Recent Interview

    “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues for a state-free society. Where government has, for example, no right to compel the citizens to pay taxes to finance armed forces.”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:38:00 UTC

  • THE ASSUMPTIONS OF ‘LIBERALISM’ (AND LIBERTARIANISM) “Libertarianism is applied

    THE ASSUMPTIONS OF ‘LIBERALISM’ (AND LIBERTARIANISM)

    “Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer

    For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply.

    UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN?

    Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels.

    Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement.

    I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others.

    But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice.

    PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION

    So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity.

    MERITOCRACY OR NOT?

    The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have.

    LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION?

    The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption.

    OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST

    0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation)

    1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation)

    2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement )

    3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models)

    Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them.

    Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly?

    Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us?

    Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever.

    A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of.

    Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments.

    That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so.

    Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 10:33:00 UTC

  • CRIME STATISTICS: THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MASCULINITY? –“…40% of white males i

    CRIME STATISTICS: THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MASCULINITY?

    –“…40% of white males in their early 20s having been arrested at least once and 49% of black males in their early 20s having been arrested at least once … obviously this is due to increasing criminalization of activities that should not be criminalized.”–

    (Peter Boettke )

    MASCULINE OFFENSES

    It’s pretty obvious that if you take drugs, alcohol, traffic, ‘fighting’, and ‘regulatory violations’ because of they’re just too poor to comply, that between the ages of 17 and 25, the chance that any given male violates at least one one of those prohibitions, suggests that the 40% number is reasonable.

    They don’t keep age data at Justice, (just juvenile vs adult) But given that the numbers are almost evenly distributed, we can make good guesses: drugs, alcohol and ‘consensual testosterone driven reproductive age nonsense’ mean that masculinity has been criminalized.

    Loosely speaking this means that under 5% of young males are affected annually, but cumulatively we end up with 40% of males affected.

    In other words “victimless crimes” in an effort to suppress masculine signaling account for most male arrests.

    ABOUT THE DATA

    The data is collected from individual county ARREST records, and the Justice department applies a little normalization for different terms, and differences in data collection. However, I believe that this is in fact ARREST not CONVICTION data. Those are the only two types of data we have. Because ‘crime’ data has no meaning, and no empirical test we can apply.

    Now, I can be wrong in how I interpret the sources of data given what Justice says, but to my knowledge (without making some phone calls from the other side of the planet) this is about as accurate as we can get.

    VICTIMLESS CRIME ISNT BROAD ENOUGH OF A CRITICISM

    And I think my analysis is more informative that the simple victimless crime argument. It is more accurately stated that these statistics represent the systematic suppression of voluntary, mutually consensual, masculine expression.

    (I do agree with the three strikes rule in general, and I am not sure that suppression of drunk driving is, at least in american, not justifiable using libertarian propertarian reasoning.)

    SUPPRESSION OF MASCULINITY AS THE MAJOR FOCUS OF THE STATE

    If anything these victimless crimes:

    (a) Marijuana offenses;

    (b) victimless driving offenses;

    (c) victimless regulatory conformance and fees;

    and most probably :

    (d) consensual ‘fighting’;

    constitute an unnecessary avenue for the state to expand and interfere in our lives.

    And it is through this organized suppression of masculine signals that the state has justified intrusion.

    HEARTBREAKING

    It is heartbreaking to sit in a court room and watch male after male permanently removed from the possibility of employment, losing work, losing pay, and criminalized for the accident of being poor, or institutionally forced into poverty for the celebration of youth, or the defense of what little honor poor males have. My most exasperating example being punishment for credit that they have been given as a means of entrapment, or having driving revoked and employment prohibited for an offense unrelated to crime. The most criminal is the subjugation of young males to permanent poverty by child support they cannot possibly pay and survive on. In an era of 3% unemployment and postwar miracle of underclass privilege that might have seemed to make sense, but in a world where 15%+ unemployment and 25-50% youth unemployment is the norm, and world competition for labor puts extraordinary pressure on the lower classes, it is no longer possible to expect young males to either break out of poverty, refrain from crime, or even retain even sustainable respect for society, its myths, traditions, norms and laws.

    I AM NOT SOFT ON CRIME

    Just the opposite. I’m hard on both crime, and hard on the state for prosecuting non-crimes.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 10:20:00 UTC

  • WERE THE CONSERVATIVES RIGHT ALL ALONG? (interesting) We cannot, like mathematic

    WERE THE CONSERVATIVES RIGHT ALL ALONG?

    (interesting)

    We cannot, like mathematicians tried to do, define something into existence. We can define rules of deduction, but not define something into existence. Truth consists of correspondence and cause, not definition. Definitions are our choice. Truth is not. That is the entire purpose of ‘truth’ – that which we cannot choose.

    So, if instead of some artificial scheme, we understand that PROPERTY is nothing but what remains, after we suppress all possible DISCOUNTS, by every means possible. Then, does that mean that the conservatives were right all along?

    That, since discounts, as a spectrum, are suppressible by a spectrum of actions which include the organized threat of violence, ostracization, boycott, reduction of opportunity, and the consequential limits on consumption, then the conservatives, correctly value NORMATIVE CONFORMITY TO SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS, and that the model of property articulated by rothbard, taken as it was from the low trust society he was familiar with,

    In effect, Rothbard’s ethics are an attempt to preserve ‘cheating’ as a viable means of profiting from others, whereas conservative, aristocratic, ‘high trust’ ethics are an effort to suppress ALL cheating. Rothbard masks this cheating by stating that competition will suppress such cheating. But empirically, and praxeologically, this is demonstrably and logically false. So what are we left with no possible conclusion that either he committed a significant error or, that Rothbard’s ethics are an attempt, intentionally, to preserve cheating: which is precisely what the left correctly argues – albeit in their amateurish terms.

    The formation of a government, which is a monopoly that suppresses violence and theft, and then by taxation, suppresses free riding on the government’s suppression of violence, then, as a consequence, because of its monopoly, only displaces free riding with rents.

    The formal question remains the same, which is that rule of law, or liberty, is a prohibition on discretionary compulsion, but is only possible by the prohibition of all discounts. And the only possible means of both suppressing discounts, and preventing the conversion of free riding into rents, is to rely on competition for the suppression of these discounts.

    That is, I think, the fundamental equilibrial analysis of political order.

    The sequence is:

    1) Suppression of discounts results in property rights.

    2) Property rights lead to the division of labor, and prosperity.

    3) Property (capital) and prosperity lead to greater opportunity for discounts.

    4) The cost of suppressing discounts increases demand for specialized suppression.

    5) The specialized suppressing discounts leads to free riding (fee avoidance)

    6) The specialized suppression of free riding (taxation) leads to opportunity for rent seeking.

    7) Opportunity for rent seeking leads to bureaucracy.

    8) Bureaucracy leads to subjugation and expropriation.

    9) Expropriation leads to circumvention (Religiosity, black markets, tax evasion, nullification, secession and revolt and revolution)

    10 (fragmentation)

    The only solution is rule of law: no state, merely laws, and judges who resolve disputes. Governments must be local and under direct democracy. Everything else provided competing firms.

    CHEERS


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 06:54:00 UTC

  • Why Does The 1.7% Jewish Population In Usa Have So Much Political Power?

    HERE IS THE REASON
    (WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STICKS AND STONES IT WILL GENERATE)

    I’m going to give the answer that is impolitic and true.  Mostly because I’m kind of curious how people  interpret it.  Just a draft.

    MONEY, MEDIA AND WHITE GUILT FOR WW2
    That’s the answer.  But why?

    GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    If your gene pool does not have an evolutionary strategy that it can compete with against other groups, then it will fail.  Europeans were poor people on the edge of the bronze age who had to rely on small numbers to hold land.  To do this they favored technology and a novel kind of cooperation that we call the individualistic and heroic mythos.  Jews by contrast were not a landed people, but a migratory one, right at the center of the bronze age explosion, and unsuccessful at holding land. 

    Landholder ethics are very different from transitory ethics. Land means you can invest in fixed assets, craftsmanship, and industry. You can raise crops, and domesticated animals.  You have to defend them, and that requires a great personal sacrifice on the part of most members.

    JEWISH GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    0) Empirically measurable verbal advantage in Ashkenazim due to eugenic mating.
    1) High investment parenting.
    3) High investment in in-group success (ethnocentrism).
    4) In-Group Cooperation and Out Group predation.
    5) Lower ethical requirements in out-group predation.

    The first three properties are beneficial and are helpful to host countries. We get specialists in the skills that ORGANIZE production and trade. In a culture that specializes in organizing war (landholding) and property rights, and production.

    However, the last two are damaging to host countries and populations and the USA is no exception. So it is a 50/50 proposition when one has a large Jewish population because of these factors. The good comes with the bad, and in general, historically speaking, this strategy was effective enough that host peoples eventually rebelled against it.

    Any group sufficiently separate within a host country cannot break the US and THEM barrier that is required for the extension of trust to the state. So the jewish model cannot succeed in any legitimate state – rather any state considered legitimate by its people.

    Jewish ethics are more limited than protestant ethics, and jews have, in every host country they have ever been in, gravitated by intention, to those roles that were, and are extractive, because of this lower standard of ethics.
    (For the best scholarly treatment see Kevin McDonald’s _The Culture of Critique_. Three volumes on his study of the Jewish cultural survival strategy.)

    THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY
    0) Use small numbers, technology, mobile tactics, professional warriors, and egalitarian enfranchisement in property rights to hold land and animals against competitors.
    1) Suppress all free riding, so that everyone produces, leaves, or dies.
    2) Break property (land and animals) into family divisions to eliminate free riding
    3) Prevent the centralization of power, so that members retain their property.
    4) Outbreed so that relations and trust are widespread, and conflict is minimized.
    5) Conquer if you can. Raid if you can. Trade if you cannot.
    This system is weak unless there is high criteria for entry. The enlightenment weakened that limit on entry, and universal democratic enfranchisement eliminated it.

    To cooperate in their environments, different cultures suppress different levels of ‘theft’ from the direct, to the indirect. And the reason for the High Trust West and our “Protestant Ethic” is that westerners have suppressed more kinds of theft and cheating than any other people on earth. This suppression was also eugenic for similar reasons that helped the Jews compete – if forces out non-conformists.

    Our suppression of all types of criminality, theft and immorality, and very rigid moral and ethical requirements literally suppress nearly all options EXCEPT participation in the market. This is largely because in northern Europe above the Hanjal line, the church outlawed cousin marriage, and the large land owners only would rent land to married couples who could be trusted to produce.

    These to factors led to the absolute nuclear family that is unique to northern europe, and the culture of hard work as a status symbol.  The extension of property rights to women broke up the ability for large families to compete with the church for land. The result was that almost every form of ‘free riding’ was suppressed both practically and eventually normatively. And the prohibition on cousin marriage created an enormous extended family and the ethic that comes with an extended family.  We call this ethic christian universalism. But it is not present in southern europe or anywhere outside of the Hanjal line. 

    Furthermore, the absolute nuclear family and its requirement for self sufficiency does not exist outside of those cultures. And it was that family structure that the founders brought to the north american colonies, and the rule of law and the nuclear family persisted in america without the overhead of aristocracy until the 1970’s.  (Now 40% of children are born to single mothers, and in real terms, after redistribution, only about a quarter of households are self sufficient and pay taxes.)

    SUPPRESSION OF THEFTS :
    (In economic terms ‘Discounts’)
    So lets look at what we can suppress from the most simple to the most complex.
    –CRIME–
    Murder
    Violence
    Theft                   
    –ETHICS–  
    Blackmail
    Usury
    Fraud                           
    Fraud by omission   
    Fraud by obfuscation
    –MORALITY—
    Profiting from suffering
    Profiting from disadvantage
    Profit without contribution
    Profit from Interference in the acts of others
    Externalization of costs
    Privatization of the commons
    Socialization of losses into the commons
    Free riding
    –POLITICAL MORALITY–
    Rent seeking
    Corruption
    Extortion
    Conspiracy
    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)
    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–
    Ostracization and Displacement
    Conquest through Overbreeding
    Conquest through Immigration
    Conquest through religious conversion
    Conquest through Enslavement
    Conquest through war.

    Westerners managed to suppress all the moral prohibitions. Even within families, where, almost universally, free riding is not only expected but encouraged.

    CONTRASTING WITH JEWISH ETHICS
    But jewish ethics in most of history stop at THEFT, and in the 20th century at fraud. And a disproportionate percentage of Jews actively participated in, if not specialized in, what in the west was traditionally considered unethical and immoral industries. Which would include the mass media, advertising, entertainment, pornography, credit, banking, finance, law.

    The jewish ethic can be captured in the statement “it only takes two people to agree to a trade”.  Unfortunately, that may be true, but the consequences of any trade affect all members of the community. It is this set of consequences, which economists call ‘externalities’ that allow the ‘cheater’ to use a single interaction to effectively extract wealth involuntarily from people outside of the transaction.  This prohibition on externalities is the practical meaning of the term ‘immoral’.  Just as the prohibition on taking advantage of asymmetry of information is the definition of ‘unethical’.

    So the problem is not so much that jews do this or that as it is the over representation of jews in industries that are enticingly profitable, but which are moral hazards, and westerners by their emphasis on  production and craft, and prohibition on ‘cunning’ (cheating), controlled not by law, but by morals. 

    This is why Jews excel everywhere but best in the west: our high trust society gives their particular lack of moral standard outgroup requirement, extraordinary opportunity for success, and their scientific intellectuals greater freedom to work.

    If you specialize in what the host nation considers unethical and immoral behavior, and can get away with it, then it is very profitable.  The problem is, almost no other civilizations prohibit as much of the moral and ethical spectrum as northern europeans. So northern european countries and the anglosphere provide greater opportunity for profiting from unethical and immoral action.

    HISTORY
    The jews have been disliked almost everywhere that they’ve been successful, and it is their historical preference for cheating, by verbal means where possible, and profiting from unethical and immoral cheating where possible, that has generally led to their prosecution.

    Cheating, especially through various credit schemes (creating a hazard) is extremely profitable. Jewish ingroup bias was particularly useful in creating trust relationships for financing during the hard currency eras. 

    If you study the Ethics of Gypsies they are very close to jewish ethics, but they lack the intelligence and discipline to move from profit by crime to profit by unethical and immoral actions.

    But what is most interesting is that despite being the most literate people in europe jews produced no significant science or literature, while starting in 1200 in England the opposite happened.  It appears that only with the structure of western high trust society and the acceptance of jews into western society have the jews been able to contribute to world knowledge. Even if, some of that knowledge (Marx, Freud and Cantor, just like Kant and Rousseau) was pseudoscientific and very damaging to the west.

    SIDEBAR: AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL THOUGHT
    –And jewish banking became especially useful after the extermination of the Templars. Competing financiers would have provided the states with competitors to jewish bankers and assisted in controlling rates.  But the templars made a mistake in trying to obtain land as well as retain their banking and that was too much of a risk for the governments.–

    CONTEMPORARY CIRCUMSTANCES
    Prior to the war era immigration of eastern european jews, American Jews had become indistinguishable from conservative Scots who dominated business in american institutions. To the point of being accepted into elite institutions.  At this point jewish identity has merged with the american model fairly deeply and intermarriage is eroding the prior social structure.  So what has happened to the English appears to be happening to the jews.

    Now, again, assuming that indoctrination and assimilation will leave jews like the english, scots and germans, an advantaged minority population,

    Israel has demonstrated that it may in fact be possible for the jews to hold land develop land holder ethics, and build a state, but at the cost of suppressing the rampant free riding in their more religious members. It may also occur that once again, jewish culture and ethics are insufficient to hold a territory. And given that israel is the most technically advanced society in the region, even if dependent on american handouts, that the loss would be tragic.

    MY GOAL IS TO ARTICULATE WESTERN HIGH TRUST ETHICS
    I write about ethics in order to explain the economic consequences of different ethical models, as well as why the western ethical model created the high performing high trust society and others did not. This high trust model, wherever it survives, provides a dramatic difference in economic performance that no other civilization has matched.

    No other philosopher has successfully articulated the cause and consequence of western high trust ethics. All groups need an evolutionary strategy.  But not only do northern Europeans need the high trust society to compete, but given what the high trust society produces in terms of innovation and exchange, the world also needs the high trust society to prevail. 

    Westerners do not understand their history or why they succeeded despite being a poor illiterate people, small in number, far from the origin of civilization, because their history is articulated in moral and allegorical language not in ratio scientific terms. They cannot defend their social system because they do not understand it. The enlightenment project was a scheme for the seizure of political power from the landed aristocracy by the new middle class. And the mythos of democracy was used to suppress the Aristocratic origins of western civilization. As it turns out the purpose of large democratic states appears largely to be, ever since Napoleon, the export of war and conquest.

    The purpose of my work is to make it possible for westerners to rationally debate their values against the encroachment of other value systems so that we can preserve the high trust society – for themselves, and everyone else.

    CLOSING
    I hope this was useful. This is a draft of a longer argument and I might revise and extend it later.  Of course, I expect all sorts of childish nonsense but this is how it is.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-1-7-Jewish-population-in-USA-have-so-much-political-power

  • Why Does The 1.7% Jewish Population In Usa Have So Much Political Power?

    HERE IS THE REASON
    (WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STICKS AND STONES IT WILL GENERATE)

    I’m going to give the answer that is impolitic and true.  Mostly because I’m kind of curious how people  interpret it.  Just a draft.

    MONEY, MEDIA AND WHITE GUILT FOR WW2
    That’s the answer.  But why?

    GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    If your gene pool does not have an evolutionary strategy that it can compete with against other groups, then it will fail.  Europeans were poor people on the edge of the bronze age who had to rely on small numbers to hold land.  To do this they favored technology and a novel kind of cooperation that we call the individualistic and heroic mythos.  Jews by contrast were not a landed people, but a migratory one, right at the center of the bronze age explosion, and unsuccessful at holding land. 

    Landholder ethics are very different from transitory ethics. Land means you can invest in fixed assets, craftsmanship, and industry. You can raise crops, and domesticated animals.  You have to defend them, and that requires a great personal sacrifice on the part of most members.

    JEWISH GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
    0) Empirically measurable verbal advantage in Ashkenazim due to eugenic mating.
    1) High investment parenting.
    3) High investment in in-group success (ethnocentrism).
    4) In-Group Cooperation and Out Group predation.
    5) Lower ethical requirements in out-group predation.

    The first three properties are beneficial and are helpful to host countries. We get specialists in the skills that ORGANIZE production and trade. In a culture that specializes in organizing war (landholding) and property rights, and production.

    However, the last two are damaging to host countries and populations and the USA is no exception. So it is a 50/50 proposition when one has a large Jewish population because of these factors. The good comes with the bad, and in general, historically speaking, this strategy was effective enough that host peoples eventually rebelled against it.

    Any group sufficiently separate within a host country cannot break the US and THEM barrier that is required for the extension of trust to the state. So the jewish model cannot succeed in any legitimate state – rather any state considered legitimate by its people.

    Jewish ethics are more limited than protestant ethics, and jews have, in every host country they have ever been in, gravitated by intention, to those roles that were, and are extractive, because of this lower standard of ethics.
    (For the best scholarly treatment see Kevin McDonald’s _The Culture of Critique_. Three volumes on his study of the Jewish cultural survival strategy.)

    THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY
    0) Use small numbers, technology, mobile tactics, professional warriors, and egalitarian enfranchisement in property rights to hold land and animals against competitors.
    1) Suppress all free riding, so that everyone produces, leaves, or dies.
    2) Break property (land and animals) into family divisions to eliminate free riding
    3) Prevent the centralization of power, so that members retain their property.
    4) Outbreed so that relations and trust are widespread, and conflict is minimized.
    5) Conquer if you can. Raid if you can. Trade if you cannot.
    This system is weak unless there is high criteria for entry. The enlightenment weakened that limit on entry, and universal democratic enfranchisement eliminated it.

    To cooperate in their environments, different cultures suppress different levels of ‘theft’ from the direct, to the indirect. And the reason for the High Trust West and our “Protestant Ethic” is that westerners have suppressed more kinds of theft and cheating than any other people on earth. This suppression was also eugenic for similar reasons that helped the Jews compete – if forces out non-conformists.

    Our suppression of all types of criminality, theft and immorality, and very rigid moral and ethical requirements literally suppress nearly all options EXCEPT participation in the market. This is largely because in northern Europe above the Hanjal line, the church outlawed cousin marriage, and the large land owners only would rent land to married couples who could be trusted to produce.

    These to factors led to the absolute nuclear family that is unique to northern europe, and the culture of hard work as a status symbol.  The extension of property rights to women broke up the ability for large families to compete with the church for land. The result was that almost every form of ‘free riding’ was suppressed both practically and eventually normatively. And the prohibition on cousin marriage created an enormous extended family and the ethic that comes with an extended family.  We call this ethic christian universalism. But it is not present in southern europe or anywhere outside of the Hanjal line. 

    Furthermore, the absolute nuclear family and its requirement for self sufficiency does not exist outside of those cultures. And it was that family structure that the founders brought to the north american colonies, and the rule of law and the nuclear family persisted in america without the overhead of aristocracy until the 1970’s.  (Now 40% of children are born to single mothers, and in real terms, after redistribution, only about a quarter of households are self sufficient and pay taxes.)

    SUPPRESSION OF THEFTS :
    (In economic terms ‘Discounts’)
    So lets look at what we can suppress from the most simple to the most complex.
    –CRIME–
    Murder
    Violence
    Theft                   
    –ETHICS–  
    Blackmail
    Usury
    Fraud                           
    Fraud by omission   
    Fraud by obfuscation
    –MORALITY—
    Profiting from suffering
    Profiting from disadvantage
    Profit without contribution
    Profit from Interference in the acts of others
    Externalization of costs
    Privatization of the commons
    Socialization of losses into the commons
    Free riding
    –POLITICAL MORALITY–
    Rent seeking
    Corruption
    Extortion
    Conspiracy
    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)
    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–
    Ostracization and Displacement
    Conquest through Overbreeding
    Conquest through Immigration
    Conquest through religious conversion
    Conquest through Enslavement
    Conquest through war.

    Westerners managed to suppress all the moral prohibitions. Even within families, where, almost universally, free riding is not only expected but encouraged.

    CONTRASTING WITH JEWISH ETHICS
    But jewish ethics in most of history stop at THEFT, and in the 20th century at fraud. And a disproportionate percentage of Jews actively participated in, if not specialized in, what in the west was traditionally considered unethical and immoral industries. Which would include the mass media, advertising, entertainment, pornography, credit, banking, finance, law.

    The jewish ethic can be captured in the statement “it only takes two people to agree to a trade”.  Unfortunately, that may be true, but the consequences of any trade affect all members of the community. It is this set of consequences, which economists call ‘externalities’ that allow the ‘cheater’ to use a single interaction to effectively extract wealth involuntarily from people outside of the transaction.  This prohibition on externalities is the practical meaning of the term ‘immoral’.  Just as the prohibition on taking advantage of asymmetry of information is the definition of ‘unethical’.

    So the problem is not so much that jews do this or that as it is the over representation of jews in industries that are enticingly profitable, but which are moral hazards, and westerners by their emphasis on  production and craft, and prohibition on ‘cunning’ (cheating), controlled not by law, but by morals. 

    This is why Jews excel everywhere but best in the west: our high trust society gives their particular lack of moral standard outgroup requirement, extraordinary opportunity for success, and their scientific intellectuals greater freedom to work.

    If you specialize in what the host nation considers unethical and immoral behavior, and can get away with it, then it is very profitable.  The problem is, almost no other civilizations prohibit as much of the moral and ethical spectrum as northern europeans. So northern european countries and the anglosphere provide greater opportunity for profiting from unethical and immoral action.

    HISTORY
    The jews have been disliked almost everywhere that they’ve been successful, and it is their historical preference for cheating, by verbal means where possible, and profiting from unethical and immoral cheating where possible, that has generally led to their prosecution.

    Cheating, especially through various credit schemes (creating a hazard) is extremely profitable. Jewish ingroup bias was particularly useful in creating trust relationships for financing during the hard currency eras. 

    If you study the Ethics of Gypsies they are very close to jewish ethics, but they lack the intelligence and discipline to move from profit by crime to profit by unethical and immoral actions.

    But what is most interesting is that despite being the most literate people in europe jews produced no significant science or literature, while starting in 1200 in England the opposite happened.  It appears that only with the structure of western high trust society and the acceptance of jews into western society have the jews been able to contribute to world knowledge. Even if, some of that knowledge (Marx, Freud and Cantor, just like Kant and Rousseau) was pseudoscientific and very damaging to the west.

    SIDEBAR: AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL THOUGHT
    –And jewish banking became especially useful after the extermination of the Templars. Competing financiers would have provided the states with competitors to jewish bankers and assisted in controlling rates.  But the templars made a mistake in trying to obtain land as well as retain their banking and that was too much of a risk for the governments.–

    CONTEMPORARY CIRCUMSTANCES
    Prior to the war era immigration of eastern european jews, American Jews had become indistinguishable from conservative Scots who dominated business in american institutions. To the point of being accepted into elite institutions.  At this point jewish identity has merged with the american model fairly deeply and intermarriage is eroding the prior social structure.  So what has happened to the English appears to be happening to the jews.

    Now, again, assuming that indoctrination and assimilation will leave jews like the english, scots and germans, an advantaged minority population,

    Israel has demonstrated that it may in fact be possible for the jews to hold land develop land holder ethics, and build a state, but at the cost of suppressing the rampant free riding in their more religious members. It may also occur that once again, jewish culture and ethics are insufficient to hold a territory. And given that israel is the most technically advanced society in the region, even if dependent on american handouts, that the loss would be tragic.

    MY GOAL IS TO ARTICULATE WESTERN HIGH TRUST ETHICS
    I write about ethics in order to explain the economic consequences of different ethical models, as well as why the western ethical model created the high performing high trust society and others did not. This high trust model, wherever it survives, provides a dramatic difference in economic performance that no other civilization has matched.

    No other philosopher has successfully articulated the cause and consequence of western high trust ethics. All groups need an evolutionary strategy.  But not only do northern Europeans need the high trust society to compete, but given what the high trust society produces in terms of innovation and exchange, the world also needs the high trust society to prevail. 

    Westerners do not understand their history or why they succeeded despite being a poor illiterate people, small in number, far from the origin of civilization, because their history is articulated in moral and allegorical language not in ratio scientific terms. They cannot defend their social system because they do not understand it. The enlightenment project was a scheme for the seizure of political power from the landed aristocracy by the new middle class. And the mythos of democracy was used to suppress the Aristocratic origins of western civilization. As it turns out the purpose of large democratic states appears largely to be, ever since Napoleon, the export of war and conquest.

    The purpose of my work is to make it possible for westerners to rationally debate their values against the encroachment of other value systems so that we can preserve the high trust society – for themselves, and everyone else.

    CLOSING
    I hope this was useful. This is a draft of a longer argument and I might revise and extend it later.  Of course, I expect all sorts of childish nonsense but this is how it is.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-1-7-Jewish-population-in-USA-have-so-much-political-power

  • MAYBE, THAT LIBERTY COMES OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN True, maybe that libertaria

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/search/label/libertarianismTRUE MAYBE, THAT LIBERTY COMES OUT OF THE BARREL OF A GUN

    True, maybe that libertarianism is applied autism.

    That doesn’t change the fact that conservatives just aren’t terribly intellectual. And if you’re a conservative intellectual, its pretty hard not to work with the libertarians.

    So, how does one, build an intellectual movement in the conservative river of discourse? I gotta tell you that I don’t believe you can. Mencius did a pretty good job, but honestly, it’s hard to find a even a libertarian that can understand anything terribly complicated.

    And it’s impossible to find a conservative.

    And that’s exasperating.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-06 17:42:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS ON TRUTH THE TWO QUESTIONS OF MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY –“If you ask a p

    https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/philosophy.htmlMORE THOUGHTS ON TRUTH

    THE TWO QUESTIONS OF MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY

    –“If you ask a philosopher what the main problems are in the philosophy of mathematics, then the following two are likely to come up: what is the status of mathematical truth, and what is the nature of mathematical objects? That is, what gives mathematical statements their aura of infallibility, and what on earth are these statements about ?” —

    ON THE PAPER

    Nothing new or interesting. I still can’t figure out if the problem of what mathematicians consider ‘arbitrary precision’ is one that they are conscious of or not. (Correspondence and utility in context. )

    What I can tell you is that mathematicians do not define truth, that philosophers do. Conversely, the craft of math requires a language for the production of proofs that humans can manipulate symbolically. Just like we need language that humans can speak and use, not language which would be more ‘true’.

    However, if at some point we want to test whether our mathematics or our language is in fact ‘true’ – in that whatever content we construct corresponds to reality – we must be able to express it in operational language. If we cannot, then it is not in fact ‘true’. I can tell a story about a fantasy world with a certain form of gravity. I can write a proof using certain assumptions. However, these cannot correspond to reality, and therefore, can be consistent with their definitions (internally consistent) but they cannot ever be ‘true’ (correspondent).

    This is important otherwise truth has no meaning, and reality is indistinguishable from dream.

    More later.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-06 16:54:00 UTC