Author: Curt Doolittle

  • We’re Not Exporting Democracy. We’re Exporting Consumer Capitalism. And Our Military Is Very A Profitable Investment. (Really)

    USEFUL IDEAS FOR DEFENSE OF CONSERVATIVE IDEAS On [online magazine] Counterpunch today, Paul Craig Roberts asks Is Western Democracy Real or a Facade? He starts with:

    The United States government and its NATO puppets have been killing Muslim men, women and children for a decade in the name of bringing them democracy. But is the West itself a bastion of democracy?

    He then goes on to list a number of American sins that broadcast to the world our hypocrisy. It’s a straw man argument that seeks to reframe historical American strategic policy into current populist jargon for what must be purely political reasons. I have only met Paul once, quite a few years ago, and only for a few minutes of discusion at a conference, but he appears to be an honest man, and I can only attribute this article to the effects of accumulated frustration. Which I can understand. But a questionable portrayal of events hinging upon a specious moral argument does nothing to improve matters at all. It’s much more helpful to deal with the facts and determine where we go from there: GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY REGARDING THE MUSLIM WORLD1) The United states government has been attempting to contain the Muslim world since the fall of the British Empire for the following reasons:

      Americans are pragmatic. They ally with successful states and not with failed or failing states. The determine failed or failing by the level of internal conflict. As the world’s policemen Americans see conflict as requiring their involvement, and at great cost. So they are simply pragmatic in seeking to support ‘successful’ states: those without violent conflict. THE WORLD’S POLICEMEN America has assumed the role of the world’s policemen for two reasons:

        Both the assumption of the system of trade, and the the desire to provide an alternative to world communism, are pragmatic choices, not ideological choices. For some reason americans are comfortable criticizing a political ideology like communism that is little more than a religion wrapped in pseudo economic dogma, than they are in criticizing a religion that is little more than a political movement. If americans would correct this error in their ‘talking points’ the battle against Islam would be much easier. Islam is not a religion. It is a political system, and a religion in name only. AMERICAN STRATEGIC ERRORS American errors over the past decades have been the following:

          Historian Oswald Spengler called western civilization Faustian: westerners keep pursuing this ideological view of human nature despite the obvious fact that we are making a deal with the devil in order to achieve the impossible. The west is exceptional. Our culture can never be universal. Criticisms of the NeoCons are correct in that they assume human consensus with western values and where they attempt nation building. Criticisms of the NeoCon’s are wrong where they seek to contain islamic civilization by military means. Islam is far worse a threat than marxism. At least marxism was subject to rational criticism. Muslims appear entirely happy to think themselves self righteous and holy as they descend into permanent ignorant illiterate abject poverty and vent their failure outward as terrorism. THE COMMERCIAL SOCIETY2) The US does not support Democracy. It supports success. Americans are a commercial people. Much more commercial even than Europeans (which is why they don’t understand Americans at times.) In fact, the only thing Americans have in common is their commercial sentiments. CONSUMER CAPITALISM NOT DEMOCRACY3) The US advances “Consumer Capitalism” not Democracy. Democracy is a code word for “Consumer Capitalism”.

            POLITICAL COMPATIBILITY OF CONSUMER CAPITALISM4) Consumer Capitalism is not incompatible with what we popularly call Social Democracy: Redistributive Social Democracy. Under Redistributive Social Democracy, profits are captured through taxation and redistributed, allowing the market system to function using both incentives and the information embodied in prices. Consumer capitalism is incompatible with Socialism and Communism, both of which destroy incentives and the information embodied in prices. Consumer capitalism is compatible with libertarianism, conservative classical liberalism, and progressive social democracy – all of which interfere in the economy to varying degrees. Consumer Capitalism is just not compatible with a managed economy. Americans are exporting social democracy and consumer capitalism. But they’ll take consumer capitalism alone if they can get it. Why? Because it decreases the cost of policing and decreases the risk to the average American (Canadian, Brit, German, Belgian, Italian, Australian.) WE’RE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY5) Technically speaking, the USA is not a democracy. It’s a representative republic. That’s why we have the Senate and the Electoral College: to inhibit the dangers of democracy. In particular, our political system is organized to prevent democratic ‘fashionability’ with a hard constitution (that the progressives have effectively ruined via the commerce clause, and through judicial activism rather than calling for a constitutional convention) a high-turnover house, and a longer turnover senate (that was originally appointed not directly elected). So technically, we’re exporting “Social Democratic Republican Consumer Capitalism.” ECONOMIC IMPACT AND ANALYSIS6) If America loses its military power, its control over oil, or the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, then the ‘average’ American, if there even is such a thing, will experience a drastic reduction in standard of living. We complain about our national debt and our military expense. But really, this is how it all works out: We spend a lot of money policing the world. We export debt to pay for it. The debt encourages the world to support our policing activities. We inflate the debt away. And we obtain economic advantage that directly benefits the average American raising his or her economic class by something on the order of 50%. If you travel the world, and then come back to the states,its blatantly obvious the average person can consume vastly more as an American than anyone else on earth: more living space, more heat and air conditioning, more varieties of food, more kinds of entertainment, more information, and more air travel, more car travel, more free time. More everything. So, the pure COST of our military activity is a cheap return. It costs $700B this year, and our entire interest burden is $227B. Over the next three years alone, the American government will inflate 30% of that debt away.  We do not directly bill the world for our services, but we DO INDIRECTLY charge them for it, and it is our MOST PROFITABLE export.  There is a difference between wasting money and putting it to good use. Our military is not a poor use of funds. BUT the cost of nation building is impossible to bear. If we must bomb a country into submission that’s one thing. In many cases — preventing communism, preventing a nuclear Iran — its the lesser of two evils. But we cannot transform its culture or its economy. We can’t. That cost is infinite. And it’s futile. Thanks Curt Doolittle

          • should save this article for one of the conservative magazines — but I’m too bu

            http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/17/a-reply-to-paul-craig-roberts-were-not-exporting-democracy-were-exporting-consumer-capitalism/I should save this article for one of the conservative magazines — but I’m too busy to engage in self promotion right now. Please forward to your conservative networks. My Libertarian friends, please forgive me. I’m doing good works the old fashioned way. One step at a time.


            Source date (UTC): 2012-02-17 14:56:00 UTC

          • To Denmark” is the progressive utopian fantasy. Here is how to accomplish it

            http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/17/getting-to-denmark/”Getting To Denmark” is the progressive utopian fantasy. Here is how to accomplish it.


            Source date (UTC): 2012-02-17 14:49:00 UTC

          • Defending Karl Smith

            On Modeled Behavior, a commenter pulls an ad hominem:

            Karl, I won’t call you a hack–you aren’t, but the first part of that post contained breathtaking partisan quackery.

            And I replied:

            Jon. Karl is not a quack. He honestly holds his positions and he can articulate why he holds them. He may be the only top blogger I can say that of. I know. I monitor the entire ecosystem. The truth is that none of us are certain. Economics and sociology are immature fields with a short history and insufficient data. We’re all trying to figure out the human race. And we’re all claiming that our preferences are somehow scientific, and independent of our underlying sentiments both paternal and maternal, and are ultimate truths rather than cognitive biases in a fragile equilibrium. They are not. It is the equilibrium that we don’t know how to measure, not our paternal and maternal sentiments. I disagree with Karl on the consequences of progressive Keynesian policy (spending). I don’t disagree with him on its operating principles. I think we just don’t know the answers yet, and that we shouldn’t create fragility in our very unique society until we do know.

            It is not useful to debate with foolish or deceitful people. Deception is eristic. Foolish is a waste of time. Karl Smith is the real thing. He may be the only top blogger that I can say that of. (And I can go through probably the top hundred bloggers and enumerate the irrational tactics that each of the others relies upon for no other reason than to avoid exposing the sentimental rather than rational basis of his arguments.)

          • A Followup On The Source of Western Individualism

            I should follow up on my last post with this thought: 1) For the fist time in western history, military leadership has been effectively denuded of political power. Our politicians are not only not required to have demonstrated military experience, but our generals are conspicuously absent from the political stage. Their departure is partly due to the change of the military’s focus from competition between tribes and states to the battle between consumer capitalism and world communism. A conflict which instead of pitting a group of classes against another group of classes, pitted classes within groups against one another. The pervasive fear of the military caused by the strategy of mutually assured destruction didn’t help reform military perception. And the cultural, regional, racial and religious factionalization of the USA combined with the leftist conquest of academia (sometimes by physical force) ((See Cornell University)) rendered the anti-martial sentiment a persistent property of the populist cultural norms. ALthough one feature of this change is interesting: The military as an institution has largely succeeded in maintaining the respect of the populace. The politicians are blamed for the misuse of military force. 2) If there are only three types of coercive political power: Force (the military and the militia), Moral (priests and public intellectuals), and Exchange (entrepreneurs and financiers), then one third of the balance of power has been removed from our political sphere. I would stipulate this is what instinctively troubles aristocratic conservatives. Not only are Whites becoming a minority, but their martial leadership has been ostracized from power. Social conservatives can still rally around the church for communal confirmation. But aristocratic conservatives cannot – they have no political venue. From antiquity until 1960, a male could seek status and acceptance through military service (and looting), familial provider-ship (and access to sex), religious conformity (demonstrated commitment to the community), and productive labor (craftsmanship), or at the very least, simply providing the service of his physical strength. Under agrarianism almost all of these venues are open to all men. Under industrialization the set is reduced. Under the information age, the male’s entire existence became materially undesirable. This is why the underclass males are abandoning marriage, religion, work, and even fear of imprisonment – they adopt a new version of mediterranean bravado. Upper class males are abandoning society altogether. The middle class and the upper proletariat fuss with the empire while its natural aristocracy revels in effete consumer decadence.) 3) I do not see a means of developing a natural aristocracy given the decline of agrarian self-sufficiency, the end of the regimental system in favor of conscription and state funding, and the rise of the majority of occupations that no longer participate in the market. Democracy is a slow road to totalitarian communism. And I do not see, absent some sort of extremely disruptive economic and geopolitical event, a way of altering this trend. WE will return to ignorance and poverty – or more likely, a two class system on the order of south america.

          • Yes. It’s OK. I know. I Realize I’m Adding The Virtue Of Violence Back Into Libertarianism.

            Violence is a virtue not a vice. Like any resource it is scarce and can be put to good and ill uses. But try to create property rights without it. Try to hold your property rights without it. You can’t. No one has. No one will. Property is a product of the application of violence. Property is a minority preference with majority returns. Liberty is a minority preference with majority returns. Almost all humans seek to consume products of the market. Very, very few humans seek to produce products for the market. The majority of humans seek every possible opportunity to avoid participation in the market. The only people who participate in the market are the self employed, or the commissioned. People who sell there services in exchange for wages are avoiding the market. Government employees are avoiding the market. Unions members who seek security and wages are avoiding the market. (not safety) The wealthy and the retired are avoiding the market. Under agrarianism, everyone was in the market. Everyone produced for both themselves and the market. Under consumer capitalism, very few people participate in the market. Do we wonder why rent seekers are more numerous than producers? Violence is a form of wealth. Do not surrender it unless you receive freedom in exchange. And take back your violence if the warrantee on your freedom is broken.

          • The Source Of Western Individualism Is In Its Military Strategy

            The Source Of Western Individualism Is In Its Military Strategy http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/15/the-source-of-western-individualism-is-in-its-military-strategy/


            Source date (UTC): 2012-02-15 16:56:42 UTC

            Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/169827483984740356

          • Aug 01, 2009Place: Richmond, Ontario (45.1833, -75.8333)Address: Richmond, Ontar

            Aug 01, 2009Place: Richmond, Ontario (45.1833, -75.8333)Address: Richmond, Ontario K0A 2Z0


            Source date (UTC): 2012-02-15 14:31:00 UTC

          • Jan 01, 1993Place: Sammamish, Washington (47.6080113, -122.0311651)Address: Samm

            Jan 01, 1993Place: Sammamish, Washington (47.6080113, -122.0311651)Address: Sammamish, Washington 98074


            Source date (UTC): 2012-02-15 14:28:00 UTC

          • Jan 01, 1997Place: Redmond, Washington (47.6694, -122.124)Address: Redmond, Wash

            Jan 01, 1997Place: Redmond, Washington (47.6694, -122.124)Address: Redmond, Washington 98053, 98052, 98073, (98000-98099)


            Source date (UTC): 2012-02-15 14:27:00 UTC