Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • “The Westphalian order is collapsing and we are returning to a war of all agains

    “The Westphalian order is collapsing and we are returning to a war of all against all.”
    “4gw by non-state actors (close) and movement into 5gw by states (distance).”
    “It took 1000 men to bring down the Yanukovych government’ and 4000 to fight the Russians. The rest were shields.”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 21:16:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001572896349749249

    Reply addressees: @Advanced_COBOL

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001567584079302656


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Advanced_COBOL

    @curtdoolittle 1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique.
    2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001567584079302656

  • “Modern War begins after Westphalia.” “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on W

    “Modern War begins after Westphalia.”
    “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.”
    “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.”
    “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 21:11:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001571820934443013

    Reply addressees: @Advanced_COBOL

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001567584079302656


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Advanced_COBOL

    @curtdoolittle 1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique.
    2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001567584079302656

  • Yes, but then moral men need a plan. And it’s our job to give it to them. They f

    Yes, but then moral men need a plan. And it’s our job to give it to them. They feel moral license. They just don’t know what to demand, or how to win. Some of us know both.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 19:46:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001550321481605121

    Reply addressees: @GuerillaRight

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001480877409492992


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001480877409492992

  • GOD WAS ENTHUSIASTIC WITH HIS MORON WAND (Modern Warfare Generations) The idea t

    GOD WAS ENTHUSIASTIC WITH HIS MORON WAND

    (Modern Warfare Generations)

    The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886

    —“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski

    That’s not an argument. Make one.

    “Modern War begins after Westphalia.”

    “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.”

    “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.”

    “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe”

    —“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique.

    2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski

    —-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski

    I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s.

    —“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—-

    1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of.

    2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. …

    3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian.

    4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names?

    5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list?

    6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”.

    7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under?

    8) an endless stream of morons waste my time.

    —“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski

    OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses.

    So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 19:39:00 UTC

  • The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a

    The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t imagine that the way ISIS conducts wars, or the drug cartels conduct wars, was the primary means wars were constructed in the past. Westphalia made states accountable. Communism, ISIS, Cartels made them unaccountable again. And the folly of heterogeneity and Cosmopolitanism created the incentives.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 15:50:00 UTC

  • The end result of the british goverment is deterministically caretaker bolshevis

    The end result of the british goverment is deterministically caretaker bolshevism. The Russian empire needed a means of homogenous conquest. British government after losing the empire has taken on a means of conquest – of its own people. UK=SOVIETS V2


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-28 20:47:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001203438619938816

  • (more) So again, we can pretty easily divide each group into the time frame it s

    ….(more) So again, we can pretty easily divide each group into the time frame it solves for and whether it seeks consumption (dysgenia/left) or capitalization (eugenia/right).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-28 20:31:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001199227450601472

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001195538497196032


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001195538497196032

  • Conservatism Understood

    1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital. 2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat). 3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality. 4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited. 5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families. 6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families. 7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility. The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. May 28, 2018 10:37am

  • Conservatism Understood

    1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital. 2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat). 3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality. 4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited. 5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families. 6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families. 7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility. The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. May 28, 2018 10:37am

  • Natural Conflict Between the Classes of Conservatives

    “I don’t daydream, I do.” “I don’t seek experiences but results.” “I don’t seek like minds, but like doers.” “I don’t seek shared values, but shared incentives and goals.” “I don’t seek pleasure in what I do, I seek profitability which in turn allows me to choose among possible pleasures.” “I don’t seek to follow a plan to a goal, but seek and exploit opportunities discovered in pursuit of goals.” “I don’t seek motivation, I have motivation for the simple reasons of search for novelty and search for competition. If you need motivation you are not suited for leadership.” “I don’t seek to lead, only to perform functions that need performing, when no one better is at hand.” Just as between women and men, women are more dependent upon intuition and men more on reason, some men are likewise dependent upon intuition and some on reason, and some on experience and some on results, and some on fantasy and some on reality. The people who attain, function in, and remain in power positions work harder, work longer, create more relationships, process more information, and calculate more empirically, with fewer anchors to intuition. than their competitors. There is a sort of mental and masculine weakness in the Right that is evident in all right wing thought back to Burke, and before him, throughout the philosophers and theologians, all the way back to plato. The best example of these in modernity are Nietzsche( heroic nonsense) , Kirk (romantic nonsense), Evola (occult nonsense), Where the can be contrasted by Machiavelli, Smith, Hayek, and most recently Pat Buchanan. Now, just as we see the female solipsistic to male autistic spectrum. We see the Fantatisizer <—– observer —– participant —-> Doer spectrum. And careful analysis will show that it’s an introvert (fantasizer) <—-> Extrovert(Doer) spectrum. Some people go from books to searching for problems. Some people from real problems to books. Likewise some people learn for entertainment, and some people learn in furtherance of action. Likewise some people think and act to avoid cooperation with groups, and some people think and act to create organization of groups. Likewise some people seek to act on their terms, while other people act to take advantage of other’s terms. I view the ‘esoteric, occult, literary’ wing of conservatism, man-child aesthetics. Some of us do, others of us follow doers, and others watch doers and followers, and others dream of doing, following, and watching. So that is the class of conservatives: doers searching for tools with which to act, to dreamers searching for fantasies they never can or must act on. There is a class of conservatives who favor the occult, which is an escape from conformity (learning others). There is a class of conservatives who favor the theological (which is to some degree social but conformity is enforced by the theology). There is a class of conservatives who favor literature, which is a proxy for learning from others – usually a substitute for limited personal contacts. There is a class of conservatives who act politically and argumentatively on ‘getting things done’ and ‘enacting change’ by ‘possible means’. All this spectrum describes is social immaturity and undesirability to social maturity and desirability. So when someone says his preferred method of understanding conservatism he is telling you a great deal about his desirability as a cooperative actor.
    May 28, 2018 4:49pm