Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • A MILITIA IS THE ANSWER. THE MILITIA IS THE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY —“But how is

    A MILITIA IS THE ANSWER. THE MILITIA IS THE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY

    —“But how is sovereignty produced? What are the necessary substrates (material) and predicaments (relations and incentives) for the emergence and sustainable continuation of sovereignty?”—Simon Ström‎

    A condition of sovereignty, is produced by the *incentives* to produce sovereignty, which consist of a large number of men, in a militia, none of which produce or possess sufficient wealth to coerce others into the coercion of others; living in an environment where there are no capital assets of sufficient value with which to make possible sufficient wealth to coerce others into coercing others. Sovereignty is produced by a significant percentage of men, who deny power to any man or men, for any reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 10:44:00 UTC

  • Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women. Me, Keith Pres

    Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women.

    Me, Keith Preston, Sean Gabb

    Of course this conversation degenerates quickly to ‘arguing what I understand rather than arguing the subject matter’.

    I give my usual:

    Enfranchisement is good, assuming that those with different interests have different houses, and that houses reflect demonstrated ability to contribute – not some artificial ‘right’ – so that the houses constitute a market between the classes.

    I can’t summarize via this point:

    That assuming the family continues to fall apart, and assuming that women retain the franchise, that the trend of single women and single mothers will increase, and that this group will increasingly vote asymmetrically, forming, for all intents and purposes a block, which will continue to determine the direction of policy over that of men, and that policy will continue leftward.

    I can’t make these points:

    – It makes use of information across the classes. This is a good thing.

    – Enfranchisement increases political discourse – and that is not a good thing. Because it is largely a pursuit of power over others. And for every positive attempt at seizure of power we must produce a negative attempt to prevent seizure of power. Whereas under the monarchies all effort must be achieved through market (non-state) means. So, Enfranchisement creates opportunity for political status and power by immoral means, distracting people from opportunity and status by moral means.

    – Enfranchisement destroys civic society – the private production of commons.

    KEITH PRESTON chimes in. Keith is well read. (very) Argues what he understands. Relied upon wisdom literature, rather than empirical data. I agree with it because it corresponds with the data. Smart guy.

    SEAN GABB (UK) Argues what he understands, by shifting the question from what were the consequences of women voting, to what would happen if we took away their vote.

    Sean brings up these points:

    – We would get lying politicians anyway. True. Irrelevant, because we would get lying politicians who sought to bring different issues to play.

    – No one is going to change whether women have the vote. True. Irrelevant, that is not what we were asked to discuss. If we were asked to discuss how we remove women from the vote I wouldn’t participate in the conversation.

    – We are seeing a rightward move anyway. True. Irrelevant, (a) since this shift is due to the return of islamism from its 100 year old defeat (after 1400 years of defeating the west consistently). And the question is, had we chosen a different method of enfranchisement, it’s not clear we would be in this position in the first place; and (b) men voting (at least in america) this circumstance would never have occurred. Which is a purely empirical question. (c) I acknowledge that british men are feminized more so than american men and that the data on british elections shows that. It does not show that in america.

    – You americans got a ‘trump’. and he’s not legitimate. (bizarre) False. Irrelevant. Legitimacy is a moral claim, not a scientific one. As we say, the purpose of political power is power. Once one has power and can act upon it, moral opinion has no bearing. only the institutional imitations on that power do.

    – Women voting or not wouldn’t have changed much. (bizarre) False. Because the accumulated presentation of candidates for office, selection of candidates for office, policies that were put forward, over the past 100 years, in the states, would have dramatically shifted many of our elections, since the past century has largely consisted of policies under which parties auction off privileges (rents). I mean, the entire socio, economic, and political, and consequently, worldwide power shifts that have occurred by the enfranchisement of women in the USA are profound, and most of the propaganda (puritan anglos, and jews in general) has been a catastrophe for western civilization. Education, the academy, family, policy, propaganda … all these changes occur because of women enfranchised. How do you price that? You don’t ‘wave it away’ by saying islamic invasion disproves it….

    While Sean is talking I search JSTOR, Pew and SSRN for gender differences in voting patterns. Find the material I’m looking for. But I realize this is a waste of my time. We are not having an adult discussion of empirical evidence, incentives, and institutional means. We are not trash talking for the sake of humor. We are instead talking nonsense.

    This is why I am increasingly reluctant to have unstructured conversations. You wanna ‘talk stupid shit’ then you’re welcome to. But I don’t have an interest in correcting people who say stupid things any more than I have to already, in the context of my work.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 08:34:00 UTC

  • Violence is the only voice that cannot be silenced

    Violence is the only voice that cannot be silenced.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 06:33:00 UTC

  • “THE END OF THE ERA OF STRATEGIC PATIENCE” Pence said that yesterday, and it sum

    “THE END OF THE ERA OF STRATEGIC PATIENCE”

    Pence said that yesterday, and it sums up our era: conservatives have ended the era of paternal patience. At some point the father decides the child is a net loss if left to his own devices, while the mother preserves motherly blindness, empathy, and hope.

    I called the previous generations of conservatives and libertarians the ‘hopeful’ era, and that our era is defined by our loss of hope.

    Our loss of hope can be seen in our initial optimism, increasing frustration, last ditch efforts, and finally, our loss of hope, and our development of conviction.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 07:33:00 UTC

  • Deflationary Government

    What is Necessary for a Deflationary (Truthful) Government 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for: 2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) 4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons. 5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information. 6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction. 7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary) 8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers) 9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.

  • Deflationary Government

    What is Necessary for a Deflationary (Truthful) Government 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for: 2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) 4) A Market for the production of goods and services within any given polity by exchanges between individuals and organizations OTHER than those that exclusively produce commons. 5) A market for the production of generations (marriage) within any given polity, within any given market for commons, within any given market for production of goods, services, and information. 6) A market for association and cooperation, within the market for polities, the market for commons, the market for private goods, the market for reproduction. 7) A market for the resolution of disputes over property in toto by application and strict construction of the natural law of cooperation: reciprocity. (Judiciary) 8) A market for the production of contracts (agreements) in all markets (lawyers) 9) An insurer of last resort consisting of: A military of last resort, A treasury of last resort (shares in the nation), An insurer against acts of nature, age, and incompetence of last resort.

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • Racialism?

    —“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.) I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare. Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order. Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race. And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups. So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand. The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.

  • Racialism?

    —“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.) I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare. Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order. Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race. And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups. So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand. The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.