(irony) [A]s a libertarian, my prescriptions were often Friedmanite solutions to social democratic preferences. As an alt right libertarian I advocate paying the lower classes not to reproduce at replacement levels, and to limit immigration to 115 and above IQ’s in technical disciplines. The reason being that I prefer to live in a high trust society with many commons and high redistribution, including ‘dividends’ on the economy (variable and unpredictable basic income) because the labor market pricing structure is out of balance with productivity. And I have come to understand that ‘retirement’ and ‘delayed adulthood’ are catastrophes. The single reason I’m associated with the ‘hard’ right is that I’ve come out so aggressively against the great lies of the 19th and 20th century. And that those great lies are just deception constructed as a pseudoscientific version of the prior deception constructed in Judeo-Christian-Muslim mysticism. But that’s not my central argument. I also state that the enlightenment philosophies from all European cultures: Anglo(Empirical/Legal), French(Moral), and German(rationalist) philosophies were equally false and contradictory to what made Europa exceptional and ‘faster than the rest’. It’s true the anglo and german philosophical frameworks were false, but at least they were beneficial, while the french and Jewish frameworks were catastrophes for mankind. I’m happy I’ve given young men a language with which to communicate the feelings of their internal voices. And I’m proud that I succeeded in my life’s ambition: to create a language for the rational, scientific comparison of ethical, political, and group competitive strategies. So our generation is armed to the rhetorical teeth so to speak. But let’s not lose sight of the broader insight, that TRUTHFULNESS dictated that I return the philosophy of liberty to its aristocratic origins as the TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE – if not science – of the western aristocratic excellence in the application of organized violence to domesticate mankind by the incremental suppression of parasitism – thus forcing him into productive labor in order to survive and reproduce, and converting the proceeds from our efforts into Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
How Did I End Up In This Intellectual Market Position?
(irony) [A]s a libertarian, my prescriptions were often Friedmanite solutions to social democratic preferences. As an alt right libertarian I advocate paying the lower classes not to reproduce at replacement levels, and to limit immigration to 115 and above IQ’s in technical disciplines. The reason being that I prefer to live in a high trust society with many commons and high redistribution, including ‘dividends’ on the economy (variable and unpredictable basic income) because the labor market pricing structure is out of balance with productivity. And I have come to understand that ‘retirement’ and ‘delayed adulthood’ are catastrophes. The single reason I’m associated with the ‘hard’ right is that I’ve come out so aggressively against the great lies of the 19th and 20th century. And that those great lies are just deception constructed as a pseudoscientific version of the prior deception constructed in Judeo-Christian-Muslim mysticism. But that’s not my central argument. I also state that the enlightenment philosophies from all European cultures: Anglo(Empirical/Legal), French(Moral), and German(rationalist) philosophies were equally false and contradictory to what made Europa exceptional and ‘faster than the rest’. It’s true the anglo and german philosophical frameworks were false, but at least they were beneficial, while the french and Jewish frameworks were catastrophes for mankind. I’m happy I’ve given young men a language with which to communicate the feelings of their internal voices. And I’m proud that I succeeded in my life’s ambition: to create a language for the rational, scientific comparison of ethical, political, and group competitive strategies. So our generation is armed to the rhetorical teeth so to speak. But let’s not lose sight of the broader insight, that TRUTHFULNESS dictated that I return the philosophy of liberty to its aristocratic origins as the TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE – if not science – of the western aristocratic excellence in the application of organized violence to domesticate mankind by the incremental suppression of parasitism – thus forcing him into productive labor in order to survive and reproduce, and converting the proceeds from our efforts into Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Political Models As Religions: Steady-state Fallacy
***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered, laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty. We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another. But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer. Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.*** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Political Models As Religions: Steady-state Fallacy
***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered, laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty. We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another. But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer. Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.*** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT? No. New Right. Alt right is a resistance mov
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?
No. New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions.
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?
No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.
DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST?
No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 07:57:00 UTC
-
too small. I use Switzerland as the optimum model for adaptation
too small. I use Switzerland as the optimum model for adaptation
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 08:08:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781405383130746880
Reply addressees: @Ava1683
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425
IN REPLY TO:
@Glanceaustere
@curtdoolittle Liecehnstein, etc., where would they be in your trust system? Would they be between medium trust Catholic familism and
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425
-
THE ORIGIN OF THE NATION STATE The City State is a natural consequence of market
THE ORIGIN OF THE NATION STATE
The City State is a natural consequence of markets, and the enforced dominion of some set of rules in order to gain access to the benefits that market.
The Nation State is a declared, involuntary, genetic and cultural empire enforcing dominion over city states and surrounding territories. The empire is a cross genetic and cultural involuntary organization, enforcing dominion over all political orders in a territory ostensibly for the common good – and in many ways the claim is true.
Prior to the nation state, multi-ethnic, military, legislative, and commercial, empires, usually ruled by a monarch from the dominant ethnic group, were the common form of cultural, economic, political, and military organization.
As markets expanded, and wealth expanded, and ‘cognizance’ of the greater world expanded “as an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century intellectual discoveries in political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and geography combined together with cartography and advances in map-making technologies.” Or stated differently, accounting, record keeping, literacy, and map making made people aware of both their competitors and their economic opportunities for preserving competition against them – for preserving their sovereignty. The result was somewhat of a ‘big sort’ in europe that is currently occuring in the United States, as people in the USA re-nationalize after ‘filling up’ the new continent.
This is the positive, romantic, or ‘opportunistic’ side of the story. But the other side of the story is negative, pragmatic, and defensive.
The modern Nation State was invented by Napoleon for use in funding his invention of Total War. The Nation State evolved everywhere else in response to Napoleon’s invention of total war: either as a defense against it, or as a siezure of opportunity to replicate it.
Before Napoleon, only tropical empires could marshall the resources necessary for sustained expansionary conquest and control. Napoleon was the first European to successfully bring Oriental Despotism to Europe with the same level of mobilization of the populace as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Chinese had been able to do, due given their relative ease of controlling irrigation by flooding of rivers and concentrated production, compared to small farms distributed over large territories with distributed production in what we call Christendom (Europa major).
The combination of Post-Templar Self-Defended Credit, in the form of Jewish-Credit Under State Protection, superior methods of record keeping (accounting), the increases in agrarian and mechanical production in Europe due to the second ‘agrarian revolution’, produced in no small part through rapid expansion of literacy and print, and the windfalls from the transfer of trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and the ability to manufacture muskets in vast numbers thereby eliminating the advantage of a professional warrior class made a Napoleon possible – but only because of the backwardness of the French Monarchy, which, like the church, had stagnated in comparison to her faster-evolving neighbors.
This combination of extremely backward governance, and extreme opportunity to mobilize is usually seen only when there is an extraordinary excesses of young males lacking opportunities for income and sex. But when combined with extraordinary credit and community license to restructure all of society by violence, the momentum of the movement created an opportunity for despotism equal to that which had been available in the ancient river empires.
As far as I know this is the origin of the second phase of the nation state: total war. The technological ability to organize distributed production under the same level of control as concentrated flood river production.
To take this further we must also address cosmopolitan universalism on the one hand(Profits for Some), and the clash of civilizations on the other (Norms for All).
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 03:35:00 UTC
-
MERIT AND MERITOCRACY In the general sense then, merit does not necessarily refe
MERIT AND MERITOCRACY
In the general sense then, merit does not necessarily refer to the reward one obtains, but that when one obtains a reward he has done so because of his merits, as long as he has done so morally.
A meritocracy is one in which gains from moral action are not guaranteed, but possible, and gains from immoral actions are prohibited.
(always try to get the negative in there)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-27 02:30:00 UTC
-
THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, AND GOVERNMENT (important piece) (man
THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, AND GOVERNMENT
(important piece) (man is a rational actor)
– The first question of Philosophy: As asked by Camus: “Why do we not commit suicide?”
– The first question of Ethics: As I find it: “Why do I not kill you and take your things?”
– The first question of Government: As I find it: “Why do we not plunder, enslave, or kill you?”
THE ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION IS THE SAME
– We do not commit suicide because the greater future opportunities we buy by not doing so.
– We do not kill one another, because of the greater future opportunities we buy by not doing so.
– We do not plunder and enslave one another, because of the greater future opportunities we buy by not doing so.
BUT EACH DECISION IS REVERSIBLE
– We commit suicide when we buy no greater future opportunities by not doing so.
– We kill one another when we buy no greater future opportunities by not doing so.
– We plunder, enslave or kill one another, when we buy no greater future opportunities by not doing so.
SO MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL OR IRRATIONAL IN HIS CHOICES
Now, I am a rational man. I choose rationally. If I were a less rational man, perhaps I would choose irrationally instead. A rational man might choose suicide, murder, and war. But In this context (sense), reason is not always the best choice compared to irrationality, because we cannot reason the future given the information in the present.
SO WE CHOOSE TO MAKE THE RATIONAL CHOICE TO FAVOR THE UNKNOWN UNLESS THE KNOWS ARE INTOLERABLE
So it is always better to choose life, cooperation, and rule than it is to choose death, conflict, and war. That is, unless the certainty of suffering in the meantime is unbearable.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-26 03:41:00 UTC
-
The New “Right” Class Structures
I got a lot of heat for this so I pulled it and sat on it for a week. And this morning I’ve added some notes to it for clarity. And sorry if it pisses people off, but it’s right. It is what it is.
