It’s time to break up the continent into separate nations
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 12:24:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765162126566645761
Reply addressees: @CookPolitical @dmataconis
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765136866106421248
IN REPLY TO:
@CookPolitical
NEW Electoral College Ratings: https://t.co/fI2IbVfAbL
Clinton – 272 | Trump – 190 | Toss Up – 76 https://t.co/TJ1c14YFaK
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765136866106421248
They don’t want the EU, they can work with Russia and Israel to be the core state of islam, and displace Iran.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:50:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765153757361496064
Reply addressees: @amerika_blog
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765150941561626624
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/765150941561626624
POLITICS FOR DUMMIES? OK. EASY.
Politics for dummies? Ok. It’s this simple.
There are three ways to coerce people: force(law/military), payment(trade), and shaming(gossip/morals)
These correspond to conservative(saving), libertarian(trade), and progressive(shaming).
And these correspond to the reproductive roles of father(conservative), the brother(libertarian), and the mother and sister(progressive)
And that’s because it’s the reproductive strategy of the males, the young, and the females.
It’s very simple. We all just negotiate on behalf of our reproductive strategies. It’s that simple. All our talk is nonsense.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:07:00 UTC
ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIES OF THE UKRAINAN AND RUSSIAN PEOPLES AND A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE.
—Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?—
1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now.
2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation.
2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians.
4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty.
5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity.
6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region.
The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern.
Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian.
WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA?
Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter.
Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t.
Without access to water russia cannot be a great power.
WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER?
They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it.
Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable.
So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status.
So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law.
She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites.
Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow.
IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle.
THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS.
(and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to)
BACK TO UKRAINE.
A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration.
So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP.
Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:01:00 UTC
Retweeted Brett Stevens (@amerika_blog):
You’re not right-wing until you want aristocracy, nationalism, free markets and transcendental guidance. #tcot #nrx #altright
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:49:00 UTC
CAN WE FIND CLASS MOVEMENTS IN CONSERVATISM, LIBERTARIANISM, AND PROGRESSIVISM?
(Short answer: yes)
CURT:
—I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).- Curt Doolittle
IVAN:
—“Are there similar class-movements among progressives and libertarians? And, could it be stated that class-movements among all three groups are consequence of division of moral intuitions on one hand, and perception, cognition, labour and advocacy on the other?
I guess, among libertarians, there would be: libertines (lower), an-caps(middle) and international traders (high). And among progressives there would be members of syndicate (lower), social justice warriors (middle) and globalist (high).”— Ivan Ilakovac
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:48:00 UTC
Q&A: “CURT: DOES EUGENIC REPRODUCTION PLACE TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT?”
Great question, let’s take another example:
Economists argue one group is correct or incorrect, but this is false framing of the discipline. The discipline of economics can be broken into three schools that describe a degree of discretion.
The austrian(aristocratic/ conservative) school pursues social science: the means by which we improve (reduce the frictions) of cooperation, without interfering in (lying) the information system we call the economy.
The Chicago(classical liberal / libertarian) school pursues rule of law: we can interfere as long as those engaged in planning understand the rules under which we will interfere, and that they are non discretionary, and non-arbitrary, formulae. This achieves the desired result of compensating for ‘stuck’ patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, but does so ‘truthfully’ and ‘transparently’ and ‘predictably’.
The saltwater(left/social democratic) school seeks the maximum interference (lying) that we can perform that will produce the maximum amount of consumption, under the assumption that we can repair externalities using the same tools at a later date, and that the benefits of discretionary rule to those who engage in planning is sufficient to compensate for their increased risk and hardship.
The same is true for eugenic policies. We cannot do much under the non-interference of social science except attempt to educate others on the consequences of reproduction – yet they are the most impulsive and least open to education. We can construct rule of law under which we pay people subsidies for single children, and anyone can prosecute anyone on behalf of the commons, if it’s violated, and people will be involuntarily sterilized, lose their subsidies, and be sent to the desert to live in unpleasant communes (slums) for their crimes. If sterilization is legal and subsidy is highest for non-child bearing women, and lower for child bearing women, and non-existent and accompanies by punishment for multiple childbearing women, then this is merely rule of law. There is no government intervention here other than the courts.
I think the opposite is true, is that we must expand rule of law and eliminate government discretion. Not just in economics, but throughout the production of commons. Markets not government. Rule of law, not discretion.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:28:00 UTC
Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk about our ideas in public and on campus again?—
Moral men need a reason to demand change under the threat of violence.
We need to give them:
1) a set of demands to alter the status quo.
2) a plan of transition
3) a means of rebellion I”m working on it.
There is no alternative to violence. Just get others to grow a pair.
Because we’re going to have a revolution. And the best revolution is one where the enemy is so certain of defeat that they come to the table to compromise.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy or Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:11:00 UTC
Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”—
Short answer? Empiricism vs Irrationalism
Curt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer—
.
Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?—
Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration).
I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).
And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy.
Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it:
Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy.
A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels.
By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why?
Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.)
Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes).
We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history.
A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science).
Conservatism has always been scientific.
The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair.
So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes.
This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:27:00 UTC
Chaos is our friend. It provides a discount on revolution.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 03:04:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765021414797807617