http://new.livestream.com/RethinkNY/reny2014
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-13 18:39:00 UTC
http://new.livestream.com/RethinkNY/reny2014
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-13 18:39:00 UTC
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-says-worlds-many-conflicts-amount-piecemeal-world-104917232.htmlWell, yes. But then, WW1 isn’t over yet. We have to re-nationalize liberalism, and abandon universalism if we want to avoid world war.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-13 07:36:00 UTC
http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-vote-scotland-cotagion-catalonia-2014-9We can only hope….
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 20:35:00 UTC
RADICAL NOT CONSERVATIVE
Or, why I am and am not a conservative at the same time. 🙂
My position is radical, not conservative. I’m not advocating retention of the status quo (the definition of conservatism), nor am I asking to return to the past. But insisting that we adopt institutions suitable to our people’s competitive needs, which are also as it turns out, man’s evolutionary needs – because of the uniqueness of our civilization.
Yes, we can learn from our past, in that we can learn what caused our success – resistance to the concentration of power (division of power), the division of labor, testimonial truth, and the common law.
Truth is inseparable from calculation, and calculation inseparable from action, and given the necessity and utility of action, all else is justification and deception in pursuit of competition within the existing genetic, geography, family, economic, and political structure. Or more clearly: while it is possible to calculate verbally, it is also possible to lie and deceive verbally. Where it is not so possible to lie and deceive operationally (calculatively).
The cost of this difference is meaning. The problem is, when we say meaning, how much of this is justification to the self, or justification to others? Is not all philosophy and argument merely political?
Until I started focusing on Neo-Reaction instead of the fallacies of libertine-libertarianism, I did not perhaps understand the full import of what I am doing. Is meaning merely a feeble attempt to connect the intuitive with the calculative? Can we instead of separating our mental activity into intuition and reason (verbalism), can we separate it into perception, intuition, calculation, and justification? Is reason but justification?
If this is true then human intellectual history is upside down.
I am not there yet, but getting closer.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 11:04:00 UTC
NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY)
Even though I’ve spent the past month almost entirely on the business, for the past few days I’ve been trying to write a restatement of Neo-Reaction (The Dark Enlightenment) in Propertarian language. There are a lot of introductory pieces on NeoReaction out there, but they’re all fairly weak. It’s much easier to write a “Neo Reaction for Dummies” with Propertarianism. But I am trying to cover all the subjects (there are not that many really), and turn their (Mostly Mencius’) ideas away from the poetic into the analytic.
THREE CULTURAL AXIS
1) Mencius picked up on Rothbard’s correct attribution of puritanism to the postmodern condition, but not that Rothbard tried to avoid admitting the cosmopolitan influence (the jews), or that the Cathedral constitutes a conspiracy between the three axis: (a) anglo secular restatement of christianity, (b) the jewish combination of socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-Conservatism,and (c) the continental influence of the germans and the french, as equally anti-enlightenment attempts to preserve authoritarian orders.
THREE PERSUASIVE AXIS
2) No one in the movement seems to have grasped either Johnson’s insight that there exist only three means of persuasion (force, payment, moral persuasion), or my insight, that social classes organize around specializations in these forms of persuasion – and that this is why neo-reaction has been articulated in three different forms, mirroring the three forms of the jewish attack on aristocracy: socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-conservatism. I think I can add value by explaining this relationship to the movement.
REASON
They (again, mostly Mencius) have correctly identified the failure of Reason, but they have not equally identified the solution to the problem of reason as Calculability (or, in my work, what I call Operationalism) nor the corresponding solution as one of simply speaking the truth. This I can understand because while I intuited the problem very early on, I was only able to solve it finally over the past year and a half. I think it took me twelve or fourteen years from initial intuition to full articulation.
More to do.
Interesting stuff.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-11 08:36:00 UTC
THE CONDUCT OF EASTERN EUROPEAN FOURTH GENERATION WAR
There is a limited but fairly extensive literature on infantry tactics – the kind of things ordinary soldiers need to do in 20th century armies. In that literature, the primary objective has been to get the US military to abandon pre-vietnam military structures in favor of higher reliance on skilled and equipped infantry, and less on complex weapons systems.
Moreover, since 1990, the literature has been advocating means of fighting insurgents, and now islamists, who use decentralized “4gw” (Fourth generation warfare). Meaning, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. Or as we anti-statists would argue, the post-state era is upon us because militias with machine guns and RPG’s selecting targets of opportunity can effectively crush any concentration of armed forces. Modern economies are fragile and the nation state cannot survive long term insurrections.
The problem with the literature is that it does not address how to ACT like a 4GW opponent – only how to defend against them. When I read these manuals, they seem very antique. They are manuals for soldiers not warriors. In the sense that soldiers patrol territories, in order to create order, while warriors conduct raids in order to destabilize economy, infrastructure, and daily life.
If you are an eastern european, you need to have a few nuclear weapons to keep Russia at bay (Russia being the most concentrated civilization of white people, and reliant on concentration of forces), and a very inexpensive military, which consists of a militia that can readily get access to RPG’s and AK47’s and warm clothing and rations. Ukraine would benefit from the regimental system, wherein good leaders could recruit talent, and the central government would only need to ensure that they had access to USA-style national guard armories. This is an inexpensive and unstoppable form of military order on the swiss model.
All of that boils down to a mixture of the swiss and american reserve models, with more frequent training for the men in the american model, and a reliance on infantry tactics and militia in the swiss model. Ukraine is a larger territory and supply lines for the militia are more challenging. However, a decentralized militia, skilled in 4gw themselves, rather than the US/NATO 3gw, attacking not in concentration, but against weakness would make eastern europeans nearly impervious to Russian conquest – just as Afghanistan was.
The problem is, that the manual for conducting such a military does not exist, and must be written. Strangely enough, the Islamists are writing it for us. And it is a much more bloody form of warfare, more suited to the warriors, personal grievances and close relations of regiments than the slave labor and cautious patrolling of NATO military training.
I do not need more work to do unfortunately. I have enough of it. I have enough for two of me, and one more project is more than I can manage.
NOTE: The swiss strategy is to make attempts to occupy or conquer Switzerland extremely costly in men and machines. They rely upon an almost entirely militial military. Professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel and the rest are male conscripts 19 to 34 (but in some cases up to 50) years old. The soldiers keep their own equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home. Military service is compulsory for all male Swiss citizens, and women serve voluntarily. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable. Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-10 16:10:00 UTC
WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
Man organizes. He forms organizations. Just as surely as he acts.
One cannot, in pursuit of individualism, prohibit organization, nor the allocation of control of individual property rights to the organization, so that capital can be concentrated and applied for the group’s advantage. Since people will seek to form commons, and seek to form organizations to produce commons, and since property rights and rule of law must exist as a commons, and since humans seek monopoly advantage for their preferred organization, then the question is how to construct institutions that allow for the formation of organizations for the production and EXCHANGE OF commons, the production and exchange of which are unachievable without such institutions, because, while the market is an institutions just as property rights are an institution, markets produce consumables, not commons which we must prohibit from consumption. This is the difference in production between productive markets (the market) and commons markets (what we call ‘government’). As such the task is to produce commons markets (governments) which allow for the production and trade of commons which are non-consumable, yet prohibit monopoly control of that means of production. The consumer market allows us to produce consumable goods by the voluntary organization of production. A government market allows us to produce commons by the voluntary production of commons. FOr this system to function all that need be guaranteed is individual property rights. However, any commons created within the market for the production of commons must be prevented from privatization – just the opposite of that which is produced in the market for consumption. And no body of people unable to produce commons could survive in competition with those that do. So government is not a matter of preference. We must have government and we must produce commons, even if the only commons we produce is the rule of law and property rights. The principle challenge is converting from monopoly government and monopoly bureaucracy to monopoly property rights, and a government that facilitates the voluntary organization of production of commons just as we voluntarily organize to produce goods and services today.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-09 17:33:00 UTC
Marco,
I’ve asked you this before, but I don’t know if we got anywhere. How do you position classical liberals (europeans and american constitutionalist varieties) and the Dark Enlightenment / Return to Aristocracy tribes? I’m not really sure I understand the difference between paleoconservatism and these ideologies, and I’d like to be able to use the same terminology and approach that you do.
I’ve tried to do it by combining your “Taboo” table by adding “Advocacy” section to it, so we have both positives and negatives. That seemed to help quite a bit.
Thanks
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-08 09:42:00 UTC
The Cathedral places a burden on academics that intellectuals outside of the Cathedral do not bear = conformity.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-08 09:33:00 UTC
http://armysos.com.ua/en/HOW TO HELP UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS
Donate cool American Outdoor Goods….
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-06 03:46:00 UTC