Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Question? What value is there to being an american citizen?

    Question? What value is there to being an american citizen?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-11 19:26:00 UTC

  • IS DEAD MILITARILY” Kaplan also makes the argument that nato will prevent german

    http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/natos-ordinary-future-robert-d-kaplan”EUROPE IS DEAD MILITARILY”

    Kaplan also makes the argument that nato will prevent germany from an alliance with Russia. The problem is I don’t see that as a bad thing. In fact, I see it as perhaps the best thing possible for western civilization. Let the catholics become the balkans. The anglos are fragmented by hemispheric trade. And there Germans will improve the behavior of the Russians. And both can help keep the east at bay.

    I’m in the camp that the anglo alliance as wrong, and germany was right, and the destruction of germany was the destruction of the heart of the west. A german russian alliance seems like a good step in recovering from that mistake.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-09 07:47:00 UTC

  • What Are The Real Motivations Of Conservatives, Libertarians And Liberals?

    What do conservatives, liberals, and libertarians believe is the hidden agenda of the other two political philosophies? From Quora.Conservatives Conservatives believe in a meritocratic hierarchical society where a) there are as few ‘cheaters’ living off the efforts of others as is posible, b) that enfranchisement should be earned, c) that government should resolve conflicts not direct society d) that civic duties should be preferred to administrative bureaucracies. e) They believe a good society can best be created by norms, rather than laws. f) They view all property as individual, but wich we must put to collective ends. Jonathan Haidt has shown that conservatives treat all six moral codes equally. (liberty, care-taking, hierarchy, loyalty, purity, fairness) Libertarians Libertarians believe in a meritocratic non hierarchical society where there are as few cheaters as possible living off the efforts of others and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should be limited to resolving conflicts over property. They believe civic virtues will emerge from this society, and the government bureaucracy (correctly) is the source of all bad government, so that privatization should be used rather than public bureaucracy, whenever possible. Progressives (Liberals) Progressives believe in an egalitarian non hierarchical society where people produce what they can and that we redistribute from one another to one another as needed by way of the government. They believe all property is community property and that individuals are just temporary stewards of property in order to achieve what is best for the common good. They believe civic egalitarianism is best achieved through expansionary government that intervenes wherever possible in order to ensure equality of ends and means. Jonathan Haidt has shown that progressives (liberals) care only about two of the moral codes, and ignore the other four: fairness and care-taking. It’s Gender What may not be obvious to the average person is that these three groups represent a spectrum that expresses the different reproductive strategies of the genders, and that liberals on one end and conservatives on the other each skew toward gender lines. In fact, if women were not to vote, we would never have had a progressive government in our history. The female reproductive strategy is to give her child every opportunity to rise above his abilities. The male reproductive strategy is to ensure the competitiveness of the group by promoting the strongest. While these are generalizations, when we are talking about genders we are in fact, making very broad generalizations. And the data supports those generalizations. Our Institutions Could Not Tolerate The Change Our political sentiments are largely inherited, largely a function of gender and class. Or political system was invented when the church was the authority of all moral teaching, when our voting classes were all some version of protestants, when the state was restricted to the resolution of disputes. And when we were all small business people (farmers and shopkeepers) and so we were all market participants and there were very few ‘leeches’ in the system. The political system was originally structured by social class with the senate appointed from influential people, the house elected from business people (land owners) and the proletariat was uneducated if not illiterate. Our constitution was designed to limit the government to resolution of conflicts and to avoid prescription. And that political system did not survive the Louisiana purchase, the civil war, the inclusion of women, and the rapid immigration of non-protestants into the country as a means of filling the newly acquired continent, and as new citizens, their inclusion into the voting pool. The industrial revolution and the world wars that threw England’s empire into our hands was an opportunity for profit that we could not pass up . Each Ideology Fails So, that is why conservatives fail. Because they are attempting to recreate a political system that is insufficiently complex for the society we live in today. Liberals fail because the population disagrees with their economic and military program — justifiably so. But more importantly because they do not understand the relationship between the nuclear family, the military requirements of the empire, and the unique property of western civilization: non-corruption. Libertarians fail because their ethic is antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. WHile libertarians have the best grasp of economics, liberals wil disagree with the libertarian economic program and conservatives will disagree with the libertarian social program. All people reject cheating. Liberals see individualization of profits as cheating. Libertarians and conservatives see the redistribution of profits as cheating. Conservatives see immorality as cheating. We can try every permutation, but it’s all the same. In simple terms, liberal=society unified by law, libertarian=society unified by commerce, conservative=society unified by norms. The problem is that we are materially different in our desires and permanently so. So the problem is inventing new institutions that can accomodate the different factions now that we have expanded enfranchisement beyond market-participating males. And we know the lefts economic program is impossible. we know the conservative normative program is impossible. We know the libertarian normative and institutional program is impossible. So we devolve into moralistic banter rather than attempt to solve the problem of creating institutions that allow us to cooperate despite our differences. The Secret Of Western Civilization But I will let you in on a secret. This conflict is ancient. And can be answered by one question: why is it that a woman has a right to bear a child that she cannot on her own support? If you can answer that question you can solve the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. because that one question is what drives it. The western manorial aristocratic economic system that is our heritage required that men demonstrate their fitness in order to gain access to land, and delayed childbirth so that women could work in the crafts. This process suppresses the breeding rates of the underclasses. The church likewise banned inbreeding which encourages early reproduction. THese two factors led to the advancement of western civilization as much as did the rule of law, science, and the division of powers. Conservatives are attempting still to restrain the breeding of the lower classes to those who can afford to support their own. Liberals are doing the opposite:they are encouraging all the breeding that is possible. These are just the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies of our distant ancestors writ large. Nothing more. So when you ask the question, what is it that separates the different political ideologies, almost everything you will hear is an elaborate form of justification: a ruse to distract you from this one underlying difference: should we allow everyone to breed if it means that the middle classes must suppress their breeding so that the lower classes may advance their breeding? Now if someone told you that this is the single most important factor in raising a civilization out of ignorance and poverty, and that it is impossible to build an egalitarian civil society otherwise, how would that affect your answer? How you answer that question is how you define your political preference. It’s really that simple. NOTES: Moral Foundations Theory: 1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. 2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives] 3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. 4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.” 5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions. 6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

  • What Do Conservatives, Liberals, And Libertarians Believe Is The Hidden Agenda Of The Other Two Political Philosophies?

    Fascinating concept by Amy above.  I’ll try to be a bit more precise and technical.

    Conservatives believe in a meritocratic hierarchical society where there are as few ‘cheaters’ living off the efforts of others as is posible, and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should resolve conflicts. And that civic duties should be preferred to administrative bureaucracies.  They believe a good society can best be created by norms, rather than laws.  They view all property as individual, but wich we must put to collective ends.  Jonathan Haidt has shown that conservatives treat all six moral codes equally. (liberty, care-taking, hierarchy, loyalty, purity, fairness)

    Libertarians believe in a meritocratic non hierarchical society where there are as few cheaters as possible living off the efforts of others and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should be limited to resolving conflicts over property. They believe civic virtues will emerge from this society, and the government bureaucracy (correctly) is the source of all bad government, so that privatization should be used rather than public bureaucracy, whenever possible.

    Progressives believe in an egalitarian non hierarchical society where people produce what they can and that we redistribute from one another to one another as needed by way of the government.  They believe all property is community property and that individuals are just temporary stewards of property in order to achieve what is best for the common good. They believe civic egalitarianism is best achieved through expansionary government that intervenes wherever possible in order to ensure equality of ends and means.  Jonathan Haidt has shown that progressives (liberals) care only about two of the moral codes, and ignore the other four: fairness and care-taking.

    What may not be obvious to the average person is that these three groups represent a spectrum that expresses the different reproductive strategies of the genders, and that liberals on one end and conservatives on the other each skew toward gender lines.  In fact, if women were not to vote, we would never have had a progressive government in our history.  The female reproductive strategy is to give her child every opportunity to rise above his abilities.  The male reproductive strategy is to ensure the competitiveness of the group by promoting the strongest.   While these are generalizations, when we are talking about genders we are in fact, making very broad generalizations. And the data supports those generalizations.

    Our political sentiments are largely inherited, largely a function of gender and class.  Or political system was invented when the church was the authority of all moral teaching, when our voting classes were all some version of protestants, when the state was restricted to the resolution of disputes. And when we were all small business people (farmers and shopkeepers) and so we were all market participants and there were very few ‘leeches’ in the system. The political system was originally structured by social class with the senate appointed from influential people, the house elected from business people (land owners) and the proletariat was uneducated if not illiterate.  Our constitution was designed to limit the government to resolution of conflicts and to avoid prescription.  

     And that political system did not survive the Louisiana purchase, the civil war, the inclusion of women, and the rapid immigration of non-protestants into the country as a means of filling the newly acquired continent, and as new citizens, their inclusion into the voting pool. The industrial revolution and the world wars that threw England’s empire into our hands was an opportunity for profit that we could not pass up .

    So, that is why conservatives fail.  Because they are attempting to recreate a political system that is insufficiently complex for the society we live in today.

    Liberals fail because the population disagrees with their economic and military program — justifiably so.  But more importantly because they do not understand the relationship between the nuclear family, the military requirements of the empire, and the unique property of western civilization: non-corruption.

    Libertarians fail because their ethic is antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. WHile libertarians have the best grasp of economics, liberals wil disagree with the libertarian economic program and conservatives will disagree with the libertarian social program.

    All people reject cheating.  Liberals see individualization of profits as cheating. Libertarians and conservatives see the redistribution of profits as cheating.  Conservatives see immorality as cheating.  We can try every permutation, but it’s all the same.

    in simple terms, liberal =unified by law, libertarian=unified by commerce, conservative= unified by norms.  The problem is that we are materially different in our desires and permanently so.  So the problem  is inventing new institutions that can accomodate the different factions now that we have expanded enfranchisement beyond market-participating males.  And we know the lefts economic program is impossible. we know the conservative normative program is impossible.  We know the libertarian normative and institutional program is impossible.  So we devolve into moralistic banter rather than attempt to solve the problem of creating institutions that allow us to cooperate despite our differences.

    But I will let you in on a secret.  This conflict is ancient. And can be answered by one question: why is it that a woman has a right to bear a child that she cannot on her own support?  If you can answer that question you can solve the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. because that one question is what drives it.

    The western manorial aristocratic economic system that is our heritage required that men demonstrate their fitness in order to gain access to land, and delayed childbirth so that women could work in the crafts. This process suppresses the breeding rates of the underclasses. The church likewise banned inbreeding which encourages early reproduction.  THese two factors led to the advancement of western civilization as much as did the rule of law, science, and the division of powers.

    Conservatives are attempting still to restrain the breeding of the lower classes to those who can afford to support their own. Liberals are doing the opposite:they are encouraging all the breeding that is possible.  These are just the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies of our distant ancestors writ large.  Nothing more.

    So when you ask the question, what is it that separates the different political ideologies, almost everything you will hear is an elaborate form of justification: a ruse to distract you from this one underlying difference: should we allow everyone to breed if it means that the middle classes must suppress their breeding so that the  lower classes may advance their breeding?

    Now if someone told you that this is the single most important factor in raising a civilization out of ignorance and poverty, and that it is impossible to build an egalitarian civil society otherwise, how would that affect your answer?

    How you answer that question is how you define your political preference.

    it’s really all that simple.

    NOTES:
    Moral Foundations Theory:
    1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
    2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
    3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
    4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”
    5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
    6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-conservatives-liberals-and-libertarians-believe-is-the-hidden-agenda-of-the-other-two-political-philosophies

  • What Do Conservatives, Liberals, And Libertarians Believe Is The Hidden Agenda Of The Other Two Political Philosophies?

    Fascinating concept by Amy above.  I’ll try to be a bit more precise and technical.

    Conservatives believe in a meritocratic hierarchical society where there are as few ‘cheaters’ living off the efforts of others as is posible, and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should resolve conflicts. And that civic duties should be preferred to administrative bureaucracies.  They believe a good society can best be created by norms, rather than laws.  They view all property as individual, but wich we must put to collective ends.  Jonathan Haidt has shown that conservatives treat all six moral codes equally. (liberty, care-taking, hierarchy, loyalty, purity, fairness)

    Libertarians believe in a meritocratic non hierarchical society where there are as few cheaters as possible living off the efforts of others and that enfranchisement should be earned, and that government should be limited to resolving conflicts over property. They believe civic virtues will emerge from this society, and the government bureaucracy (correctly) is the source of all bad government, so that privatization should be used rather than public bureaucracy, whenever possible.

    Progressives believe in an egalitarian non hierarchical society where people produce what they can and that we redistribute from one another to one another as needed by way of the government.  They believe all property is community property and that individuals are just temporary stewards of property in order to achieve what is best for the common good. They believe civic egalitarianism is best achieved through expansionary government that intervenes wherever possible in order to ensure equality of ends and means.  Jonathan Haidt has shown that progressives (liberals) care only about two of the moral codes, and ignore the other four: fairness and care-taking.

    What may not be obvious to the average person is that these three groups represent a spectrum that expresses the different reproductive strategies of the genders, and that liberals on one end and conservatives on the other each skew toward gender lines.  In fact, if women were not to vote, we would never have had a progressive government in our history.  The female reproductive strategy is to give her child every opportunity to rise above his abilities.  The male reproductive strategy is to ensure the competitiveness of the group by promoting the strongest.   While these are generalizations, when we are talking about genders we are in fact, making very broad generalizations. And the data supports those generalizations.

    Our political sentiments are largely inherited, largely a function of gender and class.  Or political system was invented when the church was the authority of all moral teaching, when our voting classes were all some version of protestants, when the state was restricted to the resolution of disputes. And when we were all small business people (farmers and shopkeepers) and so we were all market participants and there were very few ‘leeches’ in the system. The political system was originally structured by social class with the senate appointed from influential people, the house elected from business people (land owners) and the proletariat was uneducated if not illiterate.  Our constitution was designed to limit the government to resolution of conflicts and to avoid prescription.  

     And that political system did not survive the Louisiana purchase, the civil war, the inclusion of women, and the rapid immigration of non-protestants into the country as a means of filling the newly acquired continent, and as new citizens, their inclusion into the voting pool. The industrial revolution and the world wars that threw England’s empire into our hands was an opportunity for profit that we could not pass up .

    So, that is why conservatives fail.  Because they are attempting to recreate a political system that is insufficiently complex for the society we live in today.

    Liberals fail because the population disagrees with their economic and military program — justifiably so.  But more importantly because they do not understand the relationship between the nuclear family, the military requirements of the empire, and the unique property of western civilization: non-corruption.

    Libertarians fail because their ethic is antithetical to both conservatives and liberals. WHile libertarians have the best grasp of economics, liberals wil disagree with the libertarian economic program and conservatives will disagree with the libertarian social program.

    All people reject cheating.  Liberals see individualization of profits as cheating. Libertarians and conservatives see the redistribution of profits as cheating.  Conservatives see immorality as cheating.  We can try every permutation, but it’s all the same.

    in simple terms, liberal =unified by law, libertarian=unified by commerce, conservative= unified by norms.  The problem is that we are materially different in our desires and permanently so.  So the problem  is inventing new institutions that can accomodate the different factions now that we have expanded enfranchisement beyond market-participating males.  And we know the lefts economic program is impossible. we know the conservative normative program is impossible.  We know the libertarian normative and institutional program is impossible.  So we devolve into moralistic banter rather than attempt to solve the problem of creating institutions that allow us to cooperate despite our differences.

    But I will let you in on a secret.  This conflict is ancient. And can be answered by one question: why is it that a woman has a right to bear a child that she cannot on her own support?  If you can answer that question you can solve the conflict between the conservatives and the liberals. because that one question is what drives it.

    The western manorial aristocratic economic system that is our heritage required that men demonstrate their fitness in order to gain access to land, and delayed childbirth so that women could work in the crafts. This process suppresses the breeding rates of the underclasses. The church likewise banned inbreeding which encourages early reproduction.  THese two factors led to the advancement of western civilization as much as did the rule of law, science, and the division of powers.

    Conservatives are attempting still to restrain the breeding of the lower classes to those who can afford to support their own. Liberals are doing the opposite:they are encouraging all the breeding that is possible.  These are just the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies of our distant ancestors writ large.  Nothing more.

    So when you ask the question, what is it that separates the different political ideologies, almost everything you will hear is an elaborate form of justification: a ruse to distract you from this one underlying difference: should we allow everyone to breed if it means that the middle classes must suppress their breeding so that the  lower classes may advance their breeding?

    Now if someone told you that this is the single most important factor in raising a civilization out of ignorance and poverty, and that it is impossible to build an egalitarian civil society otherwise, how would that affect your answer?

    How you answer that question is how you define your political preference.

    it’s really all that simple.

    NOTES:
    Moral Foundations Theory:
    1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
    2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
    3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
    4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”
    5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
    6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-conservatives-liberals-and-libertarians-believe-is-the-hidden-agenda-of-the-other-two-political-philosophies

  • USING THE LEFT’S TACTICS AGAINST THEM : A PERSONAL EXAMPLE Yesterday the left se

    USING THE LEFT’S TACTICS AGAINST THEM : A PERSONAL EXAMPLE

    Yesterday the left sent a typical representative to harass the small meeting of conservatives. He came with a camera. He was black. He was young. When he was told that we weren’t going to allow filming, he tried to use a hidden microphone to record the meeting.

    So, I went after him using the left’s tactics: I just insulted him as a dishonest scumbag that wasn’t interested in allowing free speech, only speech they and their ilk agreed with. They’re just terrorists bent on disrupting honest debate and the free exchange of ideas. They aren’t there to learn they’re there to intimidate and oppress. That’s what the left does.

    But this process is always started by the left, and society degenerates, and rational discourse is lost because of it.

    Society is built on restraint. It’s destruction is based upon the loss of it.

    Fox News was developed as a reaction to CNN’s left bent. Conservative talking points were a reaction to the left’s use of ‘staying on message’ by repeating mantras rather than asking questions. The conservative think tanks were a reaction to the ownership of the mainstream media by the left. The liberation think tanks, and the Mises institute in particular, were a reaction to the ideological innovations of the communist community organizers.

    It’s offensive to conservatives to use these tactics. Until they use them. but personally I find it liberating.

    I made the guy leave. There is no point having a recording or a video of someone calling you out on your dishonesty. God knows they don’t want that kind of thing spreading on the internet. I mean, you’re welcome to get into a shouting match with me and I’ll win. I learned from Friedman and Rothbard: never give up, never surrender, never stop. THe left depends upon our distaste for ill manners.

    We have to make it good manners to shout down the left and adopt any tactic that they throw at us. There isn’t any other choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-07 11:20:00 UTC

  • INTERESTING: A DEROGATORY COMMENT ABOUT LIBERTARIANS Yesterday, I went to a cons

    INTERESTING: A DEROGATORY COMMENT ABOUT LIBERTARIANS

    Yesterday, I went to a conservative political event and listened to two candidates. One of the comments they made was that the group was for ‘conservatives not libertarians’. (Really.) Which was followed by another giggle over a quote by a libertarian candidate — the implication being that libertarians will never get elected.

    Now I’m aware that libertarians and conservatives argue from different frameworks, and I”m aware that those frameworks are intellectual and economic on the libertarian end, and emotional and moral-historical-allegorical on the conservative end. But I”m also aware that conservatives have failed to produce an intellectual program, or a policy program to counter the progressive left. Most progress at resisting the left has come not from conservatives, but from the libertarians.

    It’s also ironic that the Village Voice can call me a member of the ‘Hard Right’ yet I’m not ‘right’ enough to get into a conservative political meeting.

    I’m working on providing conservatives an intellectual framework, so that libertarians and conservatives can cooperate, and so that we libertarians can leverage some of the conservative movement.

    But I am also struck by the vision of how difficult it will be to speak about political ideas in intellectual terms to conservatives.

    I mean, libertarians tend to be ‘smart folks’. And Like democrats, conservatives all too often are not.

    The thought leadership battle is between libertarians and liberals. The democrats and conservatives are just a measure of how well each side’s intellectuals do at convincing the middle of the curve.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-07 11:08:00 UTC

  • REASONS FOR USA WAR WITH IRAN OVER ISRAEL (From my post at The Times Of Israel)

    REASONS FOR USA WAR WITH IRAN OVER ISRAEL

    (From my post at The Times Of Israel)

    1) Obama will either support israel or lose the election.

    2) The conservatives will support israel for the following reasons:

    a) for sentimental reasons (protecting the little guy)

    b) for ideological reasons (they’re our jews, and our allies)

    c) for strategic reasons (a base of operations for protecting oil)

    d) for geopolitical reasons (the usa cannot tolerate a nuclear iran as the core state of islam creating a unified anti-commercial ideological political alliance from syria to pakistan which can hold the world hostage over oil)

    e) because iran is building an exchange that is not denominated in dollars. If this exchange is successful it will deprive the USA of the ability to export and deflate debt as an indirect means of progressively taxing foreign states for US military protection of the system of finance and trade. While speaking of this is impolitic both inside and outside the country, it’s just the reality of how the international system operates.

    f) And while the finance system is in bed with the democrats, the oil system is in bed with conservatives.

    So those are the reasons. And its pretty hard to argue with them if you want the average american to hold onto anything approximating his current standard of living.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-05-04 15:20:00 UTC

  • WILL THE USA ATTACK IRAN? AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC INCENTIVES THE USA WILL l

    WILL THE USA ATTACK IRAN? AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIC INCENTIVES

    THE USA WILL likely intervene because Iran is developing an alternative exchange for oil that is not denominated in dollars. THis exchange will eliminate the ability of the USA to finance it’s debt and to finance its military program by eliminating foreign demand for dollars in order to buy oil that is denominated in dollars.

    The USA is only able to provide the extraordinary level of income to its citizens because of its control over world finance, trade and oil, made possible by the inheritance of the British naval system after the second world war, and the USA’s ongoing military supremacy from the buildup of the cold war.

    More importantly, the USA pays for its military program through an inventive and progressive alternative to taxes: which is to export debt then deflate it. This effectively charges growing economies for the USA’s policing of world trade without the difficulty of extracting tariffs or taxes on individual states — which would be intolerable to politicians and populations alike.

    However, this strategy was most advantageous when most of the world was either economically primitive or embroiled in the luddist, anti-modernity World Communism movement, leaving commodity prices comparatively low for Americans. At this point in time, there is no one for the USA to charge for policing the world, because the entire world has abandoned tribal agrarianism and adopted consumer capitalism as its economic model. In this new world, it is in the interest of everyone else to pay their portion of world defense costs purely out of self interest.

    Therefore the USA must either stop Iran and retain its military complex, or allow the world oil system to fall under the control of a pan-islamic movement led by Iran and funded by oil revenues.

    There are arguments in favor of either direction. Our current president is perfectly happy to see the rise of a well funded militarily expansionist iran as the core state of islam. Libertarians are by their nature comfortable. Conservatives by their very nature are not.

    Israel is aware of this strategy (I know, because I know people so to speak) and is attempting to force the hand of Obama during the election season and force him to go along or lose his election, or have to wait four more years, during which Iran will be able to finish making all the materials without having to actually assemble a bomb. But having the materials is a s good as having the bomb. Further, they will move into production with their exchange and begin to undermine the dollar.

    China had hoped to use the Euro as a competitor to the dollar, but that is not going to happen. Europe cannot stand. So china will support the rise of this currency. So will the rest of the world, in order to contain the americans. The net effect is that the USA will have to withdraw its military and very likely europe will have to remilitarize rather than continue to have the USA and the developing world subsidize their economies.

    I can see a possible future for the world that is built on an iranian currency, not an american, where the US government collapses and sovereignty falls to the regions so that the west returns to its natural form: a collection of small states. My libertarian side likes this view. My conservative side argues that the quality of life of the average american will so significantly be reduced that this alternative is simply intolerable.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-30 12:18:00 UTC

  • INSTITUTIONS CANNOT SURVIVE IF THEY EXIST TO DENY PEOPLES AMBITIONS- THEY MUST A

    INSTITUTIONS CANNOT SURVIVE IF THEY EXIST TO DENY PEOPLES AMBITIONS- THEY MUST ASSIST THEM IN ACCOMPLISHING THEM.

    In Politics, you cannot tell a group that it may not have something. Even stating it such a thing is irrational. You must tell them that if they want something, there is a way to achieve it. But, our political system doesn’t work that way. It says the only way to win is to defeat the opposition. That’s why we have ideological class, race, religious and cultural warfare.

    Our classical liberal institutions could not, and did not survive the addition of the lower classes, women and other cultures into the polity.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-26 16:34:00 UTC