The best a government can achieve is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (meritocracy). This is only possible to achieve by ‘eliminating irreciprocities’ and creating market substitutes where markets are insufficient.
Equality is impossible – it’s suicidal. But we…
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 15:07:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679507896822792196
The best a government can achieve is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (meritocracy). This is only possible to achieve by ‘eliminating irreciprocities’ and creating market substitutes where markets are insufficient.
Equality is impossible – it’s suicidal. But we can reduce inequality that always emerges in complex human systems because of the human tendency to seek discounts, free riding, subsidies, rents, and corruption.
This is called ‘via-negativa’.
Eliminates the immoral and only the moral remains.
And that’s the best we can do.
And if that won’t do then reproduction for those for whom it won’t do, is immoral.
It’s that simple.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 15:07:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679507896730542081
RT @EPoe187: The current progressive project of compelling white people to experience tribal sentiments only if they are abasing, only if t…
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 14:18:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679495454352965634
It was an optimistic view of man.
I remember the neocon emergence, the build up, the discussons, the hopes that we could finally modernie the middle east and prevent islamism as we had communism which is precisely what islamism is strategically copying.
It wasn’t an insane plan. It was a very western christian liberal belief that people of 85 average IQ with no history of personal responsibility for commons, and a low trust impulsive civilization, could practice rule of law, and participatiory government. Expecially with post-imperial borders that create states that are internally unstable because they’re multi-ethinic and multicultural.
Moral men should be shamed for their folly, but not for their moral ambitions.
Reply addressees: @NickGReality @BeauBalentine @PeterZeihan
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-12 20:50:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679231837996998656
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679212742924726277
A BROADER CONTEXT TO THE POSTWAR STRATEGY
The broader context @PeterZeihan doesn’t quite summarize with enough clarity for average folk, is that the postwar era strategy is to end *empires* that privatized territory, trade and trade routes, and to replace it with nation states (the natural evolution of empires) with relatively free (market) trade.
So in evolutionary sense we went from imperial agrarian religious, to imperial industrial ideological, to our ‘ambition’ of federated empirical nation states in the hope that the Smithian vision would end the ‘age of empires’ and their endemic wars.
When we position the postwar program as just ‘against communism’ which evolved into “against islamism” this converts the framing of our understanding from (scientific) natural evolutionary progress of mankind to some pseudo-religious or philosophical context that is an arbitrary preference.
And in my work this is a common human cognitive failure – we are missing the evolutionary causality that reminds us that we are just another extension of the physical world operating and evolving by the same principles.
What my hero PeterZ and many others fail to emphasize sufficiently for my taste, is that different civilizations practice group evolutionary strategies that evolved during their first agrarian governments.
And the result is we are entrenched in civilizational projects that vary increasingly from the laws of nature, and as such, determine our rate of growth.
From the economic historian’s perspective, all other civilizations recovered from the bronze age collapse, developed their core strategies, and between 800bc and 800ad, completely exhausted the opportunity of agrarianism – and descended into stagnation.
Where the europeans, had they not fallen to overreach, christian sedition, and wars of migration and innovation, that we could quite easily have had the industrial revolution by 500-800ad, and saved humanity from a thousand years of muslim destruction of seven great civilizations of the ancient world, and the european dark ages, and all the suffering that both included.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @BeauBalentine @PeterZeihan
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-12 02:56:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678961536876912642
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678951541959536641
Are they strategic disasters? Do you know what our strategy was? (PeterZ does it at least half justice, but without the historical context, because I don’t see PeterZ understanding the reason for the west vs the rest). Or for that matter, was Vietnam a strategic disaster? And is that why republican voters revolt against them? Sure some percent do. It’s certainly not a majority opinion. But isn’t it that they are letting the left expand into all our institutions, holding out christian and conservative optimism, and doing nothing to resist the march through the institutions, immigration, multiculturalism, export of heartland industries, and embracing the global financialists over the nationalists?
The disasters weren’t foreign they were domestic.
Because the postward government converted the domestic imperial government dreated by the civil war, to a global imperial government – even if one of good will and nature.
We’ve destroyed the high trust polity, and the relative homogeneity of the culture, necessary for political cohesion and restored the original demand for independent states that the federal government wasd formed under, in imitation of the holy roman empire, and european history itself, because our civilzation’s strategy as a minority on the edge of the bronze age, cannot tolerate large power distance.
Reply addressees: @BeauBalentine @PeterZeihan
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-12 01:39:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678942033413656582
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678919385572933633
If you study revolutions they are largely unpredictable in timing even if they are possible to imagine. I do not see how it is in anyway possible for this country to survive at this scale with this much centrality in the federal government.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-11 23:59:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678916868533362690
Reply addressees: @John83243550517 @B595B @PeterZeihan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678915832729190400
Jay’s list (other than Sowell) consists largely of the NeoCon revolution that captured the republican party. So just as the democratic party under the neo-Marxist influence dragged us out of republicanism into working-class (now underclass) globalism, the NeoCon(NeoTrotsky) influence dragged the republican party into upper-class globalism.
A republic is a very simple concept: the prohibition on authority, by the rule of law, by the natural law of self-determination by self-determined means by the natural law of cooperation by means of reciprocal insurance (by force of arms) of sovereignty in demonstrated interest, reciprocity in display, word, and deed, limiting us to voluntary markets for cooperation, government of concurrency (falsely claimed as democracy), and commonality in law – meaning a purely empirical civilization.
(An importance which PeterZ objects to, but I don’t know if it’s because he understands what he’s saying when he states our government under common law is designed to debate (a market), and European governments under continental law are designed to rule (a hierarchy).)
However, the overproduction of elites, the overexpansion of managerial government, and the false promise of globalism under the guise of multi-ethnic, multiculturalism, are antithetical to a Republic because all overproduction of elites (Turchin), like all overproduction of management in the private sector, or overproduction of researchers in the academy, all drive us out of the prohibition on authority, and into the demand for authority, and the subsequent civilizational collapse.
So if you don’t recognize the republican party it’s because no longer Neocon, (for the reasons Peter’s Books explain as change in the global equilibrium of comparative advantage), and we are seeing the conservatives instead strive to return to the western tradition of a rule of law republic whose institutions maximize individual responsibility and minimize free riding, rent-seeking, socialization of losses, and privatization of commons, as well as totally ignoring the wants of the population (by our political, academic, media, and financial sectors), while the democratic party, captured by the neoMarxist-to-Woke left consisting of those parasitic classes, and the false promise that those parasitic classes can convey the prosperity of a republic to managerial state, in the service of those classes that seek to evade the maximization of individual responsibility that is the purpose of the western institutional tradition, the common, concurrent, natural law, the constitution, and the very concept of a constitutional republic.
The problem is that we are so ignorant because of the neoMarxist-to-woke ‘deliberate march through the institutions of cultural production” that we can’t even have an adult conversation about what is possible or not and what is true or not, so between what is true and possible we can choose a compromise position.
It’s exasperating.
And the march toward civil war continues.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @PeterZeihan
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-11 19:36:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678850691584933889
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678844221359529985
RT @Areez22: @RrayUpp @curtdoolittle Libertarianism shirks the cost of maintenance of the commons. And your statement on libertarianism is…
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-10 20:59:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678509306977632262
Well no it’s not the same as the IQ problem.
But it does require quite a bit of work.
And we’ve done it before.
So what we do is a political choice.
I’m just doing my job saying the evidence is we can do it. But it’s work.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-10 17:57:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678463439075696640
Reply addressees: @1nternetflotsam @matteo_pilgrim
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678460658768027648