Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language

    NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle

  • NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important)

    NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM

    (propertarianism core)(important)

    Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already.

    For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.

    EXPLANATION

    Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.

    Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.

    So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.

    THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result

    “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false)”

    (Reminds me of Yoda-speak, or Latin… lol)

    In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.

    FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW

    If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.

    {terms and definitions }

    -We … (who)

    -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )

    -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)

    -We propose …. (series of actions to change state)

    and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)

    -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)

    and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),

    -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).

    -Signed

    …. -Juried

    …. …. -Adjudicated.

    …. …. …. -Recorded.

    This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution.

    Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions.

    We must correct:

    The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty.

    All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and tehir ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission.

    WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH

    By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years.

    We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior.

    This is terribly easy todo. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity.

    And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit.

    APOLOGIES

    I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 13:27:00 UTC

  • OUR CASE. OUR JUDGEMENT. A DECLARATION OF WAR (4200 words)(good stuff) PREFACE I

    OUR CASE. OUR JUDGEMENT. A DECLARATION OF WAR

    (4200 words)(good stuff)

    PREFACE

    I prefer a life of contemplation. Of conversation. Of compromise and cooperation. I don’t like hate and anger. I don’t even like conflict – of any kind. Which is why I favor procedural institutions that provide methods of conflict resolution on the one hand, and the incentive to avoid entering into conditions where conflict might arise, by the certainty the resolution of conflict our institutions provide. The best means of avoiding conflict is surety that it will be settled, and very likely, against our interests.

    But if conflict must be had, the best solution to ending it, is to defeat your enemy completely. Not to the point of surrender. Not to the point of submission. Not to the point of flight. But to the point where they are so decimated if not exterminated, that they can never enjoin you or yours, in conflict again.

    So while I do not favor conflict, aggression, violence, war, and genocide, what I do favor is the willingness and ability to engage, with certainty, in superior conflict, aggression, violence, war, and genocide, so that even the most ambitious of opponents never violates even the most subtle of manners.

    A world without a great deal of interpersonal violence with which we suppress conflict by the constant fear of it, merely evolves into a world where we train people to incrementally relax the civilizational advantage the west pas possessed in Iron, Bronze and Steel ages: speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, cause no offense you are not willing to fight for, take nothing not paid for, and force not costs upon kith and kin.

    The greatest incentive for full reciprocity in our cooperation is the certainty of the costs we will bear violations of that reciprocity.

    It is this violation of reciprocity that is our present subject.

    WHEREAS

    We presently face a political conflict over the future of our civilization, between the competing strategies of a global monopoly with heterogeneous polities for maximum production and redistribution to all regardless of merit – and a market of nations with homogenous polities for maximum reinvestment, in furtherance of merit.

    I CHOOSE. That is right – I choose. We choose. I choose kin, clan, tribe, and nation, over individual, caste, and globe. I choose this out of mere emotional joy at the flowering of my people, and the full, unhindered, and celebrated expression of my kin’s success. I do this because I am accepted by and appreciated by my kin. And I understand the lack of kinship interest by those who are not. I choose my people because generations of my ancestors have used self discipline to construct families and traditions that improve family, kin, clan, tribe and nation, over the less disciplined strategy of individual, caste, and globe. And I choose my people not only for their vast accomplishments, but because whenever we have not been the dominant civilization and the dominant empire, all other empires have rallied against us as an opportunity for predation – particularly the Persian(Iranian), Mongol, and Muslim – the aggressive people of the steppe and desert.

    In the continuous choice between separatism (disassociation), cooperation, or conflict(war), one chooses cooperation only so long as it improve the lot of himself, his family, kin, clan, tribe, nation and civilization. If at any point we find greater value in disassociation, or war, that is because those with whom we formerly cooperated are no longer of value to, or are actively harming, us our families, clans, tribes, nations, and civilizations. There are costs of association, costs of disassociation, and sometimes these costs are difficult to judge, but over time the effects observable for us and ours. There are moral means of cooperation by which we advance our intersets ONLY by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities (effects upon others). This condition is called ‘reciprocity’. There are conditions where we impose current costs on current assets for future gains of future upon one another, and that produces intertemporal reciprocity. There are conditions where some group benefits at the expense of the assets of another group, and this is called ‘parasitism’ or ‘redistribution’. There are conditions where some group imposes unrecoverable costs upon another group, and we call this predation. There are conditions under which some group imposes not only unrecoverable costs to capital, but to genetics, institutions, laws, norms, traditions, myths both in the present and the future. And we call this Genocide.

    Now, in a market for cooperation between families, clans, tribes, and nations, if no nation imposes unwanted costs upon others, there is no reason that all nations cannot slowly transcend from the most base condition through the most advanced condition. Unfortunately to do this requires that they limit the reproduction of the unproductive, eliminate the reproduction of the harmful and impulsive. And continuously improve the distribution of talents until domestication by gene, institution, and habit achieve what no other method can: the absence of parasitism, predation, and genocide. But in defeating the Red Queen of biological and technical and informational evolution, we can never ‘end’ this process of continuous improvement of our nations. But still, all nations will persist and transcend. So many small nations produce many small prosperous nations, and many many transcendent humans, if we take this strategy. It is within these small nations of limited kinship diversity that we see the least difference in the classes and the greatest willingness for redistribution – kin selection is always present. Moreover, there is a lot of ‘room at the top’ and each individual has a greater chance of obtaining a change in his or her state of affairs in these polities.

    The other alternative end of the spectrum is to develop large civilizations of layers of genetic casts, almost always by color, and ethnicity, or some combination thereof. with very high differences between the castes (south america, Africa), some with a little less (India, greater china) and some with very little ( southeast Asia, the Arab, and other Muslim worlds.) The scale of the underclasses in those civilizations is so large that the underclass cannot be put to sufficiently productive work to generate enough wealth to construct a voluntarily organization of production that we unfortunately call ‘capitalism’. Instead they maintain a constant demand for corruption, authoritarianism, and an involuntary organization of production and distribution. And none possesses much influence of the course of his or her life because of it.

    So just as we can choose between the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) and the involuntary organization of production (socialism). And just as we can choose between dictatorship and direct-democracy. And just as we can choose between single judges, multiple judges, and finally juries. And just as we can choose between the rule of common law, the rule of continental law, the (russian) limited rule of law, and the absence of rule of law, only that of existing command (china). We can choose many small competing nations which individuallyl serve the interests of those who wish to join them, or we can do our best to survive the immobility of large empires organized by castes in which we are relatively powerless to enact change.

    We can choose. And I choose – I choose markets. I choose the competition of kin, family, clan, and nations. No man, no group, may deprive me of this choice. No politician no imagined authority may deprive me, of those like me, of this choice. You may choose a different separate ‘experiment’ with you and your lineage, but you may not, make a choice for me and us.

    No individual may make decisions that impose costs of convenience, preference, ideology, religion, or philosophy, that he, or they cannot perform restitution for (correct). This is a violation of natural law – the one law of reciprocity – and the limits reciprocity imposes upon one’s actions: one cannot take an action, no matter the intention, the negative consequences of which one cannot pay restitution for. And the costs that you and yours have imposed upon our people since the end of the colonial period are such that you cannot pay restitution for them except with your lives. And it is only payment with your lives, your families, and therefore the generations that you may have yet brought into being, that can compensate for the damage you have done to our families, kin, tribes, nations, and civilization.

    OUR COMPLAINT

    You have violated the Natural Law of Reciprocity on a vast scale. You have attempted genocide against us, our kin, our tribes, our nations, and our ancient civilization. Our well intentioned ancestors had hoped, that once the Ancient Regime of the martial and landed aristocracy that was dependent upon labor for persistence, was reformed to a rule by the new commercial aristocracy that was dependent upon consumers for persistence, would result in the other classes imitating the middle class aspirations to the habits, traditions and values of the former aristocracy.

    But within one generation, you and yours proved otherwise. And we and our ancestors held out paternal hope that you would learn from the failures of monetarism, learn from the failures of marxism, learn from the failures of socialism, learn from the great society programs, learn from the failures of the cultural marxists, and now the impending failure of the postmodernists – the people who lie.

    And we held out our patience because your learning was a cost we felt we could bear. But what we have learned from our patience, from the evidence of your words and deeds, is that you have no such ambitions other than those of your ancestors. You do not attempt to domesticate and improve mankind, to create greater prosperity with limited numbers through improvement of the animal man, but, like locusts, to create greater consumption and greater numbers, that are a threat not only to us and ours, but to this former paradise we call ‘earth’.

    And so we have learned that man, like other animals, has not been oppressed – but domesticated by the world’s aristocracy to varying degrees. And that all of western history consists of the incremental domestication of man – and man’s transcendence from beast to human. And that our aristocracy domesticated european man sufficiently to create innovation in Bronze, Iron, and Steel ages to transcend mankind. And they performed that domestication by the incremental suppression of parasitism – violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, propaganda, religious conversion, immigration, invasion, conquest, and genocide.

    They suppressed parasitism by denying people survival by other than self productive means. And those that could not regulate their reproduction, regulate their production, regulate their consumption, regulate their impulsivity. Through the institutions of the military, the judiciary, the sheriffs, the militia, the men of family and clan, parasitism was incrementally denied to all wherever it could be tried.

    Through the institutions of voluntary mate selection, the family, the prohibition on (natural) cousin marriage, the letting of land to small farmers, the harsh winters, the use of infantry in war, and the aggressive hanging of up to one percent of the population per year, the animal man was increasingly eliminated from the civilization.

    Conversely, by entry into the franchise in exchange for fighting in defense, fighting for conquest, and fighting to protect life and property, men could rise by their merits. Men could work their way from wild animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen, to burgher, to lesser nobility with effort and ability.

    But within a century, out of temporary economic luxury we did not cause – we only inherited from those who domesticated, invented and conquered – we have opened the political franchise to those without merit. We did not give them a new house of their own with which to negotiate with other classes for the production of preferred commons, now that they could participate in the market proper, and contribute to those commons via taxation.

    Instead we destroyed the multiple houses of government that produced a market for the negotiation of commons between the classes (and genders), and created a monopoly single-house, of monopoly majority rule, creating monopoly rule by a class.

    The consequences of this folly were that instead of a truthful discourse between the classes in government, by citizens with demonstrated merit (in practice, a large jury), we took advantage of mass media to create a propaganda war in the public space where we all live in constant fear that the other side will win the argument with the undecideds in the center whom are the least informed, and the least interested in outcomes. And we create the enormous opportunity for the financial and business sectors to assist in funding this propaganda war by way of ‘campaign donations’.

    We govern today by gossip not reason or fact. Because we have created institutions that require us to govern by gossip rather than reason or fact.

    And under this absence of market between the classes, because of the political and social advantage this gossip-economy has created for parasitism, our primary export in the west (particularly the Anglo-sphere in Canada, Australia, and the UK) is virtue-signaling by an academic, public intellectual, and political class that gives away the proceeds of that which it has extracted at the expense of the intergenerational capital of the producers. Yet our increasingly unproductive, increasingly mal-educated, increasingly virtue-signaling, infantilized, overindulged postwar generations are unaware of the end result of a competition in virtue signals – like the braggarts who outdo each other – the emptiness eventually becomes obvious. There are limits to all economies – even economies of lies. And the economy of virtue signals has been bankrupted by the generation of speakers who have arrived in the market for productive action with a skill equivalent to mastery of fantasy literature.

    So, because of the method of your enfranchisement – peers who are not in fact peers, but who have completely opposite interests, we lack the institutions of cooperation between peoples with different experience, time horizons, and resources.

    Unfortunately, our efforts to domesticate you through encouragement and patience, and high costs, like a loving parent, have been wasted. Despite our arts, literature, philosophy history, science, law, institutions – particularly those institutions of truth telling, jury, senate, houses, and the law of the reciprocity of sovereign men we inherited from our ancient ancestors.

    OUR PROSECUTION.

    You remain an experiential rather than intertemporal beast preferring quantity over quality, experience over investment, consumption over production. the fearful impulsivity of the young mother, undisciplined child, undisciplined adult: the want of more now than you produce.

    You created a false history of oppression in order to circumvent the obvious: you come from generations of bad choices. That your bad families have used majority democracy to war against good families.

    And unfortunately, in exchange for attention, humans redistribute negative information more readily than positive, and they embellish information more readily than clarify it. You spread this falsehood through single women and the undomesticated underclasses, both of which you have conspired to increase their number for two generations.

    You have railed against the supernatural church’s conflation of myth and truth. But you have replaced that supernatural church comprised of myths the simple can believe, the average can make use of, and the wise respect with a pseudoscientific one comprised lies that require exhaustive knowledge to refute – and constituting a mythical narrative of oppression, a utopian promise of life in the near future instead of after death, a set of ‘laws’ that will destroy the very source of western civilization, a conspiracy of common interest between finance, media, academy, and state – producing a religion more intolerant and antagonistic to western civilization than the church had ever been. You have accomplished obscurity of costly truth through sheer volume of pseudoscientific deception, what the church achieved by sheer volume of recitation from the pulpit, the preservation of literacy to a few, and the payment for education in a falsehood – all so it could obtain land to rent to the common people on incomes for the purpose of housing and boarding large numbers of the otherwise unemployable members of the lesser aristocracies that populated the churches and monasteries.

    You have manufactured ignorance and pseudoscientific equivalent of superstition on a scale not seen since the closure of the aristocratic stoic schools and the forcible christianization of the roman empire – contributing to the dark ages of ignorance that followed those deceits.

    And instead of arguing by parable as a limit to hubris (consumption) you argue by outright lying about the nature of man in order to advance it. You have not only violated the division of church and state but merged them into a pseudoscientific religion for the purposes of governance by gossip and simple numerical dominance – a violation of the very principle of divided government under which we could not use majorities to circumvent trade. A trade for which we wish constraint on your behavior in exchange for the product of our productivity.

    You have destroyed the family as the central unit of production, and the first evidence of personal responsibility.You have forced women into the workplace, redistributed the earnings of productive people to unproductive, and therefore redistributed rates of reproduction to the less competent – reversing 3500 years of western domestication. Moreover, you have used the entire contribution of women’s entry into the workforce in order to increase taxes, making us no better off with a two income family that must hire out our child care and training, than we were with a one income

    Our lives consist of actions in commercial and military concert for whom government is only necessary to resist you and yours. Your life consists of gossip, layers of language: negotiation, persuasion, coercion, and deception all of which are for no other purpose than to obtain resources from the more difficult productivity of others: personal discipline, emotional discipline, skill discipline, physical discipline, consumption-discipline, reward-discipline, savings discipline. Where discipline requires a cost now for a reward later.

    You leave the risks to others, yet claim the rewards. You remain only partly domesticated animals requiring many more generations of selection prior to enfranchisement in the class and cult of discipline we call ‘Aristocracy’.

    You have created a government that does not compromise between the reproductive strategies of men and women, nor upper middle and lower classes, but that imposes the reproductive strategy of the herd of female foragers that maximizes consumption regardless of genetic, cultural, and civilizational cost, upon a civilization of families for whom marriage was a voluntary contract, and the male negotiated with other males in government as a proxy for violence and a method of trade in and production of commons between classes with families of different abilities, resources, and wants.

    OUR JUDGEMENT

    But we are finished investing in your consumption. You have been the greatest bad investment of the past 150 years. Worse than the great wars themselves. They posed no threat to our civilization. We have endured many generation-long wars. And it is through these generation-long wars that we reform and evolve where other less competitive civilizations stagnate – or like the Muslims, decline. They are not acts of failure, but these wars are acts of rebirth, after which we have transcended the prior superstitions and beliefs, and adapted to the new more empirical understanding of the world. We have been at war with you and yours for millennia. The battle between Naval Commercial Idealistic Athens(England/America), Martial Legal Empirical Sparta (Rome/Germany), and Supernatural Religious (lying) Persia(Jerusalem/The Church/Byzantium/Mecca-Baghdad/Paris-Frankfurt-NewYork-Los Angeles).

    So, you may choose separatism, and create a competing society that advances your vision therein; and determine whether it can survive competition with ours. We may choose separatism and recreate a competing society with our local vision, and examine whether it can survive competition with yours. But if you seek to impose a monopoly, this is NO DIFFERENT FROM GENOCIDE, just on a longer time scale.

    So if you with your preference for the short time experience of individual life, and the advancement of castes, attack us with genocide on a generational scale, then we with the preference for the long term experience of family, tribe, and egalitarian, national life, absent those castes, will resort to genocide on an immediate scale.

    Under our Natural Law, the demand for reciprocity, that reciprocity is always demanded whether good or bad, and wether individual or national, and whether long term or immediate. And you have violated that reciprocity as assuredly as had you dug the graves of our ancestors, torn down their homes, and temples, burned their books, and killed all who know the names and lives of their heroes.

    You have just done it over a century rather than a season. You did it by the manufacture of gossip and propaganda, the distribution of pseudoscience and lies, the manufacture of ignorance through the deprivation of intergenerational transfer of knowledge, the intentional advancement of suits designed to undermine rule of natural law, the intentional destruction of the family and the subsequent impoverishment and relative economic decline of millions, and the suicide of men in old age; all of which was made worse through the use of fiat money and credit to impoverish us and our generations, by charging us unnecessary fees for borrowing from our own future productivity, for the sole purpose of expanding government to twenty percent of our workforce, bribing us with consumption to the point where all we purchase are virtue signals, a media that has abandoned all pretense of empiricism, and an academy that sells diplomas in falsehoods for prices that would shame the church’s sale of indulgences.

    We live not just in a world of gossip, but a world of perpetual lies, enslavement by tax, credit, and impossibility of self security by savings or family, in a slow genocide, which we our domesticated europeans are replaced by undomesticated immigrants for no other reason but to perpetuate the academy-state-finance church you have made.

    We have always the choice to separate, cooperate, or war. It is clear that you cannot cooperate. You have spent a century undermining our markets for polities, commons, production, reproduction, and association. Where we previously lived under markets for voluntary association and disassociation, reproduction but only within a family that could afford reproduction, production wherever we could find or create value, markets for the production of commons between houses of the classes if we demonstrated contribution to them, and the right of exit if we chose one locality or another due to the differences in opportunity for self, family, kin, clan, tribe, and nation.

    OUR CONVICTION

    There is nothing more truthful than violence. Nothing dishonest about it. Nothing immoral about it if put to moral ends. There exists no more moral use than the treat of violence if reciprocity is violated, the enforcement of reciprocity through restitution and punishment for its violation. And there exists no more moral end than domestication of mankind and the transcendence of mankind through the organized use of violence to enforce reciprocity and the demand for survival in the market for competition in association, production, reproduction, the civic production of commons, and the international production of polities of reciprocity. A thousand nations producing the norms, traditions, laws, institutions, and polities most suitable for the stage of development of their kin, clans, tribes and nations. Let a thousand nations bloom.

    So in case this is too subtle an argument for those who cannot imagine it, let us not leave the implied unsaid:

    ***We will commit genocide against you in the short term if you do not separate and compete, or abandon and recant your genocidal ambitions. This is our promise. And we are ‘the people that act but to not speak. We are the people that possess agency, discipline, and a willingness to self sacrifice, even our lives, for our kin, tribe, nation, culture, and civilization. Because in our values, in our families, tribes, and nation, in our preference for the intergenerational over the personal, there is no better death than in the service of our kin, the labors of our ancestors, and the temples of our gods.***

    Some time in the next short while we will go to war with one another. And this time we will lay upon you such a death and destruction, that the event will be given a name, and its name will be repeated with trembling fear for the next five thousand years. Because that is the only way we can ensure that our ancestors, ourselves, our children, and the infinity of generations yet to come, never encounter the genocidal monopoly you perpetuate against us, our kin, our tribes, our nations, and our civilization – the civilization that in the prehistoric bronze age, ancient iron age, and modern steel age, has dragged humanity out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, starvation, endemic violence, and disease.

    I swear this before my kin, my clan, my tribe, my people, my nation, my civilization, my ancestors, our ancestors, and all our gods that have been and have yet to be.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-16 06:30:00 UTC

  • A RESTATEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: PROPERTARIANISM’S THREE-FACTOR CAUSAL MODEL (core)(

    A RESTATEMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY: PROPERTARIANISM’S THREE-FACTOR CAUSAL MODEL

    (core)(central concept)(necessary)(innovation)

    I. ASSETS (FACTS)

    P1) ASSETS: self/body, energy, relations, investment/opportunity

    P2) ABILITY: intellect/intellectual effort, emotional reserves/ability, physical ability / effort,

    P3) DESIRABILITY: other-acceptance(non-rejection), other-information, other-insurance),

    Note that these three are (a) evidentiary in the individual’s experience of his or her life, (b) habitual in the family unit and the information and training of the family unit – and informationally inherited. (c) evident in the assets of the family unit, (c) genetically inheritable.

    But what assets do we humans seek to preserve, consume, acquire, and maintain? A rich portfolio that varies from our life itself, time, food, shelter, kin, mates, allies (people to cooperate with), private property (stuff), private commons, public commons, territory, information, opportunity, normative institutions, cultural institutions, formal institutions. The reasons being that as we increase each of these our discount on intellectual, emotional, and physical effort decreases.

    Through cooperation in a division of temporal perception, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, we use the one commodity that is most precious: time, to make everything we desire cheaper – so profoundly so that we actually cannot fathom its scale. By the simple combination of sovereignty and reciprocity; norm, tradition, literature and myth; property, contract and law; money, prices and credit; family(marriage), organization(corporation), voluntary(civic), local, regional, and national government; we convert the little time of our human lives into the production of complex goods any one, even the most simple, the production of which would consume lifetime of an individual.

    II. REACTIONS (GENETIC/BIOLOGICAL INSTRUCTIONS/INFORMATION)

    E1) Pleasure(reward) vs Pain(cost) (pre cognitive)

    E2) Excitement(projected gain/loss) vs Rest (conserve) (cognitive but pre-social)

    E3) Aggression(dominance) vs Fear(submission) (cognitive and social)

    All emotions describe anticipated changes in state of (P1)Assets. That is all that they describe. Nothing more. They may evolve through complex combinations of assets and emotional reactions, so that we experience a ‘chord’ or ‘symphony’ of emotions. And we might (artists do) attempt to compose such ‘symphonies’ for us to experience. But just as all music is constructed from a limited number of properties, and complexity emerges from its subtle combinations, emotions are constructed from only a small number of properties, and complexity in our experience emerges from dense combinations of those subtle combinations.

    Note that by combining these three emotions with the various forms of ASSETS, and the various values of those assets, we can produce the entire spectrum of human emotions in a rich orchestra no matter which emotional framework we wish to describe.

    III. THE REPRODUCTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF ADVOCACY

    I1) The feminine near term need for inventory and consumption given the fragility and duration of the maturity of offspring. (socialistic/individualistic/offspring)

    I2) The immature male need for opportunity to accumulate assets in order to attract and maintain females. (libertarian/individualistic/assets)

    I3) The mature male need to preserve costly personal, familial, group, tribal investments (conservative/familial/tribal/preservation)

    Note that these differences in reproductive strategy are expressed in our advocacy for the distribution of the proceeds of population density, cooperation within that population density: female egalitarian, male youth individualist, and adult male meritocratic. Each bias reflects the reproductive strategy of the the genders. Each member does in fact contribute to the creation of returns withing a polity (group) as long as he or she doe not predatorially, parasitically, free-ride upon the group’s efforts. Individuals can specialize or develop portfolios of contributions to a polity. And most of us develop portfolios that produce the maximum returns for us given our abilities.

    Those portfolios consist in:

    The provision of caretaking. The adherence to and policing of norms, traditions, rituals, the recitation of myths. Participation in cooperation of defense, goods, services, and information. Virtuous contribution to the commons through donation and redistribution. Meritorious contribution to the commons through the production of excellence. Status contribution to the commons through the contribution to or production of institutions and monuments. Heroic contribution to the commons by self sacrifice or risk. ( But let us remember that people can also engage in false advertising in order to obtain opportunity and free riding without performance or investment. )

    Note that nothing else is necessary to describe all ethical, moral, and social behavior.

    REASONS WHY THESE CAUSES ARE OBSCURED FROM US

    1) The terms used above are analogies that we can reduce to frames of current experience. How our brains record, anticipate gains and losses of the various forms of assets they find useful is still something we must discover. However, in that discipline we call psychology: the operations and variables that constitute the human experience, I have significant doubts whether further refinement of this set of ‘names’ will vary further any more so than have number and note, weight, volume, and velocity. And that all further refinement to psychology will consist largely of subtle expressions constructed upon these terms.

    Whenever we change the paradigm of any model that serves our ability to describe phenomenon, it is because we have developed a technology by which the scale of our perceptions and scale of our actions, require redefinition of the model to accommodate the new increases in scope.

    2) Human conscious experience is conflationary: the combination of perception, memory, and recursive interactions of perception and memory, producing a continuous ‘overload'(conflation) that our short term memories are insufficient to preserve as a state, and where that preserved state would be necessary for introspection. Were we able to capture (freeze) frames of that complex experience in our short term memories we might be able to trace the causal routes through the layers of our brain with a great deal of practice. And in some cases we are able to do that. But because our experience is ‘assembled’ and ‘reassembled’ each time, and because we actually modify it with each reflection upon it, the sheer quantity of fragmentary information would be ‘unfollowable’ except as a sequence of concepts – a sequence that through introspection we can sometimes deduce.

    IIII. THE INTERGENERATIONAL DIVISION OF ASSETS (KNOWLEDGE vs ENERGY)

    Given youthful poverty, ignorance, energy, and lack of accumulated cellular damage, and mature wealth, and knowledge accumulated at the cost of accumulated cellular damage, the generations engaged (until the 20th century usurpation by government and redistribution from the mature and aged to underclass reproduction) in a voluntary exchange between the generations.

    The most obvious is the transmission of care and property between generations of families, but the least obvious is the borrowing and lending of money and interest OUTSIDE of families, and even outside of those who are known to us by use of the legal, finance, and banking system – in one of the most egalitarian but meritocratic means of intergenerational cooperation while preserving accumulated information by which the old could control the risks of the young. Again which was destroyed by government interference in the 20th century through the use of fiat credit and the subsequent empowerment of the financial sector.

    Note that nothing else is required to explain various cultural behaviors other than reproductive strategies, moral intuitions for ‘proper/fair’ property and proceed distribution in relation to reproductive strategies. Family strategies and the correspondence of family strategies with the increasing accumulation of various properties, with individual property ownership instead of family currently eliminating the last vestiges of the family as an asset-transfer unit (made possible by the destruction of the family by the government transfer of assets from productive to unproductive individuals).

    V. THE INTRA-CIVILIZATIONAL DIVISION OF TEMPORAL SPECIALIZATION

    It’s rather obvious that the bronze and iron ages radiated out from the fertile crescent whose seasonal flooding provided reliable irrigation that could be controlled by a warrior elite, the proceeds of production extracted, consumption increased by the elites, and investments in commons produced by their followers.

    It is somewhat obvious that the trade routes from northern Italy overland to the north sea, wherein the Venetians provided a navy for the wealthier but more despotic Byzantines and their Conquerors the Muslims, created the foundation for first the failed Carolingian civilization, and the ‘truncated’ Hanseatic civilization. And that today’s european heartland still reflects Carolingian Lotharingia.

    It is less obvious that in european civilization, from Spain to the Urals, the same pattern of radiation outward is visible from the north sea down to the Hanjal line, within which northern europeans practiced bipartite manorialism the nuclear, and absolute nuclear family, as well as the common law of sovereign men, as well as rule of law – governance without rule by market means. And then through the catholic countries where they did not, to the eastern european countries where the middle class evolution was late – and truncated by the Russians, to the Russian that civilization that was too young, to experience either the scientific enlightenment, or the reformation to which they were more suitable, and busy conquering the remains of the Mongol’s Golden Horde empire from Belarus to the pacific and into what is today Alaska.

    Below the protestant, catholic, and orthodox lines of civilization we see a polar opposite strategy: not one of incremental domestication for profit in pursuit of limiting or eliminating rule: Sovereignty, but one of preservation of ignorance, preservation of underclasses, preservation of family and tribal orders, preservation of tribal conflict, and thereby an ever INCREASING demand for authoritative rule – a rule that is profitable for a large number of religious ‘judges’ and advisors, and an authoritarian militaristic state apparatus. Were it not for the presence of cheaply extracted oil, this part of the world would be somewhere developmentally below south america given it’s indigenous underclass, between rural India and its indigenous underclass, and high conflict subsaharan Africa, and its indigenous underclasses.

    And far to the east we have Indian civilization who, thanks to Hinduism has succeed at least in creating a relatively gentle people, and who has (unwantingly) imported anglo logic, and russian economics and politics and law. Chinese civilization that has imported russian philosophy, economics, and politics, and is now importing anglo empiricism and technology. But where indians are optimistically untruthful people, chinese are pessimistically untruthful people. And Russians are opportunistically untruthful people.

    What the chinese and russians have had is a military capable of altering the course of the civilization when necessary. This is what the hindus do not have. Perhaps for the simple reason that the continent of india unlike the narrow strips of green that constitution the population centers of russia and china, is simply impossible to rule centrally without an external threat that gives rise for the need to form a military as did china to resist modernity, and russia to provide an alternative to modernity.

    THE SPECIALIZATIONS

    With this history in mind we can see something quite interestinsg

    that the stock market and high risk and highly ‘evangelical’ movements exist in america, and that americans practice scientific law – and that maericans deny the existence of their classes. That the bond market and banking exist in England. That the british have traded Anglo empiricism for a conflation with French Rousseuian moralism and practice moral law. And that the british complain about their classes. That engineering and perhaps the most psychologically precise language and high capital investment and an explicity hierarchy exist in germany along with requisite ‘duty’ more so than empathic ‘morality’. That eastern europe has been truncated but now forms a relatively moral labor force. That Russia provides the military and resources on a scale and practicality that the idealistic utopianism of the american military can never hope to achieve despite it’s technological and operational excellence – which is exactly its primary weakness. No Russian would produce a US military. It’s fragile. It’s just big. What makes american military dangerous is TRUST. Americans fight and maintain formation. and take initiative to win.

    So what we see is high risk Americans, tepid risk Britons, low risk Germans, risk averse eastern europeans, and highly risk intolerant if not outright paranoid Russians.

    That this civilization from Australia to america to Europe, to Russian Asia constitutes a series of specializations in the inter-temporal demands of the civilization is not so obvious. That’s unfortunate, because no other civilization can manage it.

    NOTE: Note that nothing else is needed to explain the differences between these societies other than the atomicity of property due to the advancement of the commercial sector that we call the middle class.

    RECIPROCITY AS INFORMATION, AND ASSETS AS DECIDABILITY: NATURAL LAW

    Just as voluntary exchange free of fraud is the only test of whether a good, service, or information has been a use of resources, a personal consumption, or waste of resources, voluntary cooperation free of deceit is the only means of testing reciprocity(sovereignty) whether the resource of cooperation (time, energy, opportunity, resources) has been productive, parasitically consumed, or wasted.

    When we engage in cooperative exchanges across our various abilities, needs, and biases we discover which goods, services, and information is desired by the market, and we therefore adjust our relations, efforts, and or thoughts, to find a balance between what we desire to do, what is available to do, and what others want us to do.

    In this way, through sovereignty, reciprocity, and markets in all walks of life we ‘calculate’ methods of achieving one another’s goals without having the intention of achieving one another’s goals.

    We the rely on rebellion, rallying, shaming, ridicule, disagreement, debate, discourse, agreement, congratulations, advocacy, and cooperative action depending upon we agree with or disagree with one ‘ambition’ in the portfolio of ambitions that we are aware of and capable of understanding at any time.

    And while only those with errors (mental illnesses – wether physical, emotional, or intellectual) engage in those topics of investigation that are increasingly difficult to reduce to direct experience:, economics, engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, logic, mathematics – because they possess neither a portfolio of investments nor knowledge to trade them;

    unfortunately everyone can reduce questions of reciprocity, ethics, morality, politics, culture, and civilization to direct experience because from micro investors to major investors each of us has defacto constructed a portfolio of cooperation. Unfortunately, just as the economics of the family, the business, the nation, and the world, operate by very different and completely counterintuitive, and often opposite rules, such that excellence in one niche is not commutable to another, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and humans of all levels of sophistication overestimate their knowledge.

    One of the reasons for teaching and speaking, and legislating in Propertarianism’s Natural Law, is that the logic of law and cooperation is no longer subjectively undecidable, but objectively decidable regardless of norm, tradition, culture, or legislation. And as such we educate in morality by a means as certain as mathematics: because just as mathematics must be constructible by means of operations retaining consistent relations, consent, cooperation, contract and law must be constructible by means of operations consisting of constant relations we call ‘reciprocity’ : the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of our assets and limited to productive externalities to the assets of others.

    And more importantly, since the invention of the pulpit in prior eras, and the print in subsequent eras, and mass media in our just-ending era, has led to the incremental industrialization of error, suggestion, and deceit, and that we developed reason as a counter to eastern supernaturalism in the ancient world, were defeated by eastern supernaturalism, and then rescued ourselves by empiricism in early modern world, nearly completed the second scientific revolution in Germany before it was truncated by the world wars, and that we have nearly been defeated by eastern pseudoscientific mysticism of the cosmopolitans in the twentieth century world, and given that the thinkers of the last century (darwin, nietzsche, spencer, poincare, brouwer, bridgman, mises, popper, hayek) failed to produce the *advancement* in empiricism that would allow us to refute the pseudoscitsts that attempted the third wave of supernaturalism – this time by even more innovative means (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, the Frankfurt School).

    SUMMARY:

    As far as I know all human emotion and behavior can be explained by these three ASSETS, these three EMOTIONS, and the MEMORY of our life experience to date; along with the division of reproductive labor, the division of intertemporal labor, the division of productive labor, the division of class labor in producing commons, and the division of civilizational labor in producing commons at the largest scales.

    As far as I know differences in personalities allow us to specialize in niches and as long as we do not err in our assessments of our assets, all personality types both (a) gravitate to empirically available portfolios and the uses of those portfolios, and (b) react rationally and emotionally rationally to the current and future value of those portfolios. (c) and assistance in improving those portfolios is the best that we can do for one another – and what makes us love one another – investing in one another.

    As far as I know some individuals are defective primarily in their limited reserves of frustration in relation to their other abilities. As far as I know the classes consist of individuals with increasing inheritances of (P1)Assets, (P2)Abilities, and (P3)Desirability. And as far as I know the classes sort according to familial, associative, productive, reproductive, and political utility to one another.

    As far as I know the west and the far east have been most successful because a combination of climate (cold), production techniques (small family farms), aristocracy imposed manorialism (access to land and therefore reproduction), and an aristocracy that aggressively exterminated those troublemakers. Meanwhile the process of reproductive selection among those that remained favored lower impulsivity, lower and slower maturity, and more feminine traits in women, which resulted in domestication of then population through pedomorphic evolution much more so than all other forms of evolutionary influence combined.

    UNCONSCIOUS VS CONSCIOUS TRAINING OF THE MIND.

    We can vary our assets. We can get fit, we can primp and preen, we can learn manners and small talk, We can learn skills. We can develop relationships, produce and save. But we can only do so to the limits of our genetically inherited abilities.

    Therefore, the primary means of self improvement given the limits of our genetic assets, is through the REMOVAL OF ERROR: the problems of the self: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking. The problem is, that we often cannot tolerate a true accounting of our assets, or opportunity for assets, because the realization that we have empty pockets so to speak, and are totally dependent upon the favor of others, when we are undesirable by others, because we are either a cost or lacking value to others, would remove from us the will to live. It is for this reason alone that Buddhism Succeeded among the poor, and Stoicism Succeeded among the working and middle classes, and science, economics, law, and philosophy, among the upper middle and upper classes: these methods of thought correspond to the means of eliminating fear of falling behind our peers in the constant race with the red queen in all walks of social life.

    PERSONALITIES ARE THE RESULT OF A NEED TO COOPERATE AND THE CONSTANT COMPETITION FOR COOPERATIVE ASSETS

    If we do not need to cooperate, how complex a set of personalities do we need? we need to be more mobile to find food, we need to be smarter to hunt food, we need to be smarter to outwit competitors, we need to be much smarter to cooperate to outwit competitors – whether within the group or without it.

    We must seek to find niches to exploit within group and without group, and within nature by individual means, and within nature by cooperative means. We seek to create allies in cooperation, to join allies in cooperation, and to outwit allies by defection, and to outwit enemies by circumvention, cooperation, or defeat.

    But most of our cooperation occurs within group. Most of our evolution occurred because of in-group problems of negotiation.

    The band/family was knowable. The family/tribe somewhat knowable. The village/family knowable. The city not knowable, but because of family religion and law and barter, somewhat predictable. The big city is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law and pricing. The metropolis is not knowable whatsoever without jobs, law, pricing, credit, and mass media – like religion, attempting to force us into peerage. And modernity is was beginning to be terrifyingly unknowable until jobs, law, pricing, credit, and the new distributed media that allowed us to find peers around the world easily.

    I suspect the future will be an expansion of interpersonal reputation, legal reputation, credit reputation, and ‘social media’ reputation of some sort – so that we may identify informational peers amidst the multitude of different grains of human sand. And I would expect to see an increase in specialization of identities – if only for signaling purposes – and personalities – as means of adapting – just as we have seen an increase in the specialization of knowledge and labor.

    DIVERSITY OF PERSONALITIES EVEN WITHIN A HETEROGENOUS POLITY ARE AN ASSET

    Personalities are a means of dividing the problem of the intertemporal and reproductive division of perception knowledge, negotiation advocacy, and labor into that thing we call reciprocity and the benefits of cooperating in increasing scales while taking advantage of both increasingly small niches for those with lesser abilities, maintaining niches, and generating new niches, that destroy the old.

    BUT THERE ARE NO LIMITLESS GOODS

    (undone )

    WE BOUND THE LIMITLESS GOODS WITH VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND UNBIND THEM WITH VIOLATIONS OF VOLUNTARY COOPERATION.

    (undone)

    Ergo, the government has destroyed the checks and balances of a heterogeneous polity.

    THE HYPOTHALAMIC PROBLEM/BENEFIT AND MODERNITY

    (undone)

    COMPARE TO THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL – THE “AUTHORITARIAN” or “MONOPOLY” or “CONFORMITY” or “ILLNESS” INDUSTRIAL ERA’s SYMPATHETIC MODEL OF MAN

    In every era of history we have used the most sophisticated technology we know of as an analogical model to both describe the introspectively unavailable functions of the human mind, and to justify whatever authoritarian model we wish to impose upon one another. Freud and Jungs attempt to escape Darwin and Nietzsche by fabricating pseudosciences with which they could criticize what they held in disdain made use of the uniformity-industrialism and sexually-repressive-victorian (due to syphilis) models of the day.

    Wile in the last century thanks to Maxwell, we spoke physical phenomenon as changes in energy. In the current era, thanks to physicists we speak of physical phenomenon as changes in the state of information. In the past eras we spoke of passions and virtues, then of emotions and wants. and thanks to Hayek we now speak of social science, and now thanks to Turing, we speak of psychology as changes in state of information. In doing so we cast off the imprecision and bias of prior eras, and the attempts at deception of prior political and cultural movements.

    The current model of personality that psychologists operate by retains both the authoritarianism of the industrialist and socialist era, with only tepid attempts at reform in response to the findings of the cognitive sciences, and the conversion of pseudoscientific psychology to empirical psychology. The current Five Factor (or six or seven) model in its various forms does in fact correspond somewhat to services provided by brain structures.

    FF1) CURIOSITY (INTELLECT-NOVEL) / REPEATABILITY (MEMORY-KNOWN) (psychology): The ability available to find rewards in success through experimentation or the inability to tolerate frustration in failure and the discovery of success in repetition

    FF2) EXTRAVERSION / INTROVERSION (psychology): Method by which one processes information: dependence upon self reflection, or dependence upon empathy and communication from others. The limits to frustration we obtain with seeking information from others depending upon our desirability for informational cooperation with others.

    FF3) AGREEABLENESS / DISAGREEABLENESS (Psychology): “the willingness to bear small costs of investment in order to identify present and longer term opportunities for gains or consumption and prevent current and future costs or losses.” (byproduct of conscientious ness/extroversion?)

    FF4) CONSCIENTIOUSNESS / BLAME-AVOIDANCE:

    (undone)

    FF5) CONFIDENCE-EMOTIONAL STABILITY / FEAR – NEUROTICISM

    (undone)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 20:02:00 UTC

  • THE LANGUGAGE OF SOVEREIGNTY (must read) (synthesis) (good for informed newbies)

    THE LANGUGAGE OF SOVEREIGNTY

    (must read) (synthesis) (good for informed newbies)

    I suppose it doesn’t occur to people that reading philosophers and reading fantasy, science fiction, crime novels, and historical fiction are all identical activities separated only by the pretense of the philosopher. A pretense only exceeded by theologists, and pseudoscientists.

    It’s amazing to me how – as we mature – we trip over some frame of reference and build upon it: scientific, historical, literary, or their evil twins: pseudoscientific, mythical, philosophical, and theological. And that the obvious difference between those choices is, like the solipsistic autistic spectrum, a bias between the real, actionable, and transformative – and the imaginary, inactionable, and escapist. The question is whether we merely stumble into that escapist vs action bias, or whether we gravitate because of a genetic bias – or both.

    I don’t study philosophy – the literature of wishes and half deceits. I study institutions: existential and self perpetuating sequences of operations constructed from rational incentives. Institutions of personal transformation. Institutions of cooperation. Institutions of competition and conflict. Institutions of evolution and transcendence.

    I want to end the false pretense that philosophy – in the platonic sense – has been a value or is a respectable pursuit – rather than the west’s version of supernaturalism. A half truth. A conflation of the supernatural and imaginary, and the rational and existential. The platonic equivalent of a supernaturalism that one can conduct in polite company without looking foolish or losing status by appeals to authority from the supernatural. A more respectable way of practicing superstition.

    We possess sciences, history, and literature. With literature as our means of envisioning possibilities, history as our record of our limits, and science as our record of the limits of the universe. And neither science, nor history, nor literature claims rationalist, platonic, or supernatural authority. An authority that is desirable only as a means of escapism from the difficult task of providing others sufficient value that they will cooperate with you in mutually productive exchange. The search for truth constantly respects the preservation of sovereignty: there is no authority in truth, only the absence of it. Absent authority, absent error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, we are left only with productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer limited to productive externality, and the choice to compromise and cooperate truthfully, or to withdraw to violence – the failure to cooperate, while preserving truth and sovereignty. (This also explains the origins of western trial by combat).

    There are no answers in the words of men in the past, only evidence that they pursued solutions to the same problems with different levels of truth by deflation and falsehood by conflation. The truth has stood before us since our origins and we have not ourselves understood it. And by failing to understand it, by practicing it as genetic predisposition, cultural tradition, institutional tradition, literature and myth, we have perpetuated it over millennia. A metaphysical assumption about the fixed nature of man that is instead a choice: Sovereignty. From that one choice all the west descends – all our works, all our arts, all our sciences. Our whole civilization depends upon this one presumption. A presumption that is a gift from our ancestors – the source of our prosperity and achievement. We assume sovereignty as our most desirable status signal.

    But Sovereignty is a status signal that is not available to those who lack agency because of biological impulsivity, cognitive limitations, or lack of training (socialization) in the limits of impulse. In the west, we have selected for agency for thousands of years both through our ancient culture, our nearly universal militia training, independent farmsteads, manorial control of land, agrarian hardship, and the intolerance of the seasons, and the ravages of disease. Other civilizations have not. While the lower classes lack agency we were able to minimize their number over the centuries. Unfortunately, for reasons of reproductive and pedagogical necessity, women retain their lack of agency until they have enough children that they learn it by their limits, or are overwhelmed by the irreconcilability of reality and impulsivity. Men of any capability at all possess agency for the simple reason of competitive and reproductive necessity. So sovereignty comes more easily to men – at least men in the middle and upper genetic (meritocratic) classes – not only because of their caloric independence, but because of evolutionary biology.

    And had we understood that gift of sovereignty, the attempts to attack it might have been more successful – as they were in the ancient world when we were flooded by immigrants, migrants, and eventually by the plague that they brought with them from the east, the devastation of which left open the expansion of the greatest lie man had yet invented: islam. A lie perfectly constructed to satisfy the needs of the “evil 80’s”: those people cognitively unable to compete by truthful, inventive, productive, voluntary means, but able to compete by reproductive, consumptive, and as a consequence, the military strategy of raiders. As in the current era, the forces of those incapable of our Sovereignty achieve through immigration, migration, religious conversion of women and the underclasses, violent raids (terrorism today), parasitism (upon institutions and , what they could not achieve by military, intellectual, commercial, cultural means on their own. They flee to the good bringing with them the genetic, institutional, cultural, informational, disease in the current era no different in consequence from the biological disease they brought with them in the ancient. And with the same intent: to achieve through migration, conversion, devolution, and seizure of political power by fiat of numbers, in this era what their ancestors had achieved in the ancient era by the christianization of the west and the thousand year dark age, we half corrected with the enlightenment of the physical sciences, and the five hundred year enlightenment we still struggle to complete in the social and conceptual sciences.

    We do not need to search for what is good. The world is full of good ideas. We can search to eliminate what is bad, and only good remains. We can search for what is false and only the true remains. The common law does not search for what is good. It has but one rule: Sovereignty. whatever is not bad is good. The markets do not search for what is good. They search for what is not bad under Sovereignty. Whatever is not bad is good.

    But then, while anything that is not bad, is good, whether it is affordable is something else. And to make goods that are affordable requires many hands to make light work. So we rally others to our presumptuous goods and ignore or shame those who dismiss our marketing of presumptuous goods. And in doing so discover whether this presumptuous good is more or less important than others’ presumptuous goods.

    The search for these goods is merely a means by which we market to others (rally) for the cooperation in the production of one end or another. All that remains is to prevent people from deception in marketing. In other words, all that remains is to prohibit fraud in the marketing of information for the purpose of rallying for the purpose of producing commons. And can prohibit fraud in the marketing of information, the same way we prohibit it in the marketing of goods and services: by involuntary warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, conflation, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    When one rallies around a religion, a philosophy, an ideology, a party, a policy, the question is whether one is marketing fraudulently or truthfully. And there is only one language of truthfulness. A language we invented over centuries, over Millenia to speak truthfully, and therefore in defense of Sovereignty – fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. That language is science.

    True, we may speak in analogy, literature, and myth in order to assist in the transfer of MEANING, but then we have only told a half-truth. We must then warranty against falsehood, and insure that our meaning is free of error, bias, suggestion, and deceit. And our only guarantee of such is the involuntary warranty and susceptibility to torte (suit) by our peers if we do not. And the requirement that ‘loser pays’ to prevent the malincentives of economic overloading of the dispute rather than the adjudication of the dispute on purely meritorious grounds.

    So, philosophy is just another fantasy literature. I practice social science: the institutions of cognition, cooperation, conflict, and transcendence. And I organize it similarly to Aristotle’s categories of philosophy. But I do this in no small part to end the conflationary deceptions common in pseudoscience, philosophy, ideology, and theology. There is but one social science, and that is law, and the measurement of its success or failure in that immature discipline by which we measure our relative velocity that we call economics.

    There is but one psychology: the need to, desire to, acquire a host of inventories needed for our joy, reproduction, and survival, and the structure of the human brain which unfortunately denies us access to sufficient introspection to make judgements about the criteria that determines the values we attribute to our own thoughts. Thoughts whose value is attributable entirely to various forms of acquisition, preservation, consumption and loss. Aside from acquisition and the emotions that inform us as to our successes, conflicts, and failures, all human language consists of negotiation. And our primary difficulty in negotiating truthfully in order to cooperate in increasing numbers at increasingly abstract scales, is that we did not evolve to speak truthfully for the common good, but to negotiate selfishly for the private good, while not harming ourselves in the commons (family, pack, tribe, and nation).

    And there is but one method of speaking truthfully: the laundering of our imaginary free-associations (ideas) – produced by a mind we cannot introspectively examine – of all error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit. And while we can never know if we speak the perfect truth, we can attempt to do so by a series of tests that complete the scientific method by extending it from physical sciences to social and cognitive (personal) sciences. Those tests look for consistency. Or what is called in science (not philosophy) ‘determinism’ – meaning ‘ patterns of regularity’. And while it might seem difficult to comprehend when we list them, those tests function as a grammar of language, and can be taught as such. So that if we respect the grammar of that language, by and large, it is hard to claim something is known, and therefore that we can make a truth claim about it, if we cannot construct sentences (propositions and descriptions), that …..

    1 – Identitarian – identity. Categorical consistency – the test of non conflation. Am i mixing things so that I can create false comparisons?

    2 – Logical – internal consistency – Is what I’m saying reasonable, rational, logical, and possible?

    3 – Empirical – external consistency – does what I’m saying correspond to reality, and more importantly, where does it NOT correspond to reality?

    4 – Reciprocal – morally consistent – does what I’m saying consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers limited to productive (beneficial) externalities?

    5 – Operational – existential consistency – can what I’m saying be reduced to a sequence of possible, repeatable, testable human cognitive, or physical operations?

    6 – Complete – scope consistency – have ai fully accounted for all costs seen and unseen for intended and unintended consequences? Can I state the limits beyond which what I state will fail? Is this the most parsimonious means by which I can state this, such that there is no opportunity to be fooled by it?

    These criteria, with very little more explanation, can be used in the common law as the initial criteria (guidelines) for the beginning of, and continuous evolution of, a common law, holding people in all walks of life, accountable to their peers – not to a regulatory government bureaucracy, but to civic suit by their peers- as a market good (product, service, or information) brought to market for the purpose of rallying (marketing) one or more others toward an end – and limited to market activity. In other words, private conversation without personal, commercial, political incentive, differs from speech in public, or amplified, or published by any form of media.

    And by this one act: the constitutional adoption of this constraint, we will restore sovereignty to western civilization, overthrow a century of mysticism by which eastern thinkers have tried for the second time to destroy the west. overthrow the ability of the practitioners of that new religion in State, academy, public intellectuals, and marketers and advertisers, from further advancing of the conquest of The Sovereign Civilization by hordes of the ‘evil 80s’ and the falsehood (theology) that they depend upon to use in attacking it.

    Sovereignty had many consequences. Not the least of which was allowing us, for profit, to domesticate (give agency to) man, and in doing so, rise him out of ignorance, superstition, starvation, poverty, and disease. Sovereignty requires truth be spoken between peers for it to exist, and a militia, judge, jury, and senate of sovereign men to enforce it. But likewise, possessing a militia, a judge, jury, and senate of sovereign men, by the juridical demand for truth, we can reproduce and retain that sovereignty. Not because of falsehoods. But because truth is a competitive advantage no other people, no other civilization has manage to construct as a commons. Sovereignty (the good), Truth(truthfulness) and Beauty(investment in the creation of excellent goods) are the values of western civilization.

    This is not a statement of philosophy. But a statement of personal, social, and group evolutionary science, and the institutions necessary to advance group evolution, in competition with hostile other groups attempting to advance their evolution. The assumption is that having dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, starvation, poverty, and disease by sovereignty and by consequence truth, and by consequence the various institutions, and by consequence the various sciences, and having done so conquered and modernized the world in the colonial and capitalist periods, that our condition until at least the first world war, was not one of transcending man. And that, there is some superior means of decision making (preference choice) at the scale of ‘civilization’.

    And while one might report (say) such a thing. Humans worldwide actively demonstrate something else: a desire to consume the products of sovereignty even if they are undesirous of incapable of sovereignty themselves.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 12:08:00 UTC

  • HIGHBROW, MAYBE. BUT ACTIONABLE IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON MAN Yes. I realize

    HIGHBROW, MAYBE. BUT ACTIONABLE IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON MAN

    Yes. I realize that I am, my work is, and our followers are, somewhat highbrow – at least by the judgement of others. But we do not seek to separate ourselves from the soldiers, the workmen, the craftsmen, the modern guild-masters, and the white-collar-toilers of experiment, calculation and planning. Instead, we SERVE THEM in their war of survival against the globalist merchants of empty-words that constitute the membership of the Cathedral Complex: the marketers, advertisers, media, the public intellectuals, the state, and the academy that trains them in the art of empty words.

    But what we grasp as impending change in our favor, and what the Cathedral Complex fails to grasp as impending loss, is that they rode to their position on the migration of farmers lacking the ability to obtain common consumer goods, as they transitioned into the ability produce and consume more than agrarian life’s subsistence goods.

    But that their gospel of consumption, gospel of unaccountability, gospel of hedonism, gospel of perpetual prosperity, has come to end. Because, as all of us climb the pyramid of wants, our preference for higher valued goods: kin, tribe, nation, culture, and civilization, are of greater preference than further consumption of consumer goods. And that the only people who have a vested interest in profiting from further consumption are those in the Cathedral Complex, who now, instead of advancing our interests as consumers, work against our interests as family, kin, tribe, nation, culture, and civilization.

    And that the exceptional windfall of western civilization’s inventions that grasped the low hanging fruit of scientific discovery, has been consumed. And that the great leveling has begun. A leveling not in the form of equality of increasing material prosperity. But the leveling in the absence of continuing gains in cultural prosperity: the decreasing costs of conflict and our joy in producing our highest good: the high trust, moral, ethical, homogenous, redistributive, economically prosperous small nations that are but an extension of the family we all seek security within.

    The Cathedral complex evolved as an empire starting with the british empire, and ending with the american empire. The academy – just as the church before it – has evolved a new pseudoscientific and immoral religion of lies, by selling diplomas immaterially different from the Indulgences of the medieval era: this time promising a utopia of middle or upper middle class level of consumption, rather than a utopia after death. The church benefitting from the untestability of its promises of utopia. The Academy benefitting from the unaccountability of the product it sells.

    We live in a world of false advertising. We live in a world of lies. We permit the lies because lying is profitable for state, academy, public intellectuals, advertisers, marketers, of goods, services AND information.

    Western civilization differed from all others for the simple reason that in our prehistoric past we invented sovereignty: rule of peers. Rule of reciprocity between insurers of sovereignty. Rule without rulers. Rule of law. Rule of law to which any man demonstrating his willingness and ability to actively insure others, could gain status of freeman. Or “domesticated man”. Perhaps betters said, who could transcend from animal man to human man. And we invented this peerage for the simple reason that warriors are dependent upon truth telling for survival in maneuver warfare. This truthful speech is evident in our indo european languages, but more so in germanic languages than the rest. german is perhaps the best language of the natural world, whether physical or human.

    English has evolved into a scientific and legal language with a degree of precision unmatched in the world in those subjects. Romans took from the stoics their empirical pragmatism and natural law, as a way of avoiding the nonsense arguments of plato and socrates that plagued Roman law they way Jewish lawyers plague english law today. the Stoics, Aristotle, Epicurus, Plato, and Socrates evolved philosophy in part to attempt to restore political discourse which had evolved into moralizing (the same moralizing that we see today, that has crippled the British today, and that caused Chinese civilization to stagnate when it abandoned the practical and empirical for the utopian and moral.) But they were trying to restore what was innate to their civilization, and the ancestors that they could no longer remember except for the stories of Homer: the equivalent of their ‘bible’.

    We can restore the West very simply. To do so we need a means by which to test speech for due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion-subtraction-loading-and-framing, obscurantism-and-overloading, supernaturalism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    We have that method now. We can codify in law the requirement for strict construction from the rule of sovereignty; the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities. We can require law be strictly constructed from this one law of voluntary cooperation. The only possible equality that can exist between humans – or any other sentient machines or creatures, yet to come. We can require that any legislation state its intent, and therefore limit its scope. We can require judges strictly interpret the legislation according to original intent. And therefore restore to the government the requirement for improving legislation if found unsuitable. Yet retain juridical discovery of Law (not legislation), in matters of conflict where someone has invented a new means of violating the One Law of Natural Law. This retains judicial discretion in matters of natural law, but eliminates it in matters of legislative

    We can extend the involuntary warranty required of those who distributed products and services in the market for private consumption and public goods, to cover an involuntary warranty INFORMATION as well. But to do so the judges need a set of criteria for judging whether an accused has performed sufficient due diligence or not.

    And as in many aspects of the law, mastering the methods by which we test due diligence in court, and individuals who manufacture and distribute and sell goods, services, and information, requires expertise and the gradual development of a body of judge-discovered case law that can take a decade to develop. And yes, products are easier to perform due diligence upon than are services, and services are easier to perform due diligence upon then is information. But likewise the damage that can be done by a product, by a service, and by information increases dramatically. For example, the most damaging products are medicines, the most damaging services medical, financial, and the most damaging information supernatural, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, political, economic and military propaganda. The scale of the difficulty in warrantying goods, services, and information, scales with the damage that can be done by the product, service, or information.

    And its true that people will not want to warranty their information (speech): particularly marketers, advertisers, public intellectuals, professional forecasters, purveyors of financial services, economists, professors and the academy, politicians and the bureaucracy of the state. Because if they can no longer lie, they can only facilitate compromise trades between factions with opposing wants, rather than make false claims about what is ‘good’, to justify the use of force with which to circumvent compromise trades between factions with opposing wants.

    But every sector has resisted involuntary warranty as an imposed cost upon their production and sale of goods, services and information. Yet it has been through the incremental suppression of deceits and the incremental improvement of common law, that we have slowly improved (moreso in europe’s consumer protections than here in lie-producing america) the predictability of and therefore velocity of all trade.

    But now our lives are more dependent upon non information than ever before. In fact, information is the primary consumption we make use of, and pay for, whether for entertainment, fulfillment, or professional gain. In retrospect it’s understandable that given the industrialization of deception made possible by monopoly control of mass media, and the conspiracy of common intersets between the finance, advertising and marketing, academy, and state members of the “Cathedral Complex”. So it’s only logical that after being the victims of deceits for a century we would reach the point where they were no longer beneficial myths to encourage consumption, but are now hazardous deceits by which we are prevented from achieving our wants now that ordinary civic priorities so common in history have been restored to their prior state given our collective economic ascent After all, its increasingly difficult to find a consumable good or service that is anything other than a status signal. We surpassed the need for basic comforts decades ago. We just run upon a hamster wheel attempting to defeat one another’s virtue signals. We are not materially improving our lives. We are sacrificing the accumulated capital in our families, tribes, nations, culture, and civilization for nothing more than conspicuous consumption and virtue signaling. We would rather rebuild our families, tribes, nations, culture, and civilization than attempt to acquire more meaningless goods in a competition for signals that we already understand, as individuals we cannot win. And instead as a collective we wish to produce commons with which we can win. Why? Because only westerners have succeeded in producing voluntary commons. The commons is the means by which we conquered the world. Why? Trust. Truth. Property. Reciprocal insurance. Sovereignty. And what are the most expensive commons that we have produced?

    High trust. Deflationary Truth, the judiciary, the jury the senate, Government without Rulers under sovereignty, property, and the common judge-discovered, natural law. Reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now Testimonialism. the High Arts, architecture engineering, sciences. And the folly of taking it all for granted.

    But what are those tests of due diligence that can be embodied in the law – even if the practitioners of the law must learn new skills on top of those of contract and logic – those more commonly the providence of scientists. Because these tests of due diligence we refer to as Testimonialism complete the loosely termed ‘scientific method’. Science has evolved into the universal language of truth speaking. but for reasons that are not well understood. Science consists of four disciplines: 1) accumulating existing knowledge of a subject, 2) imagining by free association possible methods of inquiry, 3) determining methods of observation – what we call ‘measurement’, and 4) performing due diligence that our means of observation, and our means of describing those observations, is as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion-loading-and-framing, obscurantism-and-overloading, superstition, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    But for a variety of complex reasons – the academic incentive to professionalize philosophy and the false promise of analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of language chief among them – and the failure of the great thinkers in every field – of philosophy, law, economics, physics, and mathematics to recognize the similarities in their shared problems of methodology – the thinkers of the late 19th and entire 20th centuries were unable to complete the scientific method by extending it from the physical sciences consisting of constant relations to the social sciences consisting of consistently reciprocal relations, and into economics that consists of inconstant relations. (Which admittedly is a short sentence saying a great number of complex things.)

    However just as mathematics has evolved to allow us to address each dimension of possible reality : identity, quantity, set operations, ratios, the geometry of spacial differences, and the calculus of relative motion, it is also possible to evolve the law to address each dimension of actionable reality. And just as we look for possibility in mathematics – that thing we call a proof of internal consistency – and we can then use that proof of internal consistency to test against external consistency, we can seek a series of consistencies and proofs of possibility in speech. Those tests of consistency in all dimensions of possible action from concept to movement are:

    1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency.

    2 – Logic: Internal Consistency

    3 – Correspondence: Empirical Consistency

    4 – Reciprocity: Moral Consistency

    5 – Existential Possibility: Existential Consistency (Operational Language) (See “Writing in E-Prime)

    6 – Full Accounting: Scope Consistency: Have we accounted for all inputs and causes, and outputs and consequences? Have we defined the limits at which the statement fails? And have we insured that we speak parsimoniously leaving out room for interpretation.

    To the average person these dimensions of reality we can test with very structured words, and the dimensions of reality we can test with mathematics may seem either obscure, unintelligible, or difficult. But many aspects of many disciplines – particularly those that require precise articulation – a form of ‘calculation’: logic, math, physics, programming, contract, can be difficult to learn. We are taught to read, we are taught, mathematics, accounting, and even the operations of biology and chemistry. Learning to speak truthfully and clearly is no harder than learning to write a contract, and certainly easier than learning to program. And unfortunately, for what may have been politically malicious reasons, we no longer teach how to speak truthfully: grammar, logic, and rhetoric were ordinary subjects in prior eras. We can restore and improve upon the past with grammar, logic, testimony, and rhetoric. Learning to speak in a manner in which it is extremely difficult to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit is not that difficult. It leads to far less public speech. Because the vast majority if not all public speech appears in retrospect to be largely error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit.

    Is this really implementable? Of course it is. Courts have in the past been very successful at defamation, are currently exceptional at commercial fraud for products and services, and they have been actively prevented from adjudicated falsehoods in advertising, marketing, and political speech. Our ancestors never conceived of mass media – where lying could be conducted on an industrial scale and profited from so readily by finance, business, public intellectuals, the academy, and the state. In fact, given that the origin of reason, rationalism, empiricism, science, and now Testimonialism, was the debate between sovereign men before the thang, jury, and senate, it’s hard to imagine that the courts would not have solved the problem of the industrialization of lying if it were not prohibited in doing so by the state – the entire Cathedral Complex and it’s special interests which profit from the industrialization of lying. On a scale we have not seen since Justinian opened a school of theology, enforced religion, and forcibly closed the philosophical and particularly the stoic schools – the intergenerational equivalent of burning all books that existed in that era in order to replace them with one – his ‘law’ the bible.

    To amend the american constitution, by revoking it’s amendments that violate natural law and the sovereignty of men and the states; by restating its provisions in language derived from the one law of natural law, and by placing strict requirements on how legislation and regulation can be imagined and written, and how judge discovered Common Law can be identified and written, we can create what is called a grammar that is as rigorous as software programming and nearly as rigorous as mathematics.

    By restoring the penalties for defamation, propaganda and deception we can restore civic discourse, and restore the west to its empirical tradition – which is what ‘conservatism’ means: empirical evidence prior to legislative experiment. And once sovereignty and law are restored, we can return to the construction of commons – which is the purpose of government – using truthful information, and voluntary exchanges between classes with uncommon interests, by allowing us to cooperate on means despite our differing desired ends.

    Will this cause some difficulty? Will there be resistance? Of course there will. But what was the consequence of the scientific revolution – even though that revolution was limited to the physical sciences? It dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition poverty, starvation and disease. And yes, it ended the superstition of the church-state complex.

    And this next revolution in thought will produce at least as great a flowering in social science as the empirical revolution produced in the physical sciences. When man is limited to truthful knowledge no matter how undesirable, he does not pursue false solutions no matter how he imagines that they are desirable.

    We have endured a century of lying using pseudo-history, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and that form of outright lying we call ‘political correctness’. And it has reached a point where we have transformed the false superstitious religion of the church-state complex, into a false pseudoscientific religion of the finance-academy-state complex. And we have just seen the transformation of the academy of competing knowledge into a religion of conformity to falsehood, and released a generation of children into the world who are indistinguishable from religious fundamentalists. The only difference is the rely on pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, deceits rather than superstitious myths. They are a generation of fools led by a generation of liars, funded by a generation of underclass power-seekers and the first generation of a new false religion carefully crafted 150 years ago by the same group of people that created the first generation of false religion 2000 years ago. There are many methods of competing in this world and the institutionalization of lying is but one. We are the people who invented truth and it is our greatest commons and our greatest defense against the ‘peoples who lie’ from the east.

    So is this possible? We did not deem a lot of things possible in the past. We are not asking people to believe for value something. We are simply proposing a modification of law to warranty due diligence for information the same way that we have required due diligence for products and services.

    Every major revolution in the anglo world has been a matter of revising the current contract for governance to suppress new means of parasitism in the state. This is the secret to the longevity of the anglo civilization. We have maintained the common Germanic law of sovereignty that we imported with the anglo saxons. Our political priesthood is the sacred judiciary. And to preserve that central ability of our people to preserve our civilization we must rescue our our priesthood – the judiciary – from the lies that they have been forced to tolerate.

    We can compensate for our error in the destruction of Germany and restore the west in its entirety by completing the search for the the language of truth: that thing we call mistakenly – “science”

    And having done so there will no longer be a discernible difference between the disciplines of science, philosophy, morality, and law. And that one result alone will end most of the means of deception that man uses regularly to engage in fraud and coercion, rather than the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externality, of that which we have borne costs to obtain. Because it is that transparent, productive, warrantied, reciprocity that all evolutionary necessity, cooperative necessity, moral instinct, moral norm, and moral law consist in.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-09 13:23:00 UTC

  • THE STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF THE RIGHT’S RESTORATION OF THE WEST (READ THIS) Bret

    http://www.amerika.org/politics/equality-creates-politics-and-the-public-private-text-subtext-dichotomy/ON THE STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF THE RIGHT’S RESTORATION OF THE WEST

    (READ THIS)

    Brett,

    Well, I’m pretty certain that I’m producing New Ideas by the truckload. So much so that it’s taking a year or more for the best people to learn to articulate them.

    I think it might be interesting to talk a bit, because you’re prolific as hell, you cover the entire spectrum so you’re getting and giving a synthetic opinion in your writings, but on the flip side you’re still working under the assumption that you can (or anyone can) create ‘shared belief’ (shared values, models, and objectives) as a ‘via-positiva’ method of obtaining our (shared) goals, instead of attempting to suppress antithetical propaganda, arguments, actions, as a ‘via-negativa’ means of eliminating opposition the same way we have elminated oppositions via violence, theft, fraud, conspiracy, propaganda, organized propaganda (religion/conversion), immigration, migration, and conquest.

    Throughout our history we have successfully avoided the trap of conflation. we have maintained separation between truth(testimony), literature(advocacy), law(decidability), technology(science), festival(profane), and religion(sacred). We have acknowledge the classes (nobility, soldiery, burghers, laborers, and ‘women and children’) – and we have succeeded in developing via-positiva for the different classes: science, law, philosophy, literature, and religion: storytelling for each of the classes, in the most advanced language that they could comprehend: we have maintained a poly-liturgy as much as we have a polytheism. And it has been the competition between these ‘models of thought’, genders, classes, families, tribes, and nations, that has allowed us to calculate through trial and error so much faster than all other nations and empires that have ever existed.

    We have avoided conflation and monopoly just as we have succeeded in deflationary truth and competition in all aspects of life. It is through competition we create inclusion without sacrifice of innovation, specialization, and complexity of wants and goods, services, and information.

    So when I see the right continuing to attempt to create the WEAK MONOPOLY of the church through via-positiva shared belief in the positive, rather than the STRONG MARKET OF COMPETITION of the aristocracy through via-negativa of shared belief in the negative, leaving positives as the only possible means of survival, no matter how richly diverse those goods may be, and more suitable to each family, gender, class, tribe and nation, I see the tactics of the left: monopoly shared belief leading to the necessity of authoritarianism, not the ancient tactics of the right leading to the elimination of demand for authoritarianism in anything other than the decidability of law in matters of dispute. In law we do not dispute the good, we dispute only the bad: the imposition of costs upon another or others.

    As Hayek spent his life discovering, understanding, and explaining, the source of western excellence is western law: the religion of sovereignty. Christianity was merely the most recent mythology of submission to the consequences of that law. Philosophy the long standing means of attempting to circumvent it. And literature a long standing means of attempting to celebrate it – until the 20th century.

    Only once we limit the bad do we have opportunity for the good – truth, productivity, innovation, excellence, familism, tribalism, nationalism, transcendence.

    So my analysis of conservative(burkean) history, is that they were not conservative enough. The scientific enlightenment was correct, but the social and political enlightenment was not. It was folly. Of all the european nations only the germans preserved it until the world war was caused by its competitors. The germans had almost restored the arts, sciences, and religion of the past. But they had done so without social science – on purely cultural intuitions under which they preserved the oath, the truth, the duty, the hierarchy, of western civilization. And we defeated them for it.

    Anglos have been wrong throughout the enlightenment. We looked to recreate the via-positiva of the church in secular terms, rather than grasping that the via-positiva existed already in truth, oath, duty, hierarchy of the classes, and the markets we had constructed in voluntary association, marriage, production of goods services and information, and production of commons, and production of many small nations.

    The church supplied an administrative but non-competitive class for the hierarchical aristocracy, and accumulated lands the farming of which sustained them in addition to a small tax upon the followers, and by selling ‘virtues’ to the aristocracy in exchange for gifts and donations. In exchange the aristocracy obtained a management service that half-educated, disciplined, and occupied the peasantry with narratives that submission was a virtue.

    As our via-positivia, exists not in the return to eastern mysticism for our mental, social, and political ‘mindfulness’, nor in the ‘philosophy’ of the middle class begging for privilege by unwieldy verse, but in our return to sovereign natural law and truth in its utterance, from which only personal stoicism, the civic sacred, the public literature, the national festival, civilizational monuments, and human transcendence.

    We make the good by denying the bad. By specializing in the monopoly denial of the bad, the distributed creation of the necessity, and the individual preference for the good.

    Monotheism, via-positiva, and authoriatrianism are the tools of those who defeat us. Poly-literature, via-negativa, and markets in everything are that which made us.

    Why? Not because of the falsehood of individualism(via-positiva) as an aspiration for the positive. But because of the Sovereignty(via-negativa) as a prohibition on the negative. Because once we choose sovereignty – the distributed dictatorship of peers – the only possible means of achieving ends is through contractual agreement in markets for everything in every walk of life.

    I hope I’ve managed to convey the difference between monopoly religious literary rallying via positiva under democracy, and legal scientific rallying via negativa under sovereign markets in everything.

    The reason conservatives failed since Burke is was solved by Hayek. In our attempt to seize political power from the church and aristocracy for the middle class, we used the tactics of the church to sell the middle and working classes and eventually women, and eventually underclasses and now minority underclasses. And we cannot sell the truth, nor our civilization’s prior strategy, because it is incompatible with democracy and the search for large numbers: that western sovereign aristocratic man, domesticated animal man from beast, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen, to peer through a process of incremental suppression of parasitism in all its forms, leaving the only means of survival competition in the markets for association, reproduction, production, commons, and states. And the extermination through winter starvation, hanging, manorialism, war, and upward redistribution of production to increase the rates of healthy reproduction of the better classes.

    The west’s legacy is kinder than the east’s. But we cannot lie about our past if we are to recreate it: the church trained beast man to slowly filter out those who could survive the process of domestication, just as the aristocracy trained the beast man to slowly filter out those who could survive the process of domestication.

    And therefore man was not oppressed, but converted from beast to domesticated animal, to near human, to human, to sovereign (transcendent) man through no different a process but more complex than that which we used to domesticate animals, plants, and … as uncomfortable as it may seem: women.

    So let us rally around truth if we wish to restore our civilization to that which created europe as a vast open air museum, and that which by force of domestication, by a thousand complex means, dragged the beast man out of superstition, ignorance, labor, poverty, and disease – kicking and screaming all the white.

    Our purpose is to rule or be ruled. Rule as sovereign men and transcend man as no other civilization has come near to. Or to be ruled and extinguished for having failed to: a domesticated animal can only defeat large numbers of undomesticated animals by the use of technology and organization to compensate for their small numbers.

    We do not need many men to restore the west.

    We just need sovereign men willing to spill enough blood using organization and technology to prevent any alternative to sovereignty. No other civilization in history has been able to extend this much credit as a means of organizing a society for fragility-inducing ends. We are more fragile – the world by consequence – than at any time in our history. As such, we do not need large numbers to believe. We need moral authority for a small number of men to disrupt the complex machine that preserves our economic and political momentum. We need a set of institutional solutions that do not require BELIEF but provide INCENTIVES regardless of belief: a market for benefiting from the suppression of the un-sovereign. And a plan for the means of transition so that the expectations of the defeated can envision the process of meeting our demands and then granting them rather than suffering the consequences of not meeting them. And we need to act to demand them until they are met – without mercy.

    We do not need numbers of domesticated animals. We need a small number of Transcendent Humans.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 10:04:00 UTC

  • ¡Ser egoista es bueno!

    Este post no versa en su entereza sobre la obra de (((Ayn Rand))) que lleva por título “La virtud del egoísmo” sino que busca darle la vuelta a algunos puntos que ella construye, también busca atacar las mentiras de (((Von Mises)))

    Para muchos de los que acuden a mi blog, desde amigos y colegas, pasando por periodistas plagiarios, mulatos perroflautas que no entienden de la derecha alternativa y gente que en general quieren saber sobre el pensamiento de derecha en el expaís llamado Venezuela. Muchos de los venezolanos que están en el espectro político de la derecha se influencian muy fácilmente por la (((propaganda))) liberal, y entran en una retórica de individualismo en contraposición al colectivismo. Los libertarios yerran en cuestiones de hecho y usan la pseudo ciencia de (((Ludwig von Mises))) para poder expresarse. El egocentrismo libertario se expresa usualmente como una obsesiva obcecación de contrastar el “individualismo” como algo honorable en contraposición al odioso “colectivismo”. Entre los nihilistas y anarquistas, dicha obcecación se manifiesta como una obsesión de contrastar el orgulloso “egoísmo” en contra del altruismo naíf.

    Es muy irónico que un tipo como Ludwig von Mises sea capaz de escribir un libro sobre la filosofía de los hombres, lo llame “La Acción Humana” y luego la discuta en términos kantianos abstractos.

    Si revisamos la obra de Ayn (((Rand))), en la edición de 1944 de la revista Selecciones Reader’s Digest: “El colectivismo significa la subyugación de un individuo a un grupo – sea raza, clase, estado, etc. El colectivismo sostiene que los hombres deben ser encadenados a la acción y el pensamiento colectivo en nombre del ‘bien común’”. El problema con ese tipo de caracterizaciones es que (((Rand)))  también busca “subyugar al individuo a un grupo” y de forma muy discreta y solapada. La única diferencia es que ella quiere subyugar a distintos individuos a un grupo distinto por razones diversas. En su obra, “La virtud del egoísmo” ella escribe que “los derechos individuales son los medios de subordinar la sociedad a una ley moral”. Aquí es donde Rand yerra. Ayn Rand desarrolló un concepto llamado la “falacia del concepto robado” que implica usar un concepto al negar la validez de sus raíces genética. Ver. Para los fanboys de Rand, la sociedad es un grupo numeroso de hombres. Y el problema del colectivismo es que éste ve a la sociedad como una especie de súper organismo, una suerte de entidad sobrenatural aparte y superior a la suma de todos sus integrantes individuales Rand quiere vivir en un “colectivo” el cual – hasta cierto punto y de forma “altruista”- actúa para defender una cierta clase de orden social. La autora simplemente quiere que el orden social se centre en una concepción de los derechos humanos vista desde el punto de vista de la derecha en vez de una concepción de bienestar izquierdista. Por ello entiende perfectamente bien que los individuos que componen ese orden social tendrían que sacrificar algunos de sus deseos e impulsos si fueran a alcanzar el gran deseo de vivir en este tipo de sociedad – eso quiere decir que tienen que evitar llevar a cabo acciones que “violaran los derechos individuales”, incluso si ambos se beneficiaran de manera tangible en el presente y a largo plazo de hacerlo. Para poder darle la vuelta a este complicado dilema filosófico, Rand, como Mises buscaron realizar una racionalización muy poco elaborada. En el caso de mises, que escribió un libro sobre la filosofía de los hombres llamado “la acción humana” y la discute en términos kantianos abstractos, con el lenguaje pseudocientífico de la praxeología, y en el caso de Rand, al decir que “entre hombres racionales no pueden existir conflictos de intereses”. Pero esta premisa es evidentemente absurda y se puede demostrar en una serie de oraciones:

    • Mientras camino por debajo de un puente me topo con un hombre.
    • Soy un sádico y me gustaría torturar a este hombre por el período de una hora y luego matarle.
    • Nadie se enteraría de nada.
    • El hombre que quiero matar le interesa permanecer con vida.
    • Yo estoy interesado en matarlo
    • Por ende tenemos un conflicto de intereses.

    Por ende, si tratamos de negar situaciones que ocurren de esta manera en el mundo real es un sinsentido tan grande como intentar usar argumentaciones filosóficas para refutar la existencia de la gravedad o decir que el teorema de pitágoras es mentira porque no entiendes de catetos e hipotenusas. Rand enfrenta el tema de la razón para defender su máxima de que entre hombres racionales no hay conflictos de intereses cuando dice que los intereses dependen del tipo de metas que un hombre persiga, sus objetivos dependen de sus deseos, de sus deseos dependen sus valores y para un hombre racional sus valores dependen del juicio de su mente. Los hombres racionales no persiguen metas que no puedan lograr por su cuenta directa o indirectamente, por esfuerzo propio. Los hombres racionales no buscan o desean lo que no se han ganado. El mero hecho de que dos hombres deseen el mismo trabajo no constituye prueba de que alguno de ellos esté con derecho a algo o se lo merezca, y que esos intereses son lastimados si no obtienen lo que desean. El primer gran problema con estos tipos de sofismas es que confunde el merecer con tener intereses. Si por ejemplo, mis intereses son dañados porque no logro conseguir un trabajo que quiero, nada tiene que ver con el que me lo haya “merecido” o no. El segundo gran problema es que la definición de “racional” que se aplica aquí no está del todo clara. y por ello no es más que un concepto enrevesado para tratar de sostener un sistema filosófico repleto de incoherencias. Le guste o no a los (((liberales))), Ayn Rand desea formar parte de un colectivo. y ella quiere practicar el altruismo que tanto critica al sacrificar alguno de sus intereses para poder adquirir un interés mayor al mantener un orden social cimentado sobre los principios que ella quiere llevar adelante. Ayn Rand propone una especie de contrato social de la misma manera que Thomas Hobbes o Juan Jacobo Rousseau. Ella simplemente propone distintos términos para dicho contrato. exigiendo requisitos distintos para quienes lo integran, con distintos beneficios para quienes cumplen con esos requisitos. El egoísmo que define Ayn Rand es un juego de palabras para captar la atención de la gente. Es puro mercadeo. Aunque engañoso, después de todo, Rand posee una (((genética))) propia de embusteros. El uso de las palabras, de la misma forma que (((Mises))) crea un lenguaje pseudocientífico, en el caso de Rand, ella reforma el concepto del egoísmo ya que este tiene principalmente una connotación negativa. Es por ello que Rand busca reformar el egoísmo y asociarlo con definiciones como individualismo, responsabilidad, interés superior, ilustración y interés pragmático. El propósito de la idea del interés propio es epistemología: Que tu no puedes saber suficiente para trabajar por el interés de otra persona en ña división del conocimiento y del trabajo. En la división del conocimiento y del trabajo, tu no puedes saber mucho. Somos necesariamente ignorantes. Nuestra visión del mundo es muy limitada. Está siempre restringida al querer “actuar localmente mientras que pensamos globalmente”. Es por ello que el egoísmo es simplemente un juego de palabras con el propósito de hacernos querer ver nuestras responsabilidades individuales de forma inversa.-Cuidar de otros al cuidarnos a nosotros mismos. En vez del deber que tenemos para con los otros de cuidarnos a nosotros mismos. Rand, al igual que Mises intentaron hacer del individualismo y la libertad durante períodos en el que el pensamiento socialista estaba en constante expansión, cuando el modelo socialista era el gold standard, ellos intentaron ponerle freno. Para Rand, los soviéticos destruyeron su integridad familiar. Para Mises, el modelo soviético y el nacionalsocialismo alemán cambiaron su forma de ver el mundo. Ambos intentaron hacer juegos de palabras para captar nuestra atención. Rand y Mises no escribieron nada que Adam Smith o Frédéric Bastiat no hayan escrito antes. Hayek trata de recordarnos que la fuente de la libertad, conocida como el liberalismo Clásico fue un producto de la búsqueda inglesa empírica de la ciencia producto del análisis de los datos que se habían acumulado para el siglo XVIII, una época que produjo el primer crecimiento de la clase media. Pero al mismo tiempo, los franceses estaban persiguiendo el concepto de la libertad de forma reaccionaria a la iglesia, por medio del razonamiento verbal, en vez de usar datos duros. Tenemos entonces a protestantes germanos contra latinos católicos tratando de hacer aproximaciones a la vida. Esos argumentos racionales son argumentaciones morales. Las argumentaciones morales son engañosos por definición. Pero son los más fáciles de digerir para el ciudadano de a pie y son los más fáciles de usar y manipular por parte de los políticos. En gran parte, el lenguaje de la libertad se distribuyó por traducciones que fueron hechas a partir de la literatura francesa usando la interpretación francófona en términos racionales de principios ingleses empíricos y racionales. Así que el lenguaje que usamos hoy día para discutir la libertad ha sido con el raciocinio francófono en vez del empírico inglés. Este racionalismo francófono es de donde Marx obtuvo la fundación para el socialismo y el comunismo. Las obsesiones que surgen, particularmente en el espectro político de la derecha, en relación al “egoísmo” en contraposición al “altruismo” o del “individualismo” versus el “colectivismo” son cortinas de humo. Este tipo obsesiones emergen no porque haya una dicotomía verdadera entre las dos sino porque simplemente nos topamos con el hecho de que estamos en contra de ciertas peculiaridades que algunos prefieren. Desde el socialcristiano más militante hasta el (((anarcocapitalista))) más furibundo son individuos egoístas que buscan formar el tipo de comunidades que desean para si mismos porque eso es lo que desean en sus vidas. De la misma forma hasta Ayn Rand sería una colectivista altruista, porque lo que todos deseamos es una comunidad en la cual tanto nosotros como nuestro prójimo sacrifiquen ciertas cosas para obtener otras- bien sea el derecho a mantener la totalidad de nuestra renta, o el derecho de matar gente en callejones- para mantenernos a nosotros y nuestros seres queridos a salvo. Este es el caso sin importar que tipo de sociedad busque asegurar quisiera o ye beneficios de bienestar para proteger cierta clase de derechos. La división no recae entre “egoístas individualistas” y “colectivistas altruistas”. La división recae entre sociópatas anti-sociales inmaduros “egoístas individualistas” que están obsesionados con esos términos y etiquetas para señalar su inmadurez, sociopatía, y trastornos de personalidad anti-social y “egoístas individualistas” que entienden que sus propios intereses yacen en mantener una cierta clase de orden social que requiere  poner límites a sus comportamientos para que otros puedan hacer lo mismo para poder asegurar una mayor entidad político-social-administrativa que funcione, generando beneficios para todos. Las diferencias yacen el el tipo de “altruismo” que solicitamos de los hombres que tenemos a nuestro alrededor, y que nosotros estemos dispuestos a someternos a ese tipo de normativas. La diferencia no yace en si proponemos un contrato social o no, sino bajo cuáles términos estamos dispuestos a someternos para cosechar cuales ganancias sociales: Sea seguridad, infraestructura, educación, servicios públicos, etc. No existe una forma objetiva y universalmente correcta de responder a estas preguntas porque distintas personas en distintos momentos estarán dispuestas o indispuestas a hacer o no equis o ye sacrificios para crear distintos tipos de comunidades. Para los fanboys de la teoría del valor subjetivo: Ustedes deberían entender que distintas personas ponen distintos valores en tener distintos tipos de “derechos” protegidos. Por ende logrando distintos resultados. Incluso a nivel económico. Para nosotros, en la derecha, nuestra primera tarea es crear comunidades. Formar redes espontáneas, auténticas de relaciones personales es crear un movimiento político que genera vanguardia para que cuando llegue la hora de tomar el poder, destrocemos a la izquierda al tomarla por sorpresa ya que no se esperan que seamos vanguardia. Crear este tipo de redes es como plantar un jardín: es un requisito previo para la creación y fundación de todas las cosas que vayan a surgir después. Si no lo hacemos nosotros lo la izquierda nos seguirá gobernando. Es por ello que debemos trazar límites claros con respecto a que es lo que le estamos pidiendo a aquellos que deseen unirse a nuestras filas, y que les tenemos que ofrecer a ellos si están dispuestos a cumplir con nuestras peticiones. Mientras más fuertes sean nuestras comunidades, y más altos sean los estándares de lealtad y cooperación que podamos mantener entre nosotros, más atractivas serán nuestras propuestas y mayores adeptos ganaremos para nuestra causa. La izquierda está dispuesta a devorar sus propios hijos cuando se generan espirales de pureza y purgas cruentas, nada de eso debe ocurrir aquí. Si queremos ser capaces de mejorar a la Civilización Occidental, debemos crear comunidades superiores a las que crea la izquierda, y debemos ser auténticos a nosotros mismos y la evolución espontánea de nuestra esfera de influencia, luego tenemos que hacer todo lo que esté en nuestro poder para asegurarnos que este tipo de crítica no sea reformada en contra nuestra. Veritas, aut consilis, aut ense. Por la verdad, por concilio o por las armas. Salvemos a Occidente Alberto Zambrano Para El Instituto Propietarista.

  • ¡Ser egoista es bueno!

    Este post no versa en su entereza sobre la obra de (((Ayn Rand))) que lleva por título “La virtud del egoísmo” sino que busca darle la vuelta a algunos puntos que ella construye, también busca atacar las mentiras de (((Von Mises)))

    Para muchos de los que acuden a mi blog, desde amigos y colegas, pasando por periodistas plagiarios, mulatos perroflautas que no entienden de la derecha alternativa y gente que en general quieren saber sobre el pensamiento de derecha en el expaís llamado Venezuela. Muchos de los venezolanos que están en el espectro político de la derecha se influencian muy fácilmente por la (((propaganda))) liberal, y entran en una retórica de individualismo en contraposición al colectivismo. Los libertarios yerran en cuestiones de hecho y usan la pseudo ciencia de (((Ludwig von Mises))) para poder expresarse. El egocentrismo libertario se expresa usualmente como una obsesiva obcecación de contrastar el “individualismo” como algo honorable en contraposición al odioso “colectivismo”. Entre los nihilistas y anarquistas, dicha obcecación se manifiesta como una obsesión de contrastar el orgulloso “egoísmo” en contra del altruismo naíf.

    Es muy irónico que un tipo como Ludwig von Mises sea capaz de escribir un libro sobre la filosofía de los hombres, lo llame “La Acción Humana” y luego la discuta en términos kantianos abstractos.

    Si revisamos la obra de Ayn (((Rand))), en la edición de 1944 de la revista Selecciones Reader’s Digest: “El colectivismo significa la subyugación de un individuo a un grupo – sea raza, clase, estado, etc. El colectivismo sostiene que los hombres deben ser encadenados a la acción y el pensamiento colectivo en nombre del ‘bien común’”. El problema con ese tipo de caracterizaciones es que (((Rand)))  también busca “subyugar al individuo a un grupo” y de forma muy discreta y solapada. La única diferencia es que ella quiere subyugar a distintos individuos a un grupo distinto por razones diversas. En su obra, “La virtud del egoísmo” ella escribe que “los derechos individuales son los medios de subordinar la sociedad a una ley moral”. Aquí es donde Rand yerra. Ayn Rand desarrolló un concepto llamado la “falacia del concepto robado” que implica usar un concepto al negar la validez de sus raíces genética. Ver. Para los fanboys de Rand, la sociedad es un grupo numeroso de hombres. Y el problema del colectivismo es que éste ve a la sociedad como una especie de súper organismo, una suerte de entidad sobrenatural aparte y superior a la suma de todos sus integrantes individuales Rand quiere vivir en un “colectivo” el cual – hasta cierto punto y de forma “altruista”- actúa para defender una cierta clase de orden social. La autora simplemente quiere que el orden social se centre en una concepción de los derechos humanos vista desde el punto de vista de la derecha en vez de una concepción de bienestar izquierdista. Por ello entiende perfectamente bien que los individuos que componen ese orden social tendrían que sacrificar algunos de sus deseos e impulsos si fueran a alcanzar el gran deseo de vivir en este tipo de sociedad – eso quiere decir que tienen que evitar llevar a cabo acciones que “violaran los derechos individuales”, incluso si ambos se beneficiaran de manera tangible en el presente y a largo plazo de hacerlo. Para poder darle la vuelta a este complicado dilema filosófico, Rand, como Mises buscaron realizar una racionalización muy poco elaborada. En el caso de mises, que escribió un libro sobre la filosofía de los hombres llamado “la acción humana” y la discute en términos kantianos abstractos, con el lenguaje pseudocientífico de la praxeología, y en el caso de Rand, al decir que “entre hombres racionales no pueden existir conflictos de intereses”. Pero esta premisa es evidentemente absurda y se puede demostrar en una serie de oraciones:

    • Mientras camino por debajo de un puente me topo con un hombre.
    • Soy un sádico y me gustaría torturar a este hombre por el período de una hora y luego matarle.
    • Nadie se enteraría de nada.
    • El hombre que quiero matar le interesa permanecer con vida.
    • Yo estoy interesado en matarlo
    • Por ende tenemos un conflicto de intereses.

    Por ende, si tratamos de negar situaciones que ocurren de esta manera en el mundo real es un sinsentido tan grande como intentar usar argumentaciones filosóficas para refutar la existencia de la gravedad o decir que el teorema de pitágoras es mentira porque no entiendes de catetos e hipotenusas. Rand enfrenta el tema de la razón para defender su máxima de que entre hombres racionales no hay conflictos de intereses cuando dice que los intereses dependen del tipo de metas que un hombre persiga, sus objetivos dependen de sus deseos, de sus deseos dependen sus valores y para un hombre racional sus valores dependen del juicio de su mente. Los hombres racionales no persiguen metas que no puedan lograr por su cuenta directa o indirectamente, por esfuerzo propio. Los hombres racionales no buscan o desean lo que no se han ganado. El mero hecho de que dos hombres deseen el mismo trabajo no constituye prueba de que alguno de ellos esté con derecho a algo o se lo merezca, y que esos intereses son lastimados si no obtienen lo que desean. El primer gran problema con estos tipos de sofismas es que confunde el merecer con tener intereses. Si por ejemplo, mis intereses son dañados porque no logro conseguir un trabajo que quiero, nada tiene que ver con el que me lo haya “merecido” o no. El segundo gran problema es que la definición de “racional” que se aplica aquí no está del todo clara. y por ello no es más que un concepto enrevesado para tratar de sostener un sistema filosófico repleto de incoherencias. Le guste o no a los (((liberales))), Ayn Rand desea formar parte de un colectivo. y ella quiere practicar el altruismo que tanto critica al sacrificar alguno de sus intereses para poder adquirir un interés mayor al mantener un orden social cimentado sobre los principios que ella quiere llevar adelante. Ayn Rand propone una especie de contrato social de la misma manera que Thomas Hobbes o Juan Jacobo Rousseau. Ella simplemente propone distintos términos para dicho contrato. exigiendo requisitos distintos para quienes lo integran, con distintos beneficios para quienes cumplen con esos requisitos. El egoísmo que define Ayn Rand es un juego de palabras para captar la atención de la gente. Es puro mercadeo. Aunque engañoso, después de todo, Rand posee una (((genética))) propia de embusteros. El uso de las palabras, de la misma forma que (((Mises))) crea un lenguaje pseudocientífico, en el caso de Rand, ella reforma el concepto del egoísmo ya que este tiene principalmente una connotación negativa. Es por ello que Rand busca reformar el egoísmo y asociarlo con definiciones como individualismo, responsabilidad, interés superior, ilustración y interés pragmático. El propósito de la idea del interés propio es epistemología: Que tu no puedes saber suficiente para trabajar por el interés de otra persona en ña división del conocimiento y del trabajo. En la división del conocimiento y del trabajo, tu no puedes saber mucho. Somos necesariamente ignorantes. Nuestra visión del mundo es muy limitada. Está siempre restringida al querer “actuar localmente mientras que pensamos globalmente”. Es por ello que el egoísmo es simplemente un juego de palabras con el propósito de hacernos querer ver nuestras responsabilidades individuales de forma inversa.-Cuidar de otros al cuidarnos a nosotros mismos. En vez del deber que tenemos para con los otros de cuidarnos a nosotros mismos. Rand, al igual que Mises intentaron hacer del individualismo y la libertad durante períodos en el que el pensamiento socialista estaba en constante expansión, cuando el modelo socialista era el gold standard, ellos intentaron ponerle freno. Para Rand, los soviéticos destruyeron su integridad familiar. Para Mises, el modelo soviético y el nacionalsocialismo alemán cambiaron su forma de ver el mundo. Ambos intentaron hacer juegos de palabras para captar nuestra atención. Rand y Mises no escribieron nada que Adam Smith o Frédéric Bastiat no hayan escrito antes. Hayek trata de recordarnos que la fuente de la libertad, conocida como el liberalismo Clásico fue un producto de la búsqueda inglesa empírica de la ciencia producto del análisis de los datos que se habían acumulado para el siglo XVIII, una época que produjo el primer crecimiento de la clase media. Pero al mismo tiempo, los franceses estaban persiguiendo el concepto de la libertad de forma reaccionaria a la iglesia, por medio del razonamiento verbal, en vez de usar datos duros. Tenemos entonces a protestantes germanos contra latinos católicos tratando de hacer aproximaciones a la vida. Esos argumentos racionales son argumentaciones morales. Las argumentaciones morales son engañosos por definición. Pero son los más fáciles de digerir para el ciudadano de a pie y son los más fáciles de usar y manipular por parte de los políticos. En gran parte, el lenguaje de la libertad se distribuyó por traducciones que fueron hechas a partir de la literatura francesa usando la interpretación francófona en términos racionales de principios ingleses empíricos y racionales. Así que el lenguaje que usamos hoy día para discutir la libertad ha sido con el raciocinio francófono en vez del empírico inglés. Este racionalismo francófono es de donde Marx obtuvo la fundación para el socialismo y el comunismo. Las obsesiones que surgen, particularmente en el espectro político de la derecha, en relación al “egoísmo” en contraposición al “altruismo” o del “individualismo” versus el “colectivismo” son cortinas de humo. Este tipo obsesiones emergen no porque haya una dicotomía verdadera entre las dos sino porque simplemente nos topamos con el hecho de que estamos en contra de ciertas peculiaridades que algunos prefieren. Desde el socialcristiano más militante hasta el (((anarcocapitalista))) más furibundo son individuos egoístas que buscan formar el tipo de comunidades que desean para si mismos porque eso es lo que desean en sus vidas. De la misma forma hasta Ayn Rand sería una colectivista altruista, porque lo que todos deseamos es una comunidad en la cual tanto nosotros como nuestro prójimo sacrifiquen ciertas cosas para obtener otras- bien sea el derecho a mantener la totalidad de nuestra renta, o el derecho de matar gente en callejones- para mantenernos a nosotros y nuestros seres queridos a salvo. Este es el caso sin importar que tipo de sociedad busque asegurar quisiera o ye beneficios de bienestar para proteger cierta clase de derechos. La división no recae entre “egoístas individualistas” y “colectivistas altruistas”. La división recae entre sociópatas anti-sociales inmaduros “egoístas individualistas” que están obsesionados con esos términos y etiquetas para señalar su inmadurez, sociopatía, y trastornos de personalidad anti-social y “egoístas individualistas” que entienden que sus propios intereses yacen en mantener una cierta clase de orden social que requiere  poner límites a sus comportamientos para que otros puedan hacer lo mismo para poder asegurar una mayor entidad político-social-administrativa que funcione, generando beneficios para todos. Las diferencias yacen el el tipo de “altruismo” que solicitamos de los hombres que tenemos a nuestro alrededor, y que nosotros estemos dispuestos a someternos a ese tipo de normativas. La diferencia no yace en si proponemos un contrato social o no, sino bajo cuáles términos estamos dispuestos a someternos para cosechar cuales ganancias sociales: Sea seguridad, infraestructura, educación, servicios públicos, etc. No existe una forma objetiva y universalmente correcta de responder a estas preguntas porque distintas personas en distintos momentos estarán dispuestas o indispuestas a hacer o no equis o ye sacrificios para crear distintos tipos de comunidades. Para los fanboys de la teoría del valor subjetivo: Ustedes deberían entender que distintas personas ponen distintos valores en tener distintos tipos de “derechos” protegidos. Por ende logrando distintos resultados. Incluso a nivel económico. Para nosotros, en la derecha, nuestra primera tarea es crear comunidades. Formar redes espontáneas, auténticas de relaciones personales es crear un movimiento político que genera vanguardia para que cuando llegue la hora de tomar el poder, destrocemos a la izquierda al tomarla por sorpresa ya que no se esperan que seamos vanguardia. Crear este tipo de redes es como plantar un jardín: es un requisito previo para la creación y fundación de todas las cosas que vayan a surgir después. Si no lo hacemos nosotros lo la izquierda nos seguirá gobernando. Es por ello que debemos trazar límites claros con respecto a que es lo que le estamos pidiendo a aquellos que deseen unirse a nuestras filas, y que les tenemos que ofrecer a ellos si están dispuestos a cumplir con nuestras peticiones. Mientras más fuertes sean nuestras comunidades, y más altos sean los estándares de lealtad y cooperación que podamos mantener entre nosotros, más atractivas serán nuestras propuestas y mayores adeptos ganaremos para nuestra causa. La izquierda está dispuesta a devorar sus propios hijos cuando se generan espirales de pureza y purgas cruentas, nada de eso debe ocurrir aquí. Si queremos ser capaces de mejorar a la Civilización Occidental, debemos crear comunidades superiores a las que crea la izquierda, y debemos ser auténticos a nosotros mismos y la evolución espontánea de nuestra esfera de influencia, luego tenemos que hacer todo lo que esté en nuestro poder para asegurarnos que este tipo de crítica no sea reformada en contra nuestra. Veritas, aut consilis, aut ense. Por la verdad, por concilio o por las armas. Salvemos a Occidente Alberto Zambrano Para El Instituto Propietarista.

  • Las diferencias entre familias, clanes, razas y tribus

    El Problema: La regresión constante de la calidad de los hombres por debajo de la media y las desviaciones estándar crean la necesidad para que existan presiones persistentes que mantengan una necesidad genética en los grupos humanos. Esto quiere decir que los grupos pueden perder calidad muy fácilmente en cualquier momento que permitan mezclarse entre sí o que haya un cambio en las tasas de reproducción dentro de los grupos. Valor: Los hombres se pueden adaptar a cualquier circunstancia sin que tengan que mutar de forma evolutiva, pero debido a la simple frecuencia en la que se expresan los caracteres de una población en un lugar, espacio y tiempo determinado en la forma que la naturaleza los requiere. Esto trae como consecuencia que el hombre sea altamente capaz de adaptarse como organismo. Nosotros nos adaptamos cuando aprendemos, por medio de normas sociales, y por tasas de reproducción entre clases. Porque las clases son y siempre han sido expresiones genéticas superior y e inferiores. Especialización:  Tal parece que todos los hombres hemos estado involucrados en el proceso de erradicar a todos los competidores del Homo sapiens sapiens, y luego nos comenzamos a subdividir en razas. Existen cuatro razas principales: Negroide, mongoloide, caucasoide: Europeo (Del Norte, de los bosques y llanuras) Caucasoide, Iraní (sureño, del desierto y las estepas) Caucasoide y muchas otras sub razas como las semitas (africano/iraní-caucasoide) todas las cuales tuvieron que experimentar de manera directa un proceso de especialización. Las diferencias entre estas razas están descritas y son explicables desde un punto de vista endocrino, ya que los humanos “crecen” y los cambios endocrinos modifican las expresiones de ciertos caracteres, comportamientos y apariencias entre las razas. Es por ello que:

    • La mayoría de las diferencias entre razas del Homo sapiens sapiens tienen un basamento endocrinológico.
      • Un mayor o menor dimorfismo sexual
      • Una madurez sexual mayor o menor (agresividad/impulsividad)
      • Una rapidez de maduración sexual mayor o menor (agresividad/impulsividad)
        Los asiáticos tienes una baja madurez sexual, mayor esperanza de vida, baja testosterona, les siguen los blancos, y los negros.
        Lo inverso ocurre con los (((judíos))), la exagerada masculinidad africana, la inmadurez sexual asiática, el alto dimorfismo sexual blanco y la madurez retardada del blanco.
      • Cuerpos más altos, musculosos, atractivos o más pequeños. Desarrollo de corteza cerebral mayor o menor.
      • El sexo femenino tiende a ser verbal/empático y el sexo masculino tiende a ser espacial/operacional, estas tendencias “crecen”, se desarrollan y se deben principalmente a la consecuencia del desarrollo intrauterino. Un cerebro masculino es el resultado del mismo a la exposición a la testosterona, y “crece” al desarrollar una serie de características. Es por ello que las diferencias endocrinas intrauterinas en familias pueden producir amplias variaciones de distintos caracteres en los seres humanos.
    • Algunos grupos han usado la redistribución reproductiva de la misma manera que se distribuyen los alimentos, el cuidado de los niños, mujeres y ancianos, el hogar y el techo.
      • Estos grupos han permitido dos tipos de comportamientos reproductivos: Matrimonios arreglados (con consecuencias mayoritariamente negativas) y los matrimonios por afinidad (con consecuencias mayoritariamente buenas).
      • Han prohibido matrimonios y reproducción entre primos.
      • Han permitido que los hombres y las mujeres se casen al alcanzar una madurez sexual e intelectual alta (con resultados mayoritariamente positivos para la sociedad) en contraste con las sociedades que casan a niñas de bajísima o nula madurez sexual con hombres adultos que alcanzaron una madurez sexual temprana y un desarrollo intelectual bajo/medio (con consecuencias mayoritariamente negativas, basta ver el Medio Oriente)
      • Que los cónyuges tengan propiedades (tierras) antes de contraer nupcias o que no las tengan.
      • Han desarrollado impuestos y mecanismos para las clases inferiores para que se eliminen de forma progresiva.
      • Instituyeron el Señorío y sociedades feudales, particularmente en Europa, China y Japón (o en cualquier otro sitio en donde haya habido esclavitud y servidumbre).
      • Se reguló la ingesta calórica y proteica a los jóvenes. Alterando de forma positiva o negativa el desarrollo neurobiológico en etapas críticas del crecimiento.
    • Las diferencias que quedan están en el fondo de la distribución
      • Climas fríos en donde el factor tiempo  no tiene clemencia para aquellos que son impulsivos.
      • La matanza de los niños no deseados.
      • El sacrificio de los indeseables
      • La desaparición física de los criminales
      • Condenar al ostracismo a los inútiles en sociedades agrarias.
      • La guerra en todas sus versiones históricas.

        Esto es bastante sencillo y son un juego de reglas q que no requieren experimentación genética (mutaciones) para que evolucionen las diferencias entre grupos de otra forma que no sea la expresión de caracteres.

    ¿Cuál es el secreto del hombre occidental entonces? Los hombres occidentales somos los pueblos que más hemos puesto en práctica la eugenesia, “para mejorar nuestra raza”. Eso no nos hace mejores per se. Simplemente hemos matado a todos lo peor y lo malo durante tanto tiempo que muchas familias buenas y mejores tribus han surgido y sobrevivido que las tribus y familias malas. La revolución industrial cambió todo eso La democracia cambió esta antigua estrategia cultural porque cambiamos de una familia productiva (no sólo un hombre) un voto, a votos igualitarios para todos – y desde que las mujeres se volvieron reproductivamente irresponsables (disgénicas) y las clases bajas se volvieron reproductivamente dañinas (disgénicas también), y juntos esos dos factores son más numerosos pero no superiores en calidad, implementaron políticas que revirtieron la excelencia genética que alguna vez tuvo Occidente. Hemos experimentado una “explosión” (efecto Flynn) que luce estadísticamente como un dispositivo que mejora la nutrición y distribución de las clases inferiores. Sin embargo este efecto puede ser neutralizado (revertido) ya que las tasas de reproducción de las clases inferiores continúan en expansión. Es probable que la tasa reproductiva de las clases inferiores disminuya conforme los caracteres genéticos negativos continúen perpetúandose, pero eso es cuestión de un número no determinado de generaciones y mutaciones indeterminadas. Es así de sencillo Es necesario poner en práctica políticas de eugenesia. No se puede tener libertad y prosperidad si no se tiene una civilización eugénica y racialmente homogénea.