Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • 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.

  • ¿Es la democracia el problema?

    El problema no es la democracia (entendida como la elección para el liderazgo), el problema recae en una combinación de factores.

    1. EL GOBIERNO DISCRECIONAL, en donde los líderes pueden legislar, girar instrucciones y dar órdenes al público que se los permita- Es por ello que existe el imperio de le ley, bajo un conjunto de leyes naturales, son capaces de construir contratos legales entre miembros de una sociedad. La legislación excesiva no es objetivamente legal en su sentido estricto porque viola las leyes naturales: La conservación de los incentivos para cooperar por requerimiento de los intercambios productivos, debidamente informados, garantizados, voluntarios y limitados.
    2. EL APODERAMIENTO UNIVERSAL: El apoderamiento universal es la consecuencia de preferir la democracia, en nuestra filosofía, el apoderamiento debe ser ganado, obtenido. Pero a diferencia de Platón y Sócrates que recomiendan la educación como forma de apoderamiento, nosotros pensamos que no es a por medio de la educación que se demuestra la sabiduría sino por los logros que se alcanzan en la vida. ¿Por que? Pues porque en democracia el imperio de la ley pasa a ser inexistente, y somos víctimas del gobierno discrecional, como consecuencia de la falla terrible que la (((academia))) ha llevado adelante al enseñar métodos y teorías pseudocientíticas durante 140 años.
      Asi que, ¿Cómo haríamos para poder discernir si estamos siendo educados en vez de engañados?
      No soy el primer filósofo que sugiere que el siglo XX será recordado como una era de pseudociencias y de refutación de la democracia como sistema, gracias a los fracasos de la academia. Asi que la razón por la cual nuestros ancestros requirieron de tener probidad (entendida esta como habilidades demostrables) y servicio miliar (entendido este como garantía de valía), fue que juntos demostraron conocimiento y capacidad de inversión, algo que no imagniarían que fuese posible, porque tenían educación o se “imaginaron” que los individuos eran capaces de poder ser morales. – Para ello querían evidencia empírica demostrable. Para revisar una crítica del sistema universitario sugerimos leer la obra de Sowell sobre la educación y los intelectuales. O revisar los trabajos de Kaplan sobre la falacia del votante racional, y sus escritos sobre las universidades: Allí hay muy poca evidencia de que las universidades hacen algo más que filtrar la sobrecarga de trabajo.
    3. Bienes monopólicos: Todos los monopolios son “malos2 porque prohiben la innovación, y permiten la violación de las leyes naturales de la cooperación entre los hombres. Aunque las democracias mayoritarias producen monopolios, no hay razón alguna por la que Seattle deba elegir entre tener un Monoriel o un Tren cuando pueden elegir tener los dos y que la mejor solución sea la que triunfe. La excusa es la “eficiencia”. Pero esto es un engaño. En vez de ello, la competencia forzaráa los votantes a pagar por aquello que es más proclive a tener éxito, algo que no siempre es lo que los votantes quieren, saben o desean y que generalmente, es solicitado a expensas de otra persona.
      El propósito de una democracia mayoritaria es legitimar la autoridad. Ponerle un sello de aprobación a las decisiones de las oligarquías.
      La democracia mayoritaria es útil para seleccionar prioridades entre personas con intereses comunes (granjeros, por ejemplo), donde los recursos son escasos.

      Pero en los mercados amplios, como las sociedades mercantiles, los contratos son la solucion para que las partes que conforman una sociedad puedan resolver sus diferencias y llegar a acuerdos en los cuales sus intereses compiten, en donde los gastos de los recursos son amplios, los contratos le ponen un coto a la expansión de la deuda. Así que en vez dxe tener una democracia mayoritaria de una sóla camara, nuestros ancestros crearon cámaras de representantes para cada clase, para que las clases pudieran crear intercambios en vez de gobernar una encima de la otra. Las castas y clases crearon mercados para la construcción de bienes entre las calses, de la misma manera que crearon un mercado para el consumo de bienes y servicios: Las Ciudaddes.
      De la misma manera crearon un mercado para el liderazgo al idear el voto. De igual forma crearon un mercado para resolver las disputas, y a eso le pusieron el nombre de sistema judicial o imperio de la ley.

      Como podrán ver, la democracia sólo puede funcionar como un mercado y sólo si restauramos las instituciones de los mercados, en vez de crear instituciones que destruyen a los mercados.
      Casas de gobierno múltiples (familias, negocios, territorios, monarquías con poder de veto sobre las leyes) pueden crear y sostenter una democracia, de otra forma, la democracia es un medio por el cual fraudulentamente podemos legitimizar la formación de tiranías monopólicas.

    ¿Por que es tan difícil de entender? Porque las (((academias))) han enseñado pseudociencias en vez de ciencias sociales. Curt Doolitlle La Filosofía de la Aristocracia. El Instituto Propietarista. Kiev, Ucrania. Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

  • ¿Es la democracia el problema?

    El problema no es la democracia (entendida como la elección para el liderazgo), el problema recae en una combinación de factores.

    1. EL GOBIERNO DISCRECIONAL, en donde los líderes pueden legislar, girar instrucciones y dar órdenes al público que se los permita- Es por ello que existe el imperio de le ley, bajo un conjunto de leyes naturales, son capaces de construir contratos legales entre miembros de una sociedad. La legislación excesiva no es objetivamente legal en su sentido estricto porque viola las leyes naturales: La conservación de los incentivos para cooperar por requerimiento de los intercambios productivos, debidamente informados, garantizados, voluntarios y limitados.
    2. EL APODERAMIENTO UNIVERSAL: El apoderamiento universal es la consecuencia de preferir la democracia, en nuestra filosofía, el apoderamiento debe ser ganado, obtenido. Pero a diferencia de Platón y Sócrates que recomiendan la educación como forma de apoderamiento, nosotros pensamos que no es a por medio de la educación que se demuestra la sabiduría sino por los logros que se alcanzan en la vida. ¿Por que? Pues porque en democracia el imperio de la ley pasa a ser inexistente, y somos víctimas del gobierno discrecional, como consecuencia de la falla terrible que la (((academia))) ha llevado adelante al enseñar métodos y teorías pseudocientíticas durante 140 años.
      Asi que, ¿Cómo haríamos para poder discernir si estamos siendo educados en vez de engañados?
      No soy el primer filósofo que sugiere que el siglo XX será recordado como una era de pseudociencias y de refutación de la democracia como sistema, gracias a los fracasos de la academia. Asi que la razón por la cual nuestros ancestros requirieron de tener probidad (entendida esta como habilidades demostrables) y servicio miliar (entendido este como garantía de valía), fue que juntos demostraron conocimiento y capacidad de inversión, algo que no imagniarían que fuese posible, porque tenían educación o se “imaginaron” que los individuos eran capaces de poder ser morales. – Para ello querían evidencia empírica demostrable. Para revisar una crítica del sistema universitario sugerimos leer la obra de Sowell sobre la educación y los intelectuales. O revisar los trabajos de Kaplan sobre la falacia del votante racional, y sus escritos sobre las universidades: Allí hay muy poca evidencia de que las universidades hacen algo más que filtrar la sobrecarga de trabajo.
    3. Bienes monopólicos: Todos los monopolios son “malos2 porque prohiben la innovación, y permiten la violación de las leyes naturales de la cooperación entre los hombres. Aunque las democracias mayoritarias producen monopolios, no hay razón alguna por la que Seattle deba elegir entre tener un Monoriel o un Tren cuando pueden elegir tener los dos y que la mejor solución sea la que triunfe. La excusa es la “eficiencia”. Pero esto es un engaño. En vez de ello, la competencia forzaráa los votantes a pagar por aquello que es más proclive a tener éxito, algo que no siempre es lo que los votantes quieren, saben o desean y que generalmente, es solicitado a expensas de otra persona.
      El propósito de una democracia mayoritaria es legitimar la autoridad. Ponerle un sello de aprobación a las decisiones de las oligarquías.
      La democracia mayoritaria es útil para seleccionar prioridades entre personas con intereses comunes (granjeros, por ejemplo), donde los recursos son escasos.

      Pero en los mercados amplios, como las sociedades mercantiles, los contratos son la solucion para que las partes que conforman una sociedad puedan resolver sus diferencias y llegar a acuerdos en los cuales sus intereses compiten, en donde los gastos de los recursos son amplios, los contratos le ponen un coto a la expansión de la deuda. Así que en vez dxe tener una democracia mayoritaria de una sóla camara, nuestros ancestros crearon cámaras de representantes para cada clase, para que las clases pudieran crear intercambios en vez de gobernar una encima de la otra. Las castas y clases crearon mercados para la construcción de bienes entre las calses, de la misma manera que crearon un mercado para el consumo de bienes y servicios: Las Ciudaddes.
      De la misma manera crearon un mercado para el liderazgo al idear el voto. De igual forma crearon un mercado para resolver las disputas, y a eso le pusieron el nombre de sistema judicial o imperio de la ley.

      Como podrán ver, la democracia sólo puede funcionar como un mercado y sólo si restauramos las instituciones de los mercados, en vez de crear instituciones que destruyen a los mercados.
      Casas de gobierno múltiples (familias, negocios, territorios, monarquías con poder de veto sobre las leyes) pueden crear y sostenter una democracia, de otra forma, la democracia es un medio por el cual fraudulentamente podemos legitimizar la formación de tiranías monopólicas.

    ¿Por que es tan difícil de entender? Porque las (((academias))) han enseñado pseudociencias en vez de ciencias sociales. Curt Doolitlle La Filosofía de la Aristocracia. El Instituto Propietarista. Kiev, Ucrania. Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

  • RELIGION AND REVOLUTION (very important post) Religion functions as a regulatory

    RELIGION AND REVOLUTION

    (very important post)

    Religion functions as a regulatory institution limiting culture. It is one thing to allow religious ‘ghettos’ for political utility, another to tolerate those ghettos for commercial utility, and it’s quite another to create a poly-logical cultural (normative) equivalent to the mono-logical legal system. In other words, it is no more logical(honest) to produce a poly logical legal order, than it is a poly logical ethical order, than it is to produce a poly logical aesthetic order. These are not matters of preference but of truth. And matters of truth are not positive assertions but negative prohibitions. By the possibility of prohibiting that which violates physical, natural, and informational laws, we create a market for goods, but we prohibit a market for bads.

    So the separation of church and state is incorrect. That separation is necessary not so that we may permit competing religions – not so whatsoever – but (a) to prevent the conflation of religion with law, and (b) to allow the evolution of religions increasingly compatible with informational, natural, and physical laws.

    The military, organized crimes(federal police), local crimes (local police), and sheriffs (community police) must be independent because they do not choose, they only ACT. The judiciary must be independent to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption as an organization that decides (chooses) not acts. The church (and I use that term very loosely to describe all forms of aesthetics) must be independent for the same reasons as the judiciary and the military – to prevent its conflation, misuse or corruption. These are regulatory bodies for (1) military:force, (2) judiciary:exchange, and (3) aesthetics:good commons.

    The academy must be independent for the same reasons as the military, judiciary, and church: to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption. However this limits the academy to the sciences (the true) and preserves ‘the good’ as work for the church. Ergo, the aesthetic (allegorical) disciplines then are the providence of the regulation of the church, not the research and training of the academy. The Academy may produce good as a byproduct of truth, but the church must limit the good.

    Our Laws of Nature: Physical Laws, Cooperative Laws(Natural Law), and Informational Laws (Testimonial Law) must then limit all of these disciplines.

    Our germanic ancestors unfortunately did not grasp the genius of the ethics of the germanic oath (responsibility for truth, life, property, and commons), and the utility of common over continental law which enforced this oath not only upon the citizens but on the very institutions of government and religion themselves. The germans feared anglo truth. The anglos were seduced by the commercial gains of cosmopolitan empire – as are all empires that fail.

    The national socialists did not understand what they had discovered: a post-mystical religion – one that we all desire, and (unfortunately) one that we need. They too practiced conflation. They had one piece of the institutional puzzle but not enough of it to prevent ‘bads’.

    We can create a new ‘church’ and make use of our established monuments. That church must fulfill its duty as a limiter of aesthetics, just as the military(force), and judiciary(cooperation), create limits.

    But we must not make the mistake that other civilizations have made when their primary institutions fail: conflation. The answer we seek to restore western civilization is found in the choice of: Sovereignty, and the consequential choice of Transcendence and the consequential necessity of Markets in Everything. And in the means of decidability under them: The Laws: Physical, Cooperative(Natural), and informational (testimonial). And in the specialized institutions that limit the three means of coercion: Military, Judiciary, Church. And the one institution that provides innovation: Science, Academy, School, and Gymnasium.

    The human mind seeks simple models. We call them under various terms: stereotypes, ideal types, and ideals. It’s the most simple form of comparison. We want one rule,and one institution. But this ‘want’ leads us into conflation, and conflation leads us into misuse, corruption, stagnation, and failure.

    In retrospect our ancestors practiced soveregnty and tripartism (estates of the realm), intuitively and habitually, rather than scientifically (operationally and analytically). When the economic shift provided by the end of the plagues, the evolution of the hanseatic civilization as a competitor to the mediterranean, and the scientific enlightenment, unfortunately the middle class seized power by overestimating the potential of the commercial order and the power of markets.

    The accumulated cultural capital did take a long time to spend down. But spend it down we have. And by spending it down we can claim one benefit: by analyzing our loss, we can understand our error. And having understood our error, we can repair it.

    Deconflate the conflations of the enlightenment. End the attempt to construct an institutional monopoly – the antithesis of our historical reasons for success. Restore markets in everything. Restore markets in everything by restoring a judiciary under natural law, and adding informational law to the responsibility of that judiciary. Restore the church by restoring its responsibilities, and chartering it with a new natural rather than supernatural mission. Restore the military to its pervasive position in society as the central method of emergency services of all kinds.

    How can this be done?

    – Moral Permission (we have it)

    – A set of demands (a more precise version of that which is stated above)

    – A plan of transition (a demand for a new constitution, the reformation of our institutions, and the purge of certain institutions).

    – A plan of ‘persuasion’ ( Promise violence against the status quo, then incrementally increase it, until those demands are either met- or we descend into civil war, and we impose them ourselves.)

    Why is it possible?

    – because no civilization in history other than perhaps the Late Roman or Late Ottoman has been as fragile as ours is today.

    Opportunity knocks.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:42:00 UTC

  • LETS GIVE EVERYONE A PRECISE LANGUAGE AND FOR THE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION. We hav

    LETS GIVE EVERYONE A PRECISE LANGUAGE AND FOR THE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION.

    We have been misled to thinking that ‘religion’ requires superstition. But that idea is a product of the authoritarian dogma created by the church under christianity. It’s simply not true.

    DECONFLATED, RELIGION CONSISTS OF:

    1) Narrative: historical, mythical, supernatural

    2) Metaphysical Judgments: (in many forms)

    3) Group Evolutionary Strategy: (in many forms )

    4) Normative Rules: (in many forms)

    5) Registries of Familial Property (birth, maturity, marriage, death)

    5) Rituals both private and public: (mindfulness in its forms)

    6) Feasts, Sports, Arts, and Festivals:(in their many forms)

    RELIGION ‘WORKS’ BY:

    1 – providing some variation on ‘mindfulness’ in which we can escape the problem of being honest with ourselves independently of all our accumulated intuitions and biases.

    2 – Forming associations between the ‘pack-response’ and group participation, and eliminating the problem of stress from post-tribal life’s lack of feedback, thereby extending trust bonds across kin groups, class groups, and market groups, which decreases transaction costs of all kinds in all walks of life.

    3 – Establishing normative rules for familial and cross familial behavior, that made (and continue to) reduce natural frictions between genetic variations in gender, class, tribe, race that (truthfully) translate in to different demands for association, reproduction, economic cooperation, and rule – and the status seeking that affects each of those demands, dramatically.

    THE FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM OF WESTERN RELIGION

    1 – Separation of education and religion

    …….. – The failure of religions to reform in response to the scientific enlightenment.

    …….. – The failure of religions to reform in response to Darwin.

    …….. – The Academy’s seizure of the functions of the church upon the failure of the church to reform.

    …….. – The End of western separation and competition between Religion and State by the adoption of the synthesis of jewish cosmopolitan and puritan postmodern by the State, Academy, Media complex the current generation of thinkers refers to as “The Cathedral Complex”, or just “The Cathedral” for short.

    …….. – The beginning of state financed New Indulgences (we call them ‘college diplomas’) that promise a middle or upper class level of consumption instead of forgiveness of sins and entry into heaven – when the postwar economic boom that made possible the rapid expansion of the consumer class was just a temporary product of the combined tragedies of the Great European Civil War’s destruction of centuries of accumulated production capacity, plus the destruction of, and delay of expansion of, world production caused by the movement we call world communism (and now, its inheritor, world islamism).

    2 – the academy seized control of the commercial education and the ‘religious’ education (liberalism), but failed to seize familial education – and in most cases, assisted the state in the destruction first of black families, then white families, and now all families, in order to (a) provide women with child care (schooling), force them into the labor pool (feminism), and then consume the entire proceeds of women’s labor so that the war and boomer generation could retire early and lie on the next generation’s labor, and then immigrating third world labor to provide cheap labor (social programs) that cannot replace the prior generation because of lesser aggregate abilities. The family destruction was increased by attempt to create a mobile workflorce and thereby deprive women of the multi-generational support necessary to raise more than one child without exhaustion. And now it is impossible for women to return to child bearing and child rearing because of the tax demands placed upon their earnings by the immigration of underclasses and the dependency of the aged yet healthy enough to work.

    3 – The state sponsored secular ‘religion’ that we currently teach is pseudoscientific (false, and dishonest), where the content of christian religion (the extension of kinship forgiveness to non kin) was ‘true’ but conveyed by nonsense and authoritarianism.

    4 – One of the unstated drivers for the current conflict in america is not just the decline of the white population and the ascent of the colored cities, but because science has caught up and since 1990 has been aggressively disproving the universalist, globalist, equalitarian democratic secular socialist religion. And those who are aware of this are … angry … and full of conviction that their traditions and intuitions were correct. Therefore they feel betrayed and deceived.

    THE WEST HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLYTHEISTIC

    While it is the secret to the west’s competitive advantage, we are sometimes misled by our (false) historical narrative: The west never engaged in conflation, by creating ‘one book’ so to speak. We have always had:

    1) Law (limits) for the Ruling (fathering) Classes,

    2) Commerce (pragmatism) for the producing classes.

    2) Religion (utopianism) for Science / pseudoscience, philosophy / pseudorationalism, and Theology / fraud for the Educating (mothering) classes (church/academy).

    And have always maintained the three estates of the realm using the three methods of coercion

    1) Law/Limits: Force / ostracization from movement/ resources / life itself.

    2) Exchange/Utility: Payment / Remuneration / Ostracization from consumption.

    3) Religion: Gossip / Rallying / Shaming / Ostracization from opportunity for insurance from the tribe.

    THE WEST’S ADMINISTRATIVE RELIGION IS THE COMMON SOVEREIGN INDO-EUROPEAN/ARISTOCRATIC/ANGLO SAXON LAW, AND ITS PRIEST’S ARE OUR JUDGES

    Reason, empiricism, science, and now ‘testimonialism’ (the completion of the scientific method) all evolved out of western empirical common law.

    There is no reason our founding myths:

    1) Homer, takes of kings, princes and princesses: the germanic myths, legends, and fairy tales;

    2) History and the lives of the great thinkers;

    3) the tales of jesus and the saints;

    Cannot be taught as ‘religion’ and their contributions celebrated.

    RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, BUT SUPERSTITION, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE, CONFLATION AND DECEPTION ARE NOT.

    THE CYCLE OF REVOLUTIONS (TRUTHS) AND COUNTER REVOLUTIONS (LIES)

    ———————————

    1) REVOLUTION: The invention of aristocracy (horse, bronze, wheel).

    COUNTER-REVOLUTION: organized conflationary superstitious advisory religion.

    2) REVOLUTION: The invention of truth, reason, deconflation, competition.

    COUNTER-REVOLUTION: Conflationary Monotheistic Authoritarian Religion

    3) REVOLUTION: Empricism

    COUNTER REVOLUTIONS:

    – French Pseudoscientific Moralism: Rousseau et al.

    – Russian literary nihilism.

    – German pseudorational philosophy.

    4) REVOLUTION: Science: Darwin (evolution), spencer (operationalism), poincare(mathematical realism), maxwell (electromagnetism), nietzche(restoratino of aristocratic aesthetics)

    COUNTER REVOLUTION:

    – Jewish Cosmopolitan Pseudoscience: Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology: cooperation), Freud (psychology), Adorno et al (Aesthetics).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 16:28:00 UTC

  • A THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF OUR GENDER DIFFERENCES AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PARTI

    A THOROUGH EXPLANATION OF OUR GENDER DIFFERENCES AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PARTICIPATORY GOVERNMENT.

    (argumentative weaponry for your use) (important)

    Women have an absurdly difficult time managing impulsive emotions – especially those related to being left behind, ostracization, loss of redistributive parity, and loss of consumption, and even the most subtle loss of status.

    This is the price they pay for the ‘relatedness’ of their minds, versus the compartmentalization of the male mind.

    And their general-purpose, multiple-processing, impulsivity, and hypersensitivity is necessary for child care just as male specialization, mono-processing, restraint, and insensitivity are for warriors and predators. If for no other reason than an adult male can sustain damage over time that a child cannot. We function as a gradient for damage-tolerance, from the child to the woman to the man, wherein men are expendable women are maintainable, teens are durable, and children are fragile. And we have evolved to divide up tasks such that we absorb the universe’s wear and tear upon us with men taking the brunt of the damage, women doing most of the maintenance, youth taking most of the risk, and children hopefully surviving long enough through enough investment, to become youth. This hierarchy is why men tend to think of the tribe, women of herself and her offspring, and children of themselves alone. That’s because of our responsibility for damage-absorbtion: wear and tear. And as a consequence, why men think politically, women think familially, and children think selfishly. And men, women, and children, thinking of tribe, family, and self, tend to project their mode of thinking into the other realms – foolishly.

    We all have frustration budgets, and a woman’s emotional impulsivity is far more difficult to manage as male aggressive impulsivity – albeit men tend to cause physical damage and women’s damage is less visible.

    And we might argue that domestication is reducible to the process by which we increase our frustration budgets in order to increase the length of our cooperative production cycles. In fact, that’s what paedomorphic evolution does for us. It limits our sexual maturity, and therefore prolongs the ‘childhood and youth’ stage of our lives so that we place greater emphasis on observation and learning like we do as youth, than we place upon aggression and reproduction as mature adults.

    But it’s not rational to ask the majority of women to function as rationally as the majority of men, because the distribution of compartmentalization that makes men objective and rational favors men who must not worry about the fragile children, but must estimate and manage the long-term wear and tear on the tribe. Whereas women often project their hypersensitivity upon men, and ask that men also bear the same costs as women do for her children – a consequence of the single-generation absolute nuclear family. (Of which I have come to disapprove.).

    So while men live in a world in which they appear ‘fearful’ because they do not intuitively want to create long term conditions under which they will fight from a position of disadvantage, women live in a world in which they appear fearful because they do not intuitively want to create near-term conditions under which they must scramble for resources to satisfy their needs for nesting.

    I’ve usually argued that conservative capital-preserving men, libertarian production-oriented men, and almost universally consumption-oriented women, function as an intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, specialization, labor, and advocacy.

    But the converse perspective is that we form a corresponding distribution of damage absorption, and risk absorption due to the differences in sturdiness and disposability of the child, youth, woman, and man.

    So it is not so much that men must lament the irrationality of women in modernity, since they were riders on the evolutionary journey to modernity, not creators of it.

    Our error was in not granting women a separate house, treating them as a separate class, with very separate interests and abilities, just as the houses of the church, commons, lords, and monarchy represented different classes with different interests and abilities. Because by using houses, we can force trades between our genetic predispositions to perception, cognition, knowledge and advocacy. Rather than rely on majority rule that circumvents the information system that voluntary cooperation provides us with in order to make use of all of our perceptions.

    Thankfully this mistake in our otherwise impressive history is correctable. There is no reason we do not either give women their own house of government and restore the houses of commons, senate, lords, and monarchy – at the ongoing price of the destruction of the family; or remove them, and unmarried, unpropertied men from the voting process, so that the interests of the family rather than the interests of the individual are restored to the central object of policy.

    Parsimoniously descriptive truth is a powerful weapon in the construction of interpersonal legal, familial political, and tribal(national) military policy.

    Thus armed with it, the problems and their solutions are clear.

    We just have to make a choice between the individual as the central object of policy in which we continue to use government to exacerbate the cognitive differences between the genders, or the family as the central object of policy, in which the family is the institution in which we resolve those cognitive differences as compromises, and limit government to the functions that provide interests to the corporal unit of reproductive persistence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 08:36:00 UTC

  • SEVEN PREMISES CONTRARY TO HOPPE’S ARGUMENTATION ETHICS (important) People negot

    SEVEN PREMISES CONTRARY TO HOPPE’S ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

    (important)

    People negotiate. They argue only to negotiate. They argue truthfully only as a special case of arguing within negotiation. People do not pursue the thruth – the pursue their intersts, and pursue the truth only when it advances their interests. If people were not negotiating, they would have no reason to argue.

    Like much of Hoppe and Rothbard’s work, Hoppe engages in cherry picking(confirmation bias) for the purpose of misdirection(suggestion) to create a straw man (distraction), then uses overloading(extraordinary detail), to force the audience into reliance on introspection(abandoning reason) rather than relying upon praxeological enumeration of cases that fully account for the range of possible human actions and incentives.

    In the arts, we call this effect of this overloading ‘the suspension of disbelief’ – a positive technique. But the negative use of the technique for persuasive purposes we call ‘overloading’ – causing the abandonment of criticism by exceeding our ability to judge without relying upon.

    Here is the correction of Hoppe’s error:

    Premise 0.1 – Man is a rational actor, he chooses boycott, avoidance, negotiation, exchange, parasitism, theft, violence, and warfare as suits his interests. Thankfully, the benefits of cooperation outweigh the benefits of conflict in the majority of cases.

    Premise 0.2 – When negotiating, humans speak in avoidance, deception, signaling, negotiation, honesty, and truth-attempts, as suits their rational interest.

    Premise 0.3 – The majority of human speech consists of either avoidance, deception, signaling, or negotiation.

    Premise 0.4 – One of the tools humans can use in avoidance, deception, signaling, or negotiation is truth-attempts – if possessed of sufficient education, experience, and skill, one or more of the various degrees of argumentation: analogistic (religious, moral, historical), rational(reasonable, rational, logical), empirical (recorded, scientific, economic), or existential(operational + empirical + logical + fully accounted), depending upon his level of understanding.

    Premise 0.5 – Almost no human argument consists of truth claims, but instead consists of negotiating statements constructed from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, and deceit. When truth-attempts are useful in the negotiation, then man will employ them. However, truth-attempts are a complex conceptual technology, and each of the technologies of argument: analogistic, rational, empirical, and existential – can be used even more easily for deception than they can for truth-discovery. To test against deception, each truth-technology requires testing by the next degree of truth technology – because greater precision and knowledge are required for each degree.

    Premise 0.6 – When humans resolve differences, we can resolve them according to who is the strongest, or by authoritarian command, or by tradition and norm, or by evolved rule, or by some logical or scientific process. The greater the degree of rule of law, the closer to logical and scientific process is necessary. The further from rule of law the more arbitrary discretion is necessary.

    Premise 0.7 – Man has evolved the vast corpus of legal doctrines, headmen, judges, governments and states as insurers of those legal doctrines, all of which are enforced by violence, precisely because man rarely if ever pursues truth instead of interest, and he does so only under constant threat of violence and constant competition from those with opposing interests. The only condition we find truth is even vaguely pursued is when property is external to the argument, and signaling for having the best argument most correspondent with reality, is the only reward.

    SUMMARY:

    Empirically speaking, in all civilizations, in all walks of life, humans almost never pursue the truth. Instead, they pursue their interests, and they resort to the high cost of truth only if (a) it is in their interest, and (b) they possess the skill to do so, and (c) under threat of ostracization, punishment, or death if they fail to.

    COMFORTING LIES THAT APPEAL TO COGNITIVE BIASES

    Left feminine, Libertine Adolescent, Right Masculine biases reflect each of our evolutionary strategies given our reproductive desirability and our social class. Each of the cosmopolitan lies was constructed to appeal to the cognitive baises: left-feminine, libertarian-adolescent, and conservative-masculine through the exact same application of that process that was used to spread the lie of scriptural monotheism: Verbal overloading of a suggestion, that appeals to a cognitive bias, overwhelming the available truth-testing technology.

    THE SOURCE OF LIBERTY.

    There is only one source of liberty: the universal, organized application of violence to force universal sovereignty. where under universal sovereignty there is no other method of cooperation than natural, judge-discovered, common, law providing a market for dispute resolution; the market for reproduction that we call marriage and family, the market for goods, services AND information, and the market for commons we call anglo-multi-house-government, and the market for polities we call small regional nation states. Because only markets tolerate sovereignty. All else is discretion, and discretion is the opposite of sovereignty.

    — Hoppe’s Premises —

    “- Premise 1: All truth-claims – all claims that a given proposition is true, false, indeterminate or un-decidable or that an argument is valid and complete or not – are raised, justified and decided upon in the course of an argumentation.

    – Premise 2: The truth of this proposition cannot be disputed without falling into contradiction, as any attempt to do so would itself have to come in the form of an argument. Hence, the “Apriori” of argumentation.

    – Premise 3: Argumentation is not free-floating sounds but a human action, i.e., a purposeful human activity employing physical means – a person’s body and various external things – in order to reach a specific end or goal: the attainment of agreement concerning the truth-value of a given proposition or argument.

    – Premise 4: While motivated by some initial disagreement, dispute or conflict concerning the validity of some truth-claim, every argumentation between a proponent and an opponent is itself a conflict-free – mutually agreed on, peaceful – form of interaction aimed at resolving the initial disagreement and reaching some mutually agreed-on answer as to the truth-value of a given proposition or argument.

    – Premise 5: The truth or validity of the norms or rules of action that make argumentation between a proponent and an opponent at all possible – the praxeological presuppositions of argumentation – cannot be argumentatively disputed without falling into a pragmatic or performative contradiction.

    – Premise 6: The praxeological presuppositions of argumentation, then, i.e., what makes argumentation as a specific form of truth-seeking activity possible, are twofold: a) each person must be entitled to exclusive control or ownership of his physical body (the very mean that he and only he can control directly, at will) so as to be able to act independently of one another and come to a conclusion on his own, i.e., autonomously; and b), for the same reason of mutually independent standing and autonomy, both proponent and opponent must be entitled to their respective prior possessions, i.e., the exclusive control of all other, external means of action appropriated indirectly by them prior to and independent of one another and prior to the on-set of their argumentation.

    Conclusion: Any argument to the contrary: that either the proponent or the opponent is not entitled to the exclusive ownership of his body and all prior possessions cannot be defended without falling into a pragmatic or performative contradiction. For by engaging in argumentation, both proponent and opponent demonstrate that they seek a peaceful, conflict-free resolution to whatever disagreement gave rise to their arguments. Yet to deny one person the right to self-ownership and prior possessions is to deny his autonomy and his autonomous standing in a trial of arguments. It affirms instead dependency and conflict, i.e., heteronomy, rather than conflict-free and autonomously reached agreement and is thus contrary to the very purpose of argumentation.”

    — Doolittle’s Criticisms —

    Hoppe’s thesis: Since I do not physically aggress against your body and your property while in engaging in ‘argument'(negotiation), then I demonstrate when in argument(negotiation), that non-aggression against life and property is required for cooperation – which I can restate as the criteria for ethical action.

    ISSUES

    If I am trying to deceive you, and I make no claim that what I say is true, then how can I engage in a performative contradiction?

    The only conditions under which performative contradiction matters is justification in court.

    If people seek to justify their wants(negotiate) in trade, not seek to speak truthfully(conduct scientific investigation), then they are rarely if ever engaged in argument(truth), and almost always enagaged in negotiation (not-truth)

    People engage in this spectrum actions:

    Avoidance, Violence, Threat, Deception, Negotiation, Argument, Insurance(gifts etc), Sacrifice (kin selection),

    People engage in i) argument over ‘goods'(common property), they ii) engage in negotiation of exchanges(several property), they engage in iii) threats to force transfers(possessions). But violence and deception are part of the argument, exchange or transfer, as much or more so than is any degree of truth.

    Only when they argue over commons (goods) within an existing contract for cooperation(ethics), do they make truth claims. In negotiation they engage in deceptions, and by threats they deny property exists, only that possessions exist.

    “…just talking, without any consequence of talking…”–hoppe

    He conflates purposeless speech with deceptive speech. This is a straw man argument since we do not claim to make truth claims.

    “…to be TRUE only for the parties involved in the..” – hoppe

    Argument(negotiation) requires a truth claim, negotiation and threat do not require truth claims – they eschew them. Continuing the straw man. We do not make truth claims.

    “….why should anyone pay attention to merely personal truths…”-hoppe

    (a) no one is claiming truth, (b) under threat of loss of possessions you possess the need to pay attention, unless the threat is inconsequential. Continuing the straw man.

    “…critics are engaging in a counter argument…”

    This is true. But then the critics (like me) are conduction an argument (truth inquiry), not a negotiation or a threat. That says only that we are seeking truth (attempting to produce a commons we refer to as the general rule of ethical action- the terms of the contract for cooperation).

    “…they engage in a performative contradiction…they say what they claim about argumentation is true…”

    Continuing the straw man. They make no truth claim. In fact they (we, I) deny that people engage in argument, and instead engage in threat(command), and negotiation(deception), and that only in rare cases do they engage in argument (truth claims).

    “….it is true for everyone capable of argumentation…”

    Except that we are not making the claim that people are engaged in argument, but threat, deception, and justification.

    “…argument…to resolve a conflict between rival truth claims…”

    Except that we are not enaging in arguments, or making truth claims when threatening or negotiating or justifying. We are merely seeking information that we can exploit through violence, payment, or persuasion (threat).

    “…argumentation implies one should accept the consequences of the outcome, otherwise why argue?…”

    We aren’t arguing. We’re negotiating.

    “…it would be contradictory for a judge in a trial to say…”

    Well this is the point. Argumentation ethics applies only in court where we justify our actions by correspondence with law. It says nothing about the origin and limits of the conditions from which we must deduce basic rules of cooperation (ethics).

    ARGUMENT IS A SPECIAL CASE OF COOPERATION NOT A GENERAL RULE

    Hoppe’s argument is a case of special pleading proposed as a general rule. it is just that this case of special pleading overloads the cogntivive biases of those people who self select for libertarianism.

    How could we test these hypotheses? Empirically. And without much effort I am more than confident that finding cases of argument by truth not under the threat of violence when property is in play, will be statistically irrelevant.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 13:00:00 UTC

  • The Living American Generations

    THE LIVING AMERICAN GENERATIONS ****The Depression Era**** “The Fearful Generation” Born: 1912-1921 Coming of Age: 1930-1939 Age in 2004: 83 to 92 Current Population: 11-12 million (and declining rapidly) Depression era individuals tend to be conservative, compulsive savers, maintain low debt and use more secure financial products like CDs versus stocks. These individuals tend to feel a responsibility to leave a legacy to their children. Tend to be patriotic, oriented toward work before pleasure, respect for authority, have a sense of moral obligation. ****World War II**** The Greatest Generation Born: 1922 to 1927 Coming of Age: 1940-1945 Age in 2004: 77-82 Current Population: 11 million (in quickening decline) People in this cohort shared in a common goal of defeating the Axis powers. There was an accepted sense of “deferment” among this group, contrasted with the emphasis on “me” in more recent (i.e. Gen X) cohorts. ****Post-War Cohort**** The Privileged Generation Born: 1928-1945 Coming of Age: 1946-1963 Age in 2004: 59 to 76 Current Population: 41 million (declining) This generation had significant opportunities in jobs and education as the War ended and apost-war economic boom struck America. However, the growth in Cold War tensions, the potential for nuclear war and other never before seen threats led to levels of discomfort and uncertainty throughout the generation. Members of this group value security, comfort, and familiar, known activities and environments. ****The Baby Boomers**** “The Fuck Ups” Born: 1946-1954 Coming of Age: 1963-1972 Age in 2004: 50-58 Current Population: 33 million For a long time the Baby Boomers were defined as those born between 1945 and 1964. That would make the generation huge (71 million) and encompass people who were 20 years apart in age. It didn’t compute to have those born in 1964 compared with those born in 1946. Life experiences were completely different. Attitudes, behaviors and society were vastly different. In effect, all the elements that help to define a cohort were violated by the broad span of years originally included in the concept of the Baby Boomers. The first Boomer segment is bounded by the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, the Civil Rights movements and the Vietnam War. Boomers I were in or protested the War. Boomers 2 or the Jones Generation missed the whole thing. Boomers I had good economic opportunities and were largely optimistic about the potential for America and their own lives, the Vietnam War notwithstanding. *****Generation Jones***** The Tech Transition Generation Born: 1955-1965 Coming of Age: 1973-1983 Age in 2004: 39 to 49 Current Population: 49 million This first post-Watergate generation lost much of its trust in government and optimistic views the Boomers I maintained. Economic struggles including the oil embargo of 1979 reinforced a sense of “I’m out for me” and narcissism and a focus on self-help and skepticism over media and institutions is representative of attitudes of this cohort. While Boomers I had Vietnam, Joneses had AIDS as part of their rites of passage. The youngest members of the Jones generation in fact did not have the benefits of the Boomers class as many of the best jobs, opportunities, housing etc. were taken by the larger and earlier group. Both Gen X and Boomer II s suffer from this long shadow cast by Boomers. ****Generation X**** The Uncertain Generation Born: 1966-1976 Coming of Age: 1988-1994 Age in 2004: 28 to 38 Current Population: 41 million Sometimes referred to as the “lost” generation, this was the first generation of “latchkey” kids, exposed to lots of daycare and divorce. Known as the generation with the lowest voting participation rate of any generation, Gen Xers were quoted by Newsweek as “the generation that dropped out without ever turning on the news or tuning in to the social issues around them.” Gen X is often characterized by high levels of skepticism, “what’s in it for me” attitudes and a reputation for some of the worst music to ever gain popularity. Now, moving into adulthood William Morrow (Generations) cited the childhood divorce of many Gen Xers as “one of the most decisive experiences influencing how Gen Xers will shape their own families”. Gen Xers are arguably the best educated generation with 29% obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher (6% higher than the previous cohort). And, with that education and a growing maturity they are starting to form families with a higher level of caution and pragmatism than their parents demonstrated. Concerns run high over avoiding broken homes, kids growing up without a parent around and financial planning. ****Generation Y, Millennials (“The Pet Generation“)**** Born: 1977-1994 Coming of Age: 1998-2006 Age in 2004: 10 to 22 Current Population: 71 million The largest cohort since the Baby Boomers, their high numbers reflect their births as that of their parent generation. The last of the Boomer Is and most of the Boomer II s. Gen Y kids are known as incredibly sophisticated, technology wise, immune to most traditional marketing and sales pitches…as they not only grew up with it all, they’ve seen it all and been exposed to it all since early childhood. Gen Y members are much more racially and ethnically diverse and they are much more segmented as an audience aided by the rapid expansion in Cable TV channels, satellite radio, the Internet, e-zines, etc. Gen Y are less brand loyal and the speed of the Internet has led the cohort to be similarly flexible and changing in its fashion, style consciousness and where and how it is communicated with. Gen Y kids often raised in dual income or single parent families have been more involved in family purchases…everything from groceries to new cars. One in nine Gen Yers has a credit card co-signed by a parent. ****Generation Z**** Born: 1995-2012 Coming of Age: 2013-2020 Age in 2004: 0-9 Current Population: 23 million and growing rapidly While we don’t know much about Gen Z yet…we know a lot about the environment they are growing up in. This highly diverse environment will make the grade schools of the next generation the most diverse ever. Higher levels of technology will make significant inroads in academics allowing for customized instruction, data mining of student histories to enable pinpoint diagnostics and remediation or accelerated achievement opportunities. Gen Z kids will grow up with a highly sophisticated media and computer environment and will be more Internet savvy and expert than their Gen Y forerunners. More to come on Gen Z…stay tuned.  

  • The Living American Generations

    THE LIVING AMERICAN GENERATIONS ****The Depression Era**** “The Fearful Generation” Born: 1912-1921 Coming of Age: 1930-1939 Age in 2004: 83 to 92 Current Population: 11-12 million (and declining rapidly) Depression era individuals tend to be conservative, compulsive savers, maintain low debt and use more secure financial products like CDs versus stocks. These individuals tend to feel a responsibility to leave a legacy to their children. Tend to be patriotic, oriented toward work before pleasure, respect for authority, have a sense of moral obligation. ****World War II**** The Greatest Generation Born: 1922 to 1927 Coming of Age: 1940-1945 Age in 2004: 77-82 Current Population: 11 million (in quickening decline) People in this cohort shared in a common goal of defeating the Axis powers. There was an accepted sense of “deferment” among this group, contrasted with the emphasis on “me” in more recent (i.e. Gen X) cohorts. ****Post-War Cohort**** The Privileged Generation Born: 1928-1945 Coming of Age: 1946-1963 Age in 2004: 59 to 76 Current Population: 41 million (declining) This generation had significant opportunities in jobs and education as the War ended and apost-war economic boom struck America. However, the growth in Cold War tensions, the potential for nuclear war and other never before seen threats led to levels of discomfort and uncertainty throughout the generation. Members of this group value security, comfort, and familiar, known activities and environments. ****The Baby Boomers**** “The Fuck Ups” Born: 1946-1954 Coming of Age: 1963-1972 Age in 2004: 50-58 Current Population: 33 million For a long time the Baby Boomers were defined as those born between 1945 and 1964. That would make the generation huge (71 million) and encompass people who were 20 years apart in age. It didn’t compute to have those born in 1964 compared with those born in 1946. Life experiences were completely different. Attitudes, behaviors and society were vastly different. In effect, all the elements that help to define a cohort were violated by the broad span of years originally included in the concept of the Baby Boomers. The first Boomer segment is bounded by the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, the Civil Rights movements and the Vietnam War. Boomers I were in or protested the War. Boomers 2 or the Jones Generation missed the whole thing. Boomers I had good economic opportunities and were largely optimistic about the potential for America and their own lives, the Vietnam War notwithstanding. *****Generation Jones***** The Tech Transition Generation Born: 1955-1965 Coming of Age: 1973-1983 Age in 2004: 39 to 49 Current Population: 49 million This first post-Watergate generation lost much of its trust in government and optimistic views the Boomers I maintained. Economic struggles including the oil embargo of 1979 reinforced a sense of “I’m out for me” and narcissism and a focus on self-help and skepticism over media and institutions is representative of attitudes of this cohort. While Boomers I had Vietnam, Joneses had AIDS as part of their rites of passage. The youngest members of the Jones generation in fact did not have the benefits of the Boomers class as many of the best jobs, opportunities, housing etc. were taken by the larger and earlier group. Both Gen X and Boomer II s suffer from this long shadow cast by Boomers. ****Generation X**** The Uncertain Generation Born: 1966-1976 Coming of Age: 1988-1994 Age in 2004: 28 to 38 Current Population: 41 million Sometimes referred to as the “lost” generation, this was the first generation of “latchkey” kids, exposed to lots of daycare and divorce. Known as the generation with the lowest voting participation rate of any generation, Gen Xers were quoted by Newsweek as “the generation that dropped out without ever turning on the news or tuning in to the social issues around them.” Gen X is often characterized by high levels of skepticism, “what’s in it for me” attitudes and a reputation for some of the worst music to ever gain popularity. Now, moving into adulthood William Morrow (Generations) cited the childhood divorce of many Gen Xers as “one of the most decisive experiences influencing how Gen Xers will shape their own families”. Gen Xers are arguably the best educated generation with 29% obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher (6% higher than the previous cohort). And, with that education and a growing maturity they are starting to form families with a higher level of caution and pragmatism than their parents demonstrated. Concerns run high over avoiding broken homes, kids growing up without a parent around and financial planning. ****Generation Y, Millennials (“The Pet Generation“)**** Born: 1977-1994 Coming of Age: 1998-2006 Age in 2004: 10 to 22 Current Population: 71 million The largest cohort since the Baby Boomers, their high numbers reflect their births as that of their parent generation. The last of the Boomer Is and most of the Boomer II s. Gen Y kids are known as incredibly sophisticated, technology wise, immune to most traditional marketing and sales pitches…as they not only grew up with it all, they’ve seen it all and been exposed to it all since early childhood. Gen Y members are much more racially and ethnically diverse and they are much more segmented as an audience aided by the rapid expansion in Cable TV channels, satellite radio, the Internet, e-zines, etc. Gen Y are less brand loyal and the speed of the Internet has led the cohort to be similarly flexible and changing in its fashion, style consciousness and where and how it is communicated with. Gen Y kids often raised in dual income or single parent families have been more involved in family purchases…everything from groceries to new cars. One in nine Gen Yers has a credit card co-signed by a parent. ****Generation Z**** Born: 1995-2012 Coming of Age: 2013-2020 Age in 2004: 0-9 Current Population: 23 million and growing rapidly While we don’t know much about Gen Z yet…we know a lot about the environment they are growing up in. This highly diverse environment will make the grade schools of the next generation the most diverse ever. Higher levels of technology will make significant inroads in academics allowing for customized instruction, data mining of student histories to enable pinpoint diagnostics and remediation or accelerated achievement opportunities. Gen Z kids will grow up with a highly sophisticated media and computer environment and will be more Internet savvy and expert than their Gen Y forerunners. More to come on Gen Z…stay tuned.  

  • Why Do Central Banks Use Intermediaries?

    IMPORTANT: WHY DO CENTRAL BANKS USE INTERMEDIARIES? —“Question: why do central banks continue to do stimulus through intermediaries like banks when they can wire the money directly to consumers? Eg. by issuing them with prepaid cards to spend?”— Ayelam I am not an econometrician but I suspect I’ll hold my own against any living econometric economist on this subject: The answer consists of the following components: (1) The distribution of physical money through the banks was a necessity. (2 )There was no other distribution channel available until perhaps 20 years ago at the earliest. (I remember how hard it was to get people to use credit cards). (3) Digital money is actually not a very old technology and we have just recently begun to understand it.Governments move very slowly and this will disrupt the entire economy in (good) ways that will totally fuck the institutional investors that fund DC campaigns with ill-gotten gains unearned, since they merely distribute a costless good to the highest bidder for a commission. They are auctioneers. That is all. (4) The banker/crediting agency investigates the probability and insures the probability that the debt will be repaid. This INSURER function is actually what bankers do: insure the shareholders (citizens) that their fiat money (shares) are used judiciously. This argument has increasingly become specious because we have such accurate actuarial data now that we can predict the performance of a bucket of consumers with nearly perfect accuracy. 4A) It benefits the various rent seekers and politicians if all fiscal(spending) stimulus to the economy is provided by government to government suppliers just as all monetary stimulus is distributed through the financial sectors. What would happen to the construction of high cost government projects when consumers were able to say “but I could have used that money here at home?”. (5) There is a (mistaken) belief that the time value of productivity for the purpose of consumption (consumer income) needs interest for calculation purposes just as business and industry need interest for economic calculation purposes. This is a long conversation but I don’t see how consumption is any kind of entrepreneurial risk. it’s the cause of entrepreneurial risk. (6) The very idea was kind of poisoned by the MMT crowd. Particularly – we do not know the impact it would have on interest rates. And at present interest rates are the metric that the world uses to control the ‘price’ of money(which is not driven by cost of production), by regulating its ‘manufacture’ by states. Without interest rates we need another measure. This measure has been in dispute for many years, with some favoring some sort of purchasing power metric, and others favoring some productivity metric, and others some ‘growth’ metric. But if money loses its intertemporal predictability then economic calculation of contracts over any period of time increases and with that, the cost of all production, and therefore all prices, increases rapidly. (remember that money = influence that saves time and is therefore a store of time-in-production. Fiat money issued as credit money is a risk that the time will be more than saved over the interim period. (7) The moral hazard of distributing directly to consumers is frightening because unlike market activity, where people blame employers and the economy when activity shrinks and so does their income, we are fearful that people will change from living paycheck to variable paycheck, to living from monetary distribution to monetary distribution but retaliate politically against the government in the case of shrinking. Thereby all but making total communism a deterministic outcome – which is why some of the left advocate for it. (8) With the advent of leftist influence on the judiciary, it is no longer a social science bound by natural laws. So we have no means of putting such a policy into the constitution such that it’s immutable. Thereby eliminating the hazards articulated above. (9) I was nobody in 2008-2009 when I was talking about it, but as far as I know Galbraith was the only mainstream guy who articulated this problem correctly, and he correctly advocated the direct payment of mortgage debt. It would have price stabilized the world economy. But it would have fucked (undeserving) institutional debt-holders the same way greek debt holders were fucked. (His death was untimely) And conservatives (wrongly) thought it created a moral hazard (which would have been solved by giving people credit lines who had acted properly, and credit lines to those people over the next x years who were able to buy a house. ) I’ve also recommended limiting mortgages to 15 years in order to limit this problem further. Why? all increases in salary are eventually absorbed by housing prices and redistributed to long term property holders (indirect retirement savings accounts ). (10) So net net, we can buy or nationalize the ( worst )credit card company (mastercard), and distribute liquidity directly to consumers, as long as we put constitutional safeguards in place, and as long as the amount is dependent upon the overall economy. And let industry and business determine the interest rate, which should drop dramaticlaly if we reidstribute to consumers. Because the truth is that fiat currency is such an advantage that a people cannot compete without it. Competing currencies and commodities exist but they are not anywhere near as price stabilized as fiat money CAN be. So we are always going to have it. Probably digital will replace it and it will have to because the abuse of it has gotten out of hand. What real purpose does government debt serve over simply printing money and paying with it? You pay the price of interest in order to delay the equilibrial neutrality of money working through the economy. In other words, the faster new money moves the faster prices in the existing cycle of production adjust. Fast adjustment is bad if it interferes with production ( planning ) cycles. So instead we pay interest and sell government debt so that we inflate away the interest at about the same rate that prices adjust in the economy. If you understand it, then it seems ridiculous. A clever network of lies not really different from religion.