Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • Who Invented The Big Lie?

    [W]e start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    —“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will. The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds. Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33] In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth. Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

    You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods. THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIG LIE There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”. There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism). There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods. So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie? Who invented the Big Lie?

    —” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

    The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land. Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea. A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief. The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard). And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom). We cure the big lies with truth. Over and over again.

  • Reducing Our Biological Differences To Rule Of Law

    [I] think the tide has changed and that science of HBD has won out over “The Great Boazian Lie”. POSITION Most variation in human behavior is hormonal, normative, and institutional. With the most influential difference in behavior (if not appearance) caused by norms and institutions. In other words, we ‘grow’ differently despite very similar genetic composition. 1) the majority of differences between the great tribes (races) is in the rates of reproduction of the lower classes. Or conversely, the rates of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses and the concentration of reproduction in the middle and upper classes. 2) that sexual maturity regulates aggression and impulse and time preference.(humans are no different from foxes or any other creature). Hence the increasing aggression (and penis size) from east asian, northern whites(Ukrainian), southern(Iranian) whites, arabs, and africans. 3) cranial size effects intelligence disproportionately since intelligence is largely a function of memory. 4) there appears to be a difference in the evolution of different brain agents (language in particular) and in cooperation (frontal lobe) that is expressed in the races, and verbal self expression both limits frustration and increases cooperation. 5) raw athletic ability decreases with decreases in sexual maturity. In other words, this hormonal theory of sexual maturity is a sufficient explanation for the variation in COMPETITIVENESS our gene pools, and the strategies that we adopt as norms and traditions given our competitiveness (or lack of it). And furthermore, any other theory would need be more parsimonious. And my position at present is that further improvement in our genetic understanding of man’s differences will augment rather than contradict or falsify this theory. Or put another way, the end of evolution is that we reach minimum sexual maturity for reproduction but never switch off the youth and on the maturity signals. Why am I only concerned about this level of precision rather than enumerating what appear to be significant differences between races (including the Ukrainian white and Indo-Iranian White)? Because I don’t need to suggest universalism under paternal aristocracy. Meaning I’m not advocating universalism. I’m not advocating diversity or equality. I’m merely pointing out that each tribe and sub-tribe will evolve into a high trust society that is not a threat to its neighbors if it practices eugenic reproduction and rule of law. Not an aristocracy of everyone, but everyone living in aristocracies. THEREFORE The problem for any society to solve is largely one of reducing the relative size of the individuals below what we consider 106IQ today, and a target for any polity should be a distribution no less that 115, and preferably 125 if we wish to see ‘Star Trek’ – whereas the current downward trend is producing a devolution to a future of ‘Favelas’. WORSE It is possible that we have passed peak human, since it is very difficult to cleans defective genes from a polity, and intelligence is comprised of a complex set of genetic biases. EXAMPLES China surpasses india both because of superior suppression of the underclasses, and superior ability of the red army to force literacy. THE WEST The west succeeded because of (a) Aristocratic egalitarianism (b) martial truth (d) dramatic culling of the lower classes both by starvation, access to land, and aggressive hanging. You do not so much improve your population as limit the harm done to it by the lower classes. This is a consistent theme that I’ve discovered in most of my work: we do not know the truth but we know falsehood. WE do not know goods but we know bads. We cannot breed better men, we can only stop bad men from breeding more. The EUGENICS program was perhaps the most important objective of western man, and the failure of it due to women and pseudosciences was the second catastrophe. 1) The Enlightenment fallacy of oppressed man vs eugenic civilization. 2) The Enlightenment undermining of monarchy, aristocracy, instead of addition of new houses for newly participatory classes. 3) The enfranchisement of women and women’s advocacy of enfranchising slaves as a means of gaining their own enfranchisement. 4) The Jewish Cosmopolitan Pseudoscientific movement as an attempt to create a second Religion for women and slaves (underclasses): Boaz(sociology), Marx(economics), Freud (psychology), Frankfurt School (politics). 5) The Anglo attack on german civilization in the first war. The anglo attack on german civilization in the second war, and failure of Germany to restore european civilization to aristocratic, aesthetic, and egalitarian origins. 6) The adoption of the Pseudoscientific Religion by the Academy, State, Media complex and its appeal to women in academy: as revenue, state voting as power, and consumer consumption of goods as revenue. (a degree in other than STEM fields appears to be nothing more than a modern sale of Indulgences to build universities instead of churches.) 7) The 1965/66 Immigration law by which the Women, Blacks, Jews, the Pseudoscientific Religion of the Academy, State, Media complex sought to achieve through depopulation (destruction of the family) and immigration (invasion) what they could not achieve by propaganda. 8) The failure of the masculine, familial, conservative, libertarian, and scientific thought leadership to produce a body of thought to counter the second use of women as a means of distributing the Pseudoscientific Revolution’s attempt at the Second Great Lie (pseudoscience) second only to the First Great Lie (monotheism). (Which Propertarianism and Testimonialism, Genetic and Cognitive science, plus a century of recorded damage to civilization help to overturn.) 9) the great wealth to be made from the conquest and sale of the North American (US/Canadian), and Australian continents, has been interpreted as a property of American Democracy rather than american democracy is a temporary luxury made possible by the rather ridiculous wealth from the 300 year long sale of the Continent to immigrants. And while we were limited to immigration of middle class gene pools without access to land from above the Hanjal line, we now are engaged in a pollution of all forms of capital. (the same applies to Russia by the way.) Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Reducing Our Biological Differences To Rule Of Law

    [I] think the tide has changed and that science of HBD has won out over “The Great Boazian Lie”. POSITION Most variation in human behavior is hormonal, normative, and institutional. With the most influential difference in behavior (if not appearance) caused by norms and institutions. In other words, we ‘grow’ differently despite very similar genetic composition. 1) the majority of differences between the great tribes (races) is in the rates of reproduction of the lower classes. Or conversely, the rates of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses and the concentration of reproduction in the middle and upper classes. 2) that sexual maturity regulates aggression and impulse and time preference.(humans are no different from foxes or any other creature). Hence the increasing aggression (and penis size) from east asian, northern whites(Ukrainian), southern(Iranian) whites, arabs, and africans. 3) cranial size effects intelligence disproportionately since intelligence is largely a function of memory. 4) there appears to be a difference in the evolution of different brain agents (language in particular) and in cooperation (frontal lobe) that is expressed in the races, and verbal self expression both limits frustration and increases cooperation. 5) raw athletic ability decreases with decreases in sexual maturity. In other words, this hormonal theory of sexual maturity is a sufficient explanation for the variation in COMPETITIVENESS our gene pools, and the strategies that we adopt as norms and traditions given our competitiveness (or lack of it). And furthermore, any other theory would need be more parsimonious. And my position at present is that further improvement in our genetic understanding of man’s differences will augment rather than contradict or falsify this theory. Or put another way, the end of evolution is that we reach minimum sexual maturity for reproduction but never switch off the youth and on the maturity signals. Why am I only concerned about this level of precision rather than enumerating what appear to be significant differences between races (including the Ukrainian white and Indo-Iranian White)? Because I don’t need to suggest universalism under paternal aristocracy. Meaning I’m not advocating universalism. I’m not advocating diversity or equality. I’m merely pointing out that each tribe and sub-tribe will evolve into a high trust society that is not a threat to its neighbors if it practices eugenic reproduction and rule of law. Not an aristocracy of everyone, but everyone living in aristocracies. THEREFORE The problem for any society to solve is largely one of reducing the relative size of the individuals below what we consider 106IQ today, and a target for any polity should be a distribution no less that 115, and preferably 125 if we wish to see ‘Star Trek’ – whereas the current downward trend is producing a devolution to a future of ‘Favelas’. WORSE It is possible that we have passed peak human, since it is very difficult to cleans defective genes from a polity, and intelligence is comprised of a complex set of genetic biases. EXAMPLES China surpasses india both because of superior suppression of the underclasses, and superior ability of the red army to force literacy. THE WEST The west succeeded because of (a) Aristocratic egalitarianism (b) martial truth (d) dramatic culling of the lower classes both by starvation, access to land, and aggressive hanging. You do not so much improve your population as limit the harm done to it by the lower classes. This is a consistent theme that I’ve discovered in most of my work: we do not know the truth but we know falsehood. WE do not know goods but we know bads. We cannot breed better men, we can only stop bad men from breeding more. The EUGENICS program was perhaps the most important objective of western man, and the failure of it due to women and pseudosciences was the second catastrophe. 1) The Enlightenment fallacy of oppressed man vs eugenic civilization. 2) The Enlightenment undermining of monarchy, aristocracy, instead of addition of new houses for newly participatory classes. 3) The enfranchisement of women and women’s advocacy of enfranchising slaves as a means of gaining their own enfranchisement. 4) The Jewish Cosmopolitan Pseudoscientific movement as an attempt to create a second Religion for women and slaves (underclasses): Boaz(sociology), Marx(economics), Freud (psychology), Frankfurt School (politics). 5) The Anglo attack on german civilization in the first war. The anglo attack on german civilization in the second war, and failure of Germany to restore european civilization to aristocratic, aesthetic, and egalitarian origins. 6) The adoption of the Pseudoscientific Religion by the Academy, State, Media complex and its appeal to women in academy: as revenue, state voting as power, and consumer consumption of goods as revenue. (a degree in other than STEM fields appears to be nothing more than a modern sale of Indulgences to build universities instead of churches.) 7) The 1965/66 Immigration law by which the Women, Blacks, Jews, the Pseudoscientific Religion of the Academy, State, Media complex sought to achieve through depopulation (destruction of the family) and immigration (invasion) what they could not achieve by propaganda. 8) The failure of the masculine, familial, conservative, libertarian, and scientific thought leadership to produce a body of thought to counter the second use of women as a means of distributing the Pseudoscientific Revolution’s attempt at the Second Great Lie (pseudoscience) second only to the First Great Lie (monotheism). (Which Propertarianism and Testimonialism, Genetic and Cognitive science, plus a century of recorded damage to civilization help to overturn.) 9) the great wealth to be made from the conquest and sale of the North American (US/Canadian), and Australian continents, has been interpreted as a property of American Democracy rather than american democracy is a temporary luxury made possible by the rather ridiculous wealth from the 300 year long sale of the Continent to immigrants. And while we were limited to immigration of middle class gene pools without access to land from above the Hanjal line, we now are engaged in a pollution of all forms of capital. (the same applies to Russia by the way.) Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • La única forma de eliminar el estado y construir libertad

    Original Article by Curt Doolittle: http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/04/23/the-only-means-of-eliminating-the-state-and-constructing-liberty/Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. [L]a única forma de eliminar al estado, es eliminar la existencia de demanda para que éste exista. Para eliminar al estado, debemos primero construir instituciones que provean los servicios estatales sin el aprovechamiento injusto endémico e inherente a la función estatal. El estado provee sólo estos servicios:

    1. La asignación o reparto de la propiedad y de los derechos de propiedad y sus medios de transferencia.
    2. Medios para resolver todas las diferencias que lleven a conflictos.
    3. Medios para construir y proteger bienes comunes del aprovechamiento injusto.
    4. Medios para la exclusión de asignaciones competitivas, medios de resolución y medios de construcción.

    Los únicas formas de proveer estos servicios sin la existencia del estado, es construir instituciones que no requieran de la figura estatal.

    1. La ley del no parasitismo positivamente expresada como “propiedad en todo”, el derecho consuetudinario orgánico, un sistema judicial profesional independiente, EN VEZ de una burocracia profesional independiente- por ejemplo: la cuarta ola.
    2. Un mercado de bienes que consista en casas de bienes e intereses en las cuales los contratos que no sean monopolios son negociados para la creación de bienes.
    3. Una milicia universal (o cuasi universal), cuidadores, de emergencia y rescate, para poder participar en el mercado de bienes- la participación debe ser ganada, incluso para proteger a la milicia de los males del parasitismo.

    Un estado burocrático entonces, es evidencia del fracaso de construir instituciones necesarias para la provisión de servicios que permitan a grupos competir contra otros.- [F]ukuyama no ha identificado la alternativa a la socialdemocracia ni ha identificado la naturaleza transitoria del monopolio institucional como entidades necesarias para la construcciones de bienes previos al desarrollo de un mercado competitivo para la provisión de esos bienes. El fracasó en dar con la diferencia entre investigación y desarrollo de costosas instituciones de bienes., y la conversión de esas instituciones monopolistas en instituciones no-monopolistas que excluyen a las otras instituciones con las que tengan conflictos, toda vez que dichas instituciones compitan en la provisión efectiva de servicios. El fin la historia es bastante distinto a lo que Fukuyama imaginó y lo que la academia (como una forma de iglesia con fines de lucro) evoca y desea. Hay una alternativa a los gobiernos monopolistas, si no una alternativa al monopolio de los derechos de propiedad articulada como “propiedad en todo”. Fukuyama es un producto de la academia y la historia a pesar de sus intereses intelectuales honestos- porque Fukuyama no es un producto de la economía y la ley: economía política, él es perdonable así como lo son también los estudiantes de la historia, de mirar hacia atrás, contemplando otros patrones distintos sin el entendimiento de las propiedades causales de la cooperación humana y la necesidad de cada vez mayores y más complejos métodos de cálculo. [C]omo defensores de la libertad, es nuestra función, nuestra misión el proveer soluciones superiores al problema de la cooperación a una escala que podamos llamar “gubernamental”, por la invención, defensa, demanda, y rebelión en búsqueda de instituciones formales que prohiban la tiranía y preserven nuestra tasa occidental de innovación, al prohibir todo parasitismo (aprovechamiento injusto) en cualquier momento.

    1. El el requerimiento universal de la productividad es el anverso de la prohibición de parasitismo.
    2. La institucionalización de esa regla como derechos de propiedad que abarquen la “propiedad en todo”.
    3. El derecho consuetudinario orgánico, un sistema judicial profesional independiente, jurado, decir la verdad, restitución, castigo y exclusión (encarcelamiento).
    4. La familia nuclear (y quizá no la nuclear absoluta) es el primer bien en el cual la competencia de género se resuelva fuera de la producción de otros bienes.
    5. Un monarca hereditario (jefe de estado) con poder de veto, pero sin poder positivo.
    6. Un set de cámaras que representen a las distintas clases, pobladas por selección aleatoria, quienes actúan como jurados, en la selección de contratos propuestos para duración anual, y con prohibiciones específicas de la construcción legal.
    7. La inclusión de bienes informativos en derechos de propiedad y por ende (a) el requerimiento de tener un discurso honesto de derechos propietarios y científicos en la materia de bienes. (b) la necesidad de un lenguaje operativo. (c ) la prohibición de la transferencia del compromiso y (e) la responsabilidad de los jurados (representantes y votantes) por sus acciones de parte de otros.

    La única defensa es el requerimiento de producción, el derecho consuetudinario, el jurado, la verdad, la universalidad, la responsabilidad universal, y los mercados competitivos. Esto produce la menor cantidad de oportunidades para aprovechamiento injusto y la privatización de todas la fuerzas en un mercado de producción de bienes y servicios necesarios para poder sobrevivir y reproducirnos. El aseguramiento contra el error y el fracaso y el límite de tener un niño a aquellos incapaces de reproducirse solventa el problema de la caridad sin el problema de la eugenesia inmoral.   Curt Doolittle Kiev, Ucrania Instituto Propietarista

  • ¿Cuáles son las bases mínimas de la ley necesaria para la libertad?

    Original article by Curt Doolittle / Artículo escrito por Curt Doolittle (http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/07/02/propertarianism-vs-rothbardiansm/)Translated by Alberto R. Zambrano U.EL PROBLEMA ES LA LEY, NO LA CREENCIA [E]s verdad que la agresión es inmoral, y es verdad que para que la gente racionalmente coopere la agresión debe ser ilegal. Pero esto es una afirmación engañosa e incompleta, porque todos intuimos que la agresión es algo malo, pero casi todos diferimos en sobre que debemos o no debemos agredir. Nadie discute que la agresión es inmoral. “Imoral” se traduce com algo que viola los límites de la cooperación racional al imponer costos sobre toros que producen disuasión para cooperar y un incentivo para generar represalias. Pero es racional que los humanos se unan a un partido político anárquico, voluntario si la base de la **LEY** es “no agresión contra la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificable”, o ¿debe ser la base de la ley algo que esté basado en algo más que la agresión, o de enfoque más amplio que la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificable? ¿Cuáles son los mínimos basamentos para que la ley sobre la cual se vuelve racional que alguien se una a un partido anárquico de forma voluntaria? Si tenemos que elegir entre: a) un Orden totalitario involuntario, un tipo de sociedad como la china comunista y Rusia. b) una Sociedad capitalista totalitaria como la China y la Rusia contemporánea. c) una sociedad Napoleónica, previa contención, como la social democracia alemana. d) una democracia social contemporánea de restitución y de derecho consuetudinario casuística, common law, como los Estados Unidos de América. e) un partido anárquico en el cual uno puede llevar a tribunales acciones éticas e inmorales (como el chantaje, y el fraude por omisión). f) un partido anárquico donde no podemos llevar a tribunales aquellas acciones inmorales y no éticas. y que como tal, las acciones no éticas e inmorales son expresamente autorizadas por la ley, y la retribución de las acciones inmorales y no éticas está prohibida. Entonces:

    1. ¿Cuál de éstas opciones será la que determinada gente de ciertos prejuicios morales habrá de elegir?
    2. ¿Cómo habrán de ser tratados el territorio y los representantes comerciales de ese estado por otros estados con los que le toque competir? (Serán boicoteados).
    3. ¿Cómo serían tratados los miembros de ese estado por miembros de otros estados con los que les toque competir? (Respuesta: serán exterminados).

    Yo creo que un análisis de esas preguntas produce una respuesta obvia y consistentemente notoria. Esa es que o la aregsión es la prueba incorrecta para dar con la respuesta a la cooperación pacífica o la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificada es una prueba insuficiente para el enfoque de la propiedad que debe ser protegida de violación o más probablemente, ambas. COOPERACIÓN   La cooperación es desproporcionadamente más productiva que la producción individual. Nosotros evolucionamos para cooperar cuando nos es posible. Pero sólo es beneficioso para nosotros si no es mutuamente productivo a todas las partes involucradas, en vez de un resultado asimétrico y parasitario. Los procesos actuales antropológicos, genéticos y de la ciencia cognitiva, nos dicen que las violaciones de la preferencia evolutiva para la cooperación son reducibles a “chulear”: es decir, no contributorios. Ya que en cualquier grupo de indiviso, si no requerimos de cooperación productiva, entonces algunos son las víctimas del chuleo (parasitismo) y otros se benefician del parasitismo. MORALIDAD Si analizamos las prohibiciones comunes a todos los códigos morales que funcionan bajo todas las estructuras familiares y removemos las restricciones morales que son puramente rituales, éstos códigos morales son universalmente reducibles a prohibiciones necesarias de lo que todos llamaríamos “violaciones a la propiedad” en un esfuerzo para facilitar la cooperación mutuamente beneficiosa. El espectro de la prohibición moral, evolución, biología e instinto.

    1. Agresión: Daño/Opresión.
    2. Parasitismo (chulear)
    3. Confianza: Subversión/Traición/Engañar/Hacer trampa
    4. Pureza: Inobservancia de las normas/Impureza de comportamiento/Contaminación

    Todas estas prohibiciones son reducibles a los derechos y obligaciones que tienen los accionistas de una empresa. Nosotros evolucionamos y desarrollamos lenguaje y ciertos tipos de castigos para violaciones de la intuición moral en la forma de prohibiciones morales, éticas y criminales:

    1. Violencia (asimetría de la fuerza)
    2. Robo (asimetría del control de la propiedad)
    3. Fraude (información falsa)
    4. Omisión (omitir información)
    5. Oscurantismo (oscurecer/dificultar/restringir acceso a la información)
    6. Obstrucción (Inhibir las transacciones de terceros)
    7. Exteriorización (exteriorizar los costos de las transacciones)
    8. Parasitismo (usar la exterioridad para el beneficio de uno mismo)
    9. Socialización de las pérdidas (exteriorización de los bienes comunes)
    10. Privatización de las ganancias (apropiación de los bienes comunes)
    11. Búsqueda de renta (parasitismo organizado)
    12. Corrupción (búsqueda de renta organizada)
    13. Conspiración/asociación para delinquir (robo organizado de forma indirecta)
    14. Extorsión (Robo organizado de forma directa)
    15. Conversión (robo de normativas, religiosas o de otra índole)
    16. Inmigración (dilución de las normas, instituciones y genes)
    17. Guerra (violencia organizada con el propósito de robar)
    18. Conquista (reorganización de todas las relaciones y de la propiedad)
    19. Genocidio (exterminación de los nuestros y su futuro genético)

    PROPIEDAD Nosotros podemos de forma empírica observar que los pueblos tratan de forma amplia un espectro de cosas como su propiedad, y que ellos intuyen que ante violaciones a esa propiedad deben actuar en forma consecuente para defender. Aquellas cosa que los pueblos buscan adquirir, acumular y preservar son: I. A sí mismos: Vida, cuerpo, recuerdos, mentes, atención, tiempo y libertad II. Estates y clase (reputación): Estatus social y reputación III. Los suyos y las relaciones de propiedad interpersonales: Parejas(acceso al sexo/reproducción Niños (reproducción genética) Relaciones consanguíneas (enlaces tribales y familiares) IV. Patrones sustentantes de reproducción, distribución y comercio: Amigos, socios y relaciones de cooperación, rutas de intercambio V. Propiedades personales La propiedad personal (privada) son cosas sobre las cuales el individuo ejerce un monopolio de control. El cuerpo físico y las propiedades materiales son aquella cosas sobre las cuales ejercemos un monopolio. VI. Tenencia de la propiedad de las acciones de una empresa: A veces la tenencia de una propiedad es compartida, para que ello sea así se guardan registros y se cualifica cuánto y que parte le corresponde a cada quien para poder ejercer la titularidad de la propiedad. VII. La propiedad comunitaria:  La propiedad institucional se refiere a aquello objetos en los cuales hemos invertido nuestras oportunidades, esfuerzos y bienes materiales para obtener capital agregado de múltiples individuos para nuestra ganancia mutua. (i)Bienes comunes informales: el discurso público, el tiempo real, y los medios grabados e impresos (ii)Instituciones informales (normativas): Son nuestras normas, ética, y moral. La propiedad institucional informal es prácticamente imposible de cuantificar y avaluar. Sus costos son subjetivos y consiste en oportunidades olvidadas. (iii)Bienes físicos: El territorio, sus aguas, parques, edificios, infraestructura, etc. (iv)Instituciones formales (procesales): Nuestras instituciones: la religión(incluyendo la religión secular), gobierno, leyes. La propiedad formal institucional es fácil de avaluar. sus costos son visibles. Y la productividad del orden social es al menos, marginalmente medible. (v) Monumentos(arte y artefactos): Los monumentos reclaman territorio, demuestran riqueza y proveen beneficios económicos y normativos invariables de modo tal que cualquier cultura puede construirlos para demostrar de forma conspicua su riqueza (producción) y como tal su excelencia evidente. Es por ello que los monumentos que compiten entre si representan invasión. Templos, iglesias, museos, esculturas son los ejemplos más evidentes de conquista cultura. ¿CUÁL ES LA MORALIDAD EMPÍRICAMENTE OBJETIVA OBSERVABLE? Si eliminamos todas las prohibiciones al parasitismo (costos impuestos) entonces ¿cuáles son las acciones morales que quedan? (i)Productivas  no parasitarias, cuyo valor subjetivo aumenta (ii) Verdaderas (iii) Garantizadas (por juramento) (iv) Transferencia voluntaria de la propiedad (v)Exterioridad libre de costos impuestos Son esos criterios los que definen una acción moral ética. Y cualquier acción que no cumpla con esos criterios es una acción que no es ética ni moral. ¿CÚALES SONLOS MEDIOS DE SUPERVIVENCIA SI PROHIBIMOS LA IMPOSICIÓN DE LOS COSTOS?

    1. Dividendos: Los dividendos que surgen de la construcción y manutención de la organización voluntaria de la producción, distribución comercio pagado por oportunidades perdidas por el consumo parasitario (actuando ética y moralmente).
    2. Uno gana acceso a oportunidades para la cooperación y el consumo de bienes y servicios en el mercado.
    3. Uno recibe ganancias de la producción personal de bienes y servicios en el mercado
    4. Dividendos para la manutención de bienes en todas sus formas
    5. Dividends para la defensa de los bienes en todas sus formas.

    ECONOMÍA Podemos jugar los impactos económicos de las sociedades donde hay alto nivel de confianza que ponen en práctica la prohibición casi total de las acciones criminales, anti éticas, e inmorales. Y nosotros podemos comparar esas sociedades con otras que suprimen menos acciones anti éticas e inmorales. La velocidad de las economías está limitada y determinada por los costos de transacciones. El tiempo es la velocidad de las economías determinado y limitado por los medios en los cuales se identifican nuevas leyes que prohiban el parasitismo. Los bienes son una ventaja competitiva. La objetividad de las normas son buenas, inútiles y malas- al igual que los genes. La suficiencia es la demanda de autoridad versus la demanda de libertad. Así que, se mantiene en pie entonces el principio de la no-agresión? ¿Bajo cual razonamiento sería lógico apoyar el principio de no agresión bajo la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificable como la base de las leyes. las cuales explícitamente autorizan las acciones inmorales y no éticas y prohiben la retribución contra las acciones inmorales y no éticas? Los principios de no agresión han sido implementados en detrimento de la libertad cuando sus proponentes arguyen que esta doctrina un medio suficientemente bueno para determinar las reglas morales y legales de la cooperación. Estas reglas no son lo suficientemente buenas. Y no podemos perseguir una alternativa a las sociedades que premian los altos niveles de confianza sin proveer a la gente con una alternativa que sea moralmente superior al estado. Y el principio de no agresión no pasa esa prueba.INVERSAMENTE: LA PROPIEDAD EN TODO DEL PROPIETARISMO La “propiedad en todo” significa que lo que los humanos demuestran como SU propiedad al actuar para adquirirla, defenderse y reprimir aquellas acciones que busquen afectarla. Los humanos que hayan invertido, tiempo, esfuerzo y recursos en acumular propiedades, sin caer en el parasitismo de otros humanos que tengan propiedades acumuladas de la misma manera; y en donde la imposición del parasitismo se impone por la violencia, robo, fraude, fraude por sugerencia, oscurantismo, omisión robo por construcción externa, aprovechamiento, privatización de bienes comunes, socialización de pérdidas, conspiración, conversión, inmigración, invasión, conquista y genocidio. La no agresión solo se mantiene bajo la ética aristocrática y no bajo la ética del gueto de Murray Rothbard. El principio de no agresión se mantiene bajo la ética propietarista y fracasa bajo la ética rothbardiana. Y para establecer los principios de no agresión sin establecer  sobre que se puede y que no se puede agresor, es un acto de fraude: Fraude por omisión y fraude por sugerencia. Rothbard era un proponente de defraudar. El libertarianismo rothbardiano es una idea fraudulenta para la producción de las libertades. La anarquía es insuficiente para la libertad. La libertad requiere de gobierno de reglas(nomocracia) : nomocracia propietarista Curt Doolittle

  • ¿Cuáles son las bases mínimas de la ley necesaria para la libertad?

    Original article by Curt Doolittle / Artículo escrito por Curt Doolittle (http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/07/02/propertarianism-vs-rothbardiansm/)Translated by Alberto R. Zambrano U.EL PROBLEMA ES LA LEY, NO LA CREENCIA [E]s verdad que la agresión es inmoral, y es verdad que para que la gente racionalmente coopere la agresión debe ser ilegal. Pero esto es una afirmación engañosa e incompleta, porque todos intuimos que la agresión es algo malo, pero casi todos diferimos en sobre que debemos o no debemos agredir. Nadie discute que la agresión es inmoral. “Imoral” se traduce com algo que viola los límites de la cooperación racional al imponer costos sobre toros que producen disuasión para cooperar y un incentivo para generar represalias. Pero es racional que los humanos se unan a un partido político anárquico, voluntario si la base de la **LEY** es “no agresión contra la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificable”, o ¿debe ser la base de la ley algo que esté basado en algo más que la agresión, o de enfoque más amplio que la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificable? ¿Cuáles son los mínimos basamentos para que la ley sobre la cual se vuelve racional que alguien se una a un partido anárquico de forma voluntaria? Si tenemos que elegir entre: a) un Orden totalitario involuntario, un tipo de sociedad como la china comunista y Rusia. b) una Sociedad capitalista totalitaria como la China y la Rusia contemporánea. c) una sociedad Napoleónica, previa contención, como la social democracia alemana. d) una democracia social contemporánea de restitución y de derecho consuetudinario casuística, common law, como los Estados Unidos de América. e) un partido anárquico en el cual uno puede llevar a tribunales acciones éticas e inmorales (como el chantaje, y el fraude por omisión). f) un partido anárquico donde no podemos llevar a tribunales aquellas acciones inmorales y no éticas. y que como tal, las acciones no éticas e inmorales son expresamente autorizadas por la ley, y la retribución de las acciones inmorales y no éticas está prohibida. Entonces:

    1. ¿Cuál de éstas opciones será la que determinada gente de ciertos prejuicios morales habrá de elegir?
    2. ¿Cómo habrán de ser tratados el territorio y los representantes comerciales de ese estado por otros estados con los que le toque competir? (Serán boicoteados).
    3. ¿Cómo serían tratados los miembros de ese estado por miembros de otros estados con los que les toque competir? (Respuesta: serán exterminados).

    Yo creo que un análisis de esas preguntas produce una respuesta obvia y consistentemente notoria. Esa es que o la aregsión es la prueba incorrecta para dar con la respuesta a la cooperación pacífica o la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificada es una prueba insuficiente para el enfoque de la propiedad que debe ser protegida de violación o más probablemente, ambas. COOPERACIÓN   La cooperación es desproporcionadamente más productiva que la producción individual. Nosotros evolucionamos para cooperar cuando nos es posible. Pero sólo es beneficioso para nosotros si no es mutuamente productivo a todas las partes involucradas, en vez de un resultado asimétrico y parasitario. Los procesos actuales antropológicos, genéticos y de la ciencia cognitiva, nos dicen que las violaciones de la preferencia evolutiva para la cooperación son reducibles a “chulear”: es decir, no contributorios. Ya que en cualquier grupo de indiviso, si no requerimos de cooperación productiva, entonces algunos son las víctimas del chuleo (parasitismo) y otros se benefician del parasitismo. MORALIDAD Si analizamos las prohibiciones comunes a todos los códigos morales que funcionan bajo todas las estructuras familiares y removemos las restricciones morales que son puramente rituales, éstos códigos morales son universalmente reducibles a prohibiciones necesarias de lo que todos llamaríamos “violaciones a la propiedad” en un esfuerzo para facilitar la cooperación mutuamente beneficiosa. El espectro de la prohibición moral, evolución, biología e instinto.

    1. Agresión: Daño/Opresión.
    2. Parasitismo (chulear)
    3. Confianza: Subversión/Traición/Engañar/Hacer trampa
    4. Pureza: Inobservancia de las normas/Impureza de comportamiento/Contaminación

    Todas estas prohibiciones son reducibles a los derechos y obligaciones que tienen los accionistas de una empresa. Nosotros evolucionamos y desarrollamos lenguaje y ciertos tipos de castigos para violaciones de la intuición moral en la forma de prohibiciones morales, éticas y criminales:

    1. Violencia (asimetría de la fuerza)
    2. Robo (asimetría del control de la propiedad)
    3. Fraude (información falsa)
    4. Omisión (omitir información)
    5. Oscurantismo (oscurecer/dificultar/restringir acceso a la información)
    6. Obstrucción (Inhibir las transacciones de terceros)
    7. Exteriorización (exteriorizar los costos de las transacciones)
    8. Parasitismo (usar la exterioridad para el beneficio de uno mismo)
    9. Socialización de las pérdidas (exteriorización de los bienes comunes)
    10. Privatización de las ganancias (apropiación de los bienes comunes)
    11. Búsqueda de renta (parasitismo organizado)
    12. Corrupción (búsqueda de renta organizada)
    13. Conspiración/asociación para delinquir (robo organizado de forma indirecta)
    14. Extorsión (Robo organizado de forma directa)
    15. Conversión (robo de normativas, religiosas o de otra índole)
    16. Inmigración (dilución de las normas, instituciones y genes)
    17. Guerra (violencia organizada con el propósito de robar)
    18. Conquista (reorganización de todas las relaciones y de la propiedad)
    19. Genocidio (exterminación de los nuestros y su futuro genético)

    PROPIEDAD Nosotros podemos de forma empírica observar que los pueblos tratan de forma amplia un espectro de cosas como su propiedad, y que ellos intuyen que ante violaciones a esa propiedad deben actuar en forma consecuente para defender. Aquellas cosa que los pueblos buscan adquirir, acumular y preservar son: I. A sí mismos: Vida, cuerpo, recuerdos, mentes, atención, tiempo y libertad II. Estates y clase (reputación): Estatus social y reputación III. Los suyos y las relaciones de propiedad interpersonales: Parejas(acceso al sexo/reproducción Niños (reproducción genética) Relaciones consanguíneas (enlaces tribales y familiares) IV. Patrones sustentantes de reproducción, distribución y comercio: Amigos, socios y relaciones de cooperación, rutas de intercambio V. Propiedades personales La propiedad personal (privada) son cosas sobre las cuales el individuo ejerce un monopolio de control. El cuerpo físico y las propiedades materiales son aquella cosas sobre las cuales ejercemos un monopolio. VI. Tenencia de la propiedad de las acciones de una empresa: A veces la tenencia de una propiedad es compartida, para que ello sea así se guardan registros y se cualifica cuánto y que parte le corresponde a cada quien para poder ejercer la titularidad de la propiedad. VII. La propiedad comunitaria:  La propiedad institucional se refiere a aquello objetos en los cuales hemos invertido nuestras oportunidades, esfuerzos y bienes materiales para obtener capital agregado de múltiples individuos para nuestra ganancia mutua. (i)Bienes comunes informales: el discurso público, el tiempo real, y los medios grabados e impresos (ii)Instituciones informales (normativas): Son nuestras normas, ética, y moral. La propiedad institucional informal es prácticamente imposible de cuantificar y avaluar. Sus costos son subjetivos y consiste en oportunidades olvidadas. (iii)Bienes físicos: El territorio, sus aguas, parques, edificios, infraestructura, etc. (iv)Instituciones formales (procesales): Nuestras instituciones: la religión(incluyendo la religión secular), gobierno, leyes. La propiedad formal institucional es fácil de avaluar. sus costos son visibles. Y la productividad del orden social es al menos, marginalmente medible. (v) Monumentos(arte y artefactos): Los monumentos reclaman territorio, demuestran riqueza y proveen beneficios económicos y normativos invariables de modo tal que cualquier cultura puede construirlos para demostrar de forma conspicua su riqueza (producción) y como tal su excelencia evidente. Es por ello que los monumentos que compiten entre si representan invasión. Templos, iglesias, museos, esculturas son los ejemplos más evidentes de conquista cultura. ¿CUÁL ES LA MORALIDAD EMPÍRICAMENTE OBJETIVA OBSERVABLE? Si eliminamos todas las prohibiciones al parasitismo (costos impuestos) entonces ¿cuáles son las acciones morales que quedan? (i)Productivas  no parasitarias, cuyo valor subjetivo aumenta (ii) Verdaderas (iii) Garantizadas (por juramento) (iv) Transferencia voluntaria de la propiedad (v)Exterioridad libre de costos impuestos Son esos criterios los que definen una acción moral ética. Y cualquier acción que no cumpla con esos criterios es una acción que no es ética ni moral. ¿CÚALES SONLOS MEDIOS DE SUPERVIVENCIA SI PROHIBIMOS LA IMPOSICIÓN DE LOS COSTOS?

    1. Dividendos: Los dividendos que surgen de la construcción y manutención de la organización voluntaria de la producción, distribución comercio pagado por oportunidades perdidas por el consumo parasitario (actuando ética y moralmente).
    2. Uno gana acceso a oportunidades para la cooperación y el consumo de bienes y servicios en el mercado.
    3. Uno recibe ganancias de la producción personal de bienes y servicios en el mercado
    4. Dividendos para la manutención de bienes en todas sus formas
    5. Dividends para la defensa de los bienes en todas sus formas.

    ECONOMÍA Podemos jugar los impactos económicos de las sociedades donde hay alto nivel de confianza que ponen en práctica la prohibición casi total de las acciones criminales, anti éticas, e inmorales. Y nosotros podemos comparar esas sociedades con otras que suprimen menos acciones anti éticas e inmorales. La velocidad de las economías está limitada y determinada por los costos de transacciones. El tiempo es la velocidad de las economías determinado y limitado por los medios en los cuales se identifican nuevas leyes que prohiban el parasitismo. Los bienes son una ventaja competitiva. La objetividad de las normas son buenas, inútiles y malas- al igual que los genes. La suficiencia es la demanda de autoridad versus la demanda de libertad. Así que, se mantiene en pie entonces el principio de la no-agresión? ¿Bajo cual razonamiento sería lógico apoyar el principio de no agresión bajo la propiedad intersubjetivamente verificable como la base de las leyes. las cuales explícitamente autorizan las acciones inmorales y no éticas y prohiben la retribución contra las acciones inmorales y no éticas? Los principios de no agresión han sido implementados en detrimento de la libertad cuando sus proponentes arguyen que esta doctrina un medio suficientemente bueno para determinar las reglas morales y legales de la cooperación. Estas reglas no son lo suficientemente buenas. Y no podemos perseguir una alternativa a las sociedades que premian los altos niveles de confianza sin proveer a la gente con una alternativa que sea moralmente superior al estado. Y el principio de no agresión no pasa esa prueba.INVERSAMENTE: LA PROPIEDAD EN TODO DEL PROPIETARISMO La “propiedad en todo” significa que lo que los humanos demuestran como SU propiedad al actuar para adquirirla, defenderse y reprimir aquellas acciones que busquen afectarla. Los humanos que hayan invertido, tiempo, esfuerzo y recursos en acumular propiedades, sin caer en el parasitismo de otros humanos que tengan propiedades acumuladas de la misma manera; y en donde la imposición del parasitismo se impone por la violencia, robo, fraude, fraude por sugerencia, oscurantismo, omisión robo por construcción externa, aprovechamiento, privatización de bienes comunes, socialización de pérdidas, conspiración, conversión, inmigración, invasión, conquista y genocidio. La no agresión solo se mantiene bajo la ética aristocrática y no bajo la ética del gueto de Murray Rothbard. El principio de no agresión se mantiene bajo la ética propietarista y fracasa bajo la ética rothbardiana. Y para establecer los principios de no agresión sin establecer  sobre que se puede y que no se puede agresor, es un acto de fraude: Fraude por omisión y fraude por sugerencia. Rothbard era un proponente de defraudar. El libertarianismo rothbardiano es una idea fraudulenta para la producción de las libertades. La anarquía es insuficiente para la libertad. La libertad requiere de gobierno de reglas(nomocracia) : nomocracia propietarista Curt Doolittle

  • The West Needs Russia To Save It From Utopian Democracy As The West Saved Russia From Communism.

    LETS FLIP THIS AROUND: THE WEST NEEDS RUSSIA TO SAVE IT FROM UTOPIAN DEMOCRACY JUST AS RUSSIA NEEDED THE WEST TO SAVE IT FROM UTOPIAN COMMUNISM

    —“The memory of the Soviets still exists in the minds of Eastern Europeans. But it would be dishonest to say that the U.S does not whip up fear of Russian expansion, so as to further maintain its political grip in Europe.”—

    [S]orry guys but I live in Ukraine, and do business in Estonia, and no one here needs ‘whipping up’ – they still remember soviets, and they recognize recent Russian actions as repeat of soviet actions. They all have relatives or friends of relatives who were starved, murdered, imprisoned, interrogated. They are painfully aware that they were european and on a European course of development and that Russian occupation hurt their cultures, their economies and their gene pools, and set them back a century of rapid development. They realize that they were Austro-hungarian and Polish-Lithuanian and that today they could live by european standars if not for Russian aggression and occupation. No one needs reminding that Russia invaded Ukraine, lied about it, took over its own news media, fabricated stories daily, created an entire bureaucracy to spam the internet with Russian propaganda. No one needs reminding that Russia remains an undeveloped resource economy, where the secret police manage the drug trade, and where the Kremlin uses its alliance with the Chechens to manage internal security – at great peril to Russian people. And that Moscow is now as full of muslims and third world peoples as any western city and for the same reason: real estate greed at the expense of the ordinary people. In a pattern that effects the entire world: Barbarians go to Moscow, the Russian Muscovites are displaced, and the money is sent to London where the British are displaced by the same means. They are driven out of London, leaving only the lower class third world Immigrants and empty flats owned by Russian politicians and business men. No one needs reminding that the United States has been selling a false utopia as defense against the disaster of Russian-driven world communism, just like the communists were selling a false utopia as a false alternative to consumer capitalism. No one needs reminding that it was the Russian state-sponsored Frankfurt School that paid for the conversion of american intellectuals to pseudoscience, nor the expurgation of jews from Europe and Russia that sent them to america where they spread their marxist, socialist, and Frankfurtian pseudoscience through the university, media, and entertainment business. No one needs reminding that the anglos were mistaken to conquer their cousins in Germany, and in doing so destroying western civilization’s basis in aristocracy. Nor that the American occupation of Europe was necessary only because of the Soviet occupation of Europe. Or that the American occupation is now the origin of european political weakness and social democratic overspending, and immigration. Nor that the entire western military model had adopted to the eventual inclusion of Russia just as Gorbachev had intended, and that the entire western state had pivoted to the emerging threats in the pacific and Asia instead. Nor that Putin’s panic over the threat of the spread of the Ukrainian revolution to Moscow and St Petersburg caused him to invade Ukraine and capture Crimea rather than doing the mature and wise thing and simply telling Ukraine (and the States and NATO) that they would need to ‘lease’ Crimea and the eastern territories for 99 years in exchange for a large discount on gas because it was of strategic military and industrial importance that the Russian state could not be without and still secure her borders, industry, and trade. No one needs reminding that the entire purpose of the postwar era has been to eliminate expansion and to force nations to direct their industrial energies to human rights and internal economic development rather than agrarian era territorial and tax expansion. Nor that it was Russia who broke this postwar agreement, and in doing so told the world that the future is one in which nuclear weapons are the only means by which states can guarantee their borders. Now, instead of eliminating weapons pointed at Moscow, and trusting NATO for defense, the entirety of Eastern Europe desires nuclear weapons and the abandonment of NATO for defense. NATO is a paper tiger that acts as a political system protecting world trade and nothing more. A dozen small countries with weapons pointed at heavily centralized Russia is not an increase in security for Russians. It is asking for an accident. The west needs three things for Russia to lead the Circumpolar Peoples:

      2) Russians must accept and apologize for the damage that they have done to Europe and the world in the Mongolian, Czarist, and Soviet Eras – it was much worse than the nazis ever dreamed of doing. After Mao’s efforts it is the worst most murderous campaign in recorded history, second only to the plagues, the Mongolian expansion, and the Muslim invasions of civilization. 3) Russians must stop their universal lying about their own past (Muscovites killed the Rus, they are not Rus) and about what they do today, and simply tell the truth: the Enlightenment Project of Universal Participation has been a catastrophic failure, everywhere it has been tried. Authoritarianism is not the answer, but neither is democracy: which is merely communism by slower means. If You Are Right, Then Why Lie? Russians are now largely ‘right’. So stop lying and deceiving – despite the fact that lying, deceit, and corruption and low trust are the markers of Russian society. If you are right then merely speak the truth. The truth is enough. All Russians need to do to rule is to speak truthfully. Because it is the West that is living a lie they believe now, just as Russians lived the lie of communism that they believed in the past. The fact that both Russians and westerners believed lies created by the Jews is something that we should both consider deeply: why were we both susceptible to utopian authoritarian lies by Marx, Lenin and Stalin? And why were we susceptible to utopian egalitarian lies of the neo-puritans and postmodernists? The reason is the First Great Lie we were susceptible to: religion: christianity, judaism, and islam. These were the first great lies. And the pseudosciences of Marxism, Socialism, Libertarianism, and Neo-Conserviatism the Second Great Lies. When all during this time the only truth that existed was our Warrior Heroism that created Aristotelian Science, Oath, Testimony, Jury, Property and Rule of Law. This is our origin as indo-europeans warriors from the black sea. This is our origin of sun worshippers using the wheel, bronze, and horse. We tried hard to save you from false god of Communism. We need Russians to try hard to save us from the false god of Utopian Democracy. WE NEED YOU. WE NEED YOU TO SAVE US. With Truth, Honor, Strength, and Courage. WE CANNOT SAVE OURSELVES any more than you could save yourselves from communism. WE NEED YOU TO SAVE US. But we need you armed with Truth and Russian Pragmatism, Russian Intolerance, and our shared Indo-european heroism. Not Mongol, Czarist, Soviet Propaganda and Lies. We should be ruling this world, not fighting over it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

    • The West Needs Russia To Save It From Utopian Democracy As The West Saved Russia From Communism.

      LETS FLIP THIS AROUND: THE WEST NEEDS RUSSIA TO SAVE IT FROM UTOPIAN DEMOCRACY JUST AS RUSSIA NEEDED THE WEST TO SAVE IT FROM UTOPIAN COMMUNISM

      —“The memory of the Soviets still exists in the minds of Eastern Europeans. But it would be dishonest to say that the U.S does not whip up fear of Russian expansion, so as to further maintain its political grip in Europe.”—

      [S]orry guys but I live in Ukraine, and do business in Estonia, and no one here needs ‘whipping up’ – they still remember soviets, and they recognize recent Russian actions as repeat of soviet actions. They all have relatives or friends of relatives who were starved, murdered, imprisoned, interrogated. They are painfully aware that they were european and on a European course of development and that Russian occupation hurt their cultures, their economies and their gene pools, and set them back a century of rapid development. They realize that they were Austro-hungarian and Polish-Lithuanian and that today they could live by european standars if not for Russian aggression and occupation. No one needs reminding that Russia invaded Ukraine, lied about it, took over its own news media, fabricated stories daily, created an entire bureaucracy to spam the internet with Russian propaganda. No one needs reminding that Russia remains an undeveloped resource economy, where the secret police manage the drug trade, and where the Kremlin uses its alliance with the Chechens to manage internal security – at great peril to Russian people. And that Moscow is now as full of muslims and third world peoples as any western city and for the same reason: real estate greed at the expense of the ordinary people. In a pattern that effects the entire world: Barbarians go to Moscow, the Russian Muscovites are displaced, and the money is sent to London where the British are displaced by the same means. They are driven out of London, leaving only the lower class third world Immigrants and empty flats owned by Russian politicians and business men. No one needs reminding that the United States has been selling a false utopia as defense against the disaster of Russian-driven world communism, just like the communists were selling a false utopia as a false alternative to consumer capitalism. No one needs reminding that it was the Russian state-sponsored Frankfurt School that paid for the conversion of american intellectuals to pseudoscience, nor the expurgation of jews from Europe and Russia that sent them to america where they spread their marxist, socialist, and Frankfurtian pseudoscience through the university, media, and entertainment business. No one needs reminding that the anglos were mistaken to conquer their cousins in Germany, and in doing so destroying western civilization’s basis in aristocracy. Nor that the American occupation of Europe was necessary only because of the Soviet occupation of Europe. Or that the American occupation is now the origin of european political weakness and social democratic overspending, and immigration. Nor that the entire western military model had adopted to the eventual inclusion of Russia just as Gorbachev had intended, and that the entire western state had pivoted to the emerging threats in the pacific and Asia instead. Nor that Putin’s panic over the threat of the spread of the Ukrainian revolution to Moscow and St Petersburg caused him to invade Ukraine and capture Crimea rather than doing the mature and wise thing and simply telling Ukraine (and the States and NATO) that they would need to ‘lease’ Crimea and the eastern territories for 99 years in exchange for a large discount on gas because it was of strategic military and industrial importance that the Russian state could not be without and still secure her borders, industry, and trade. No one needs reminding that the entire purpose of the postwar era has been to eliminate expansion and to force nations to direct their industrial energies to human rights and internal economic development rather than agrarian era territorial and tax expansion. Nor that it was Russia who broke this postwar agreement, and in doing so told the world that the future is one in which nuclear weapons are the only means by which states can guarantee their borders. Now, instead of eliminating weapons pointed at Moscow, and trusting NATO for defense, the entirety of Eastern Europe desires nuclear weapons and the abandonment of NATO for defense. NATO is a paper tiger that acts as a political system protecting world trade and nothing more. A dozen small countries with weapons pointed at heavily centralized Russia is not an increase in security for Russians. It is asking for an accident. The west needs three things for Russia to lead the Circumpolar Peoples:

        2) Russians must accept and apologize for the damage that they have done to Europe and the world in the Mongolian, Czarist, and Soviet Eras – it was much worse than the nazis ever dreamed of doing. After Mao’s efforts it is the worst most murderous campaign in recorded history, second only to the plagues, the Mongolian expansion, and the Muslim invasions of civilization. 3) Russians must stop their universal lying about their own past (Muscovites killed the Rus, they are not Rus) and about what they do today, and simply tell the truth: the Enlightenment Project of Universal Participation has been a catastrophic failure, everywhere it has been tried. Authoritarianism is not the answer, but neither is democracy: which is merely communism by slower means. If You Are Right, Then Why Lie? Russians are now largely ‘right’. So stop lying and deceiving – despite the fact that lying, deceit, and corruption and low trust are the markers of Russian society. If you are right then merely speak the truth. The truth is enough. All Russians need to do to rule is to speak truthfully. Because it is the West that is living a lie they believe now, just as Russians lived the lie of communism that they believed in the past. The fact that both Russians and westerners believed lies created by the Jews is something that we should both consider deeply: why were we both susceptible to utopian authoritarian lies by Marx, Lenin and Stalin? And why were we susceptible to utopian egalitarian lies of the neo-puritans and postmodernists? The reason is the First Great Lie we were susceptible to: religion: christianity, judaism, and islam. These were the first great lies. And the pseudosciences of Marxism, Socialism, Libertarianism, and Neo-Conserviatism the Second Great Lies. When all during this time the only truth that existed was our Warrior Heroism that created Aristotelian Science, Oath, Testimony, Jury, Property and Rule of Law. This is our origin as indo-europeans warriors from the black sea. This is our origin of sun worshippers using the wheel, bronze, and horse. We tried hard to save you from false god of Communism. We need Russians to try hard to save us from the false god of Utopian Democracy. WE NEED YOU. WE NEED YOU TO SAVE US. With Truth, Honor, Strength, and Courage. WE CANNOT SAVE OURSELVES any more than you could save yourselves from communism. WE NEED YOU TO SAVE US. But we need you armed with Truth and Russian Pragmatism, Russian Intolerance, and our shared Indo-european heroism. Not Mongol, Czarist, Soviet Propaganda and Lies. We should be ruling this world, not fighting over it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

      • Red, Purple, and Blue America: Is There A Divide?

        [T]he most honest answer is not to start with a false frame of ‘we’ and instead examine the country by voting patterns that demonstrate those preferences (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations. Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains. Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status. White men vote red and always have voted as such. White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such. White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious) Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family. In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies. Which should be obvious. Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the southern alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red) – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead. People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations. It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.) The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration. The Germans still use theirs. The Italians theirs. The French theirs. Et al. No one assimilates morally or normatively at all. We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is America’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why? Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical, not commercial bias. And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies. Why? For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delayed reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern Europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’. The Catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families. The Africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers). Correlation is not causation. Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies. As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes. Net is, all our political debate is a Victorian parlor game. Nothing more. We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes. If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower. And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes. Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences. Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada). The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British. That is because they were not a problem. Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting. It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it. The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition. Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities. It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests. Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear. The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one. Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one. They’re both networks of falsehoods. Comfortable lies. The truth is quite simple. We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence. Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors. The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods. Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism. As painful as it may be. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

      • Red, Purple, and Blue America: Is There A Divide?

        [T]he most honest answer is not to start with a false frame of ‘we’ and instead examine the country by voting patterns that demonstrate those preferences (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations. Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains. Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status. White men vote red and always have voted as such. White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such. White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious) Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family. In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies. Which should be obvious. Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the southern alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red) – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead. People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations. It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.) The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration. The Germans still use theirs. The Italians theirs. The French theirs. Et al. No one assimilates morally or normatively at all. We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is America’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why? Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical, not commercial bias. And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies. Why? For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delayed reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern Europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’. The Catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families. The Africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers). Correlation is not causation. Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies. As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes. Net is, all our political debate is a Victorian parlor game. Nothing more. We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes. If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower. And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes. Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences. Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada). The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British. That is because they were not a problem. Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting. It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it. The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition. Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities. It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests. Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear. The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one. Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one. They’re both networks of falsehoods. Comfortable lies. The truth is quite simple. We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence. Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors. The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods. Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism. As painful as it may be. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine