Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE ORIGINS OF THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION AGAINST WESTERN CIVILIZATION? —“The prob

    THE ORIGINS OF THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION AGAINST WESTERN CIVILIZATION?

    —“The problem came from the continental counter-enlightenment.”— Martin Štěpán

    Correct.

    Or stated more completely, it came from french counter-enlightenment (Rousseau – that’s who really starts it), german counter- enlightenment (schopenhauer-feeling, Kant-Reason [to preserve faith], Hegel-idealism ), and jewish counter-enlightenment: marx (material conflict – pseudoscience), and once mark-lenin-stalin-mao failed, then finally, back to France and the second french counter-enligthenment with Derrida-et-al.

    So these are all statements of ‘belief’ – attempts to create a secular theology. They are psychological or internal systems of thought written in unscientific (untestifiable) but instead literary prose (what I correctly call sophism and pseudoscience ).

    If you read the british enlightenment it is limited to ACTION science, technology, and law (testimony). If you read the scottish enlightenment, smith(utility) and hume(realism, naturalism, empiricism), we apprehend the world correctly within limits of our senses and can extend our senses through instrumentation, and morality is achieved through enlightened self interest – and especially at scale, between nations, is achieved through trade rather than autarky.

    In other words, Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism, Operationalism (techne), Rational Choice(utilitarian)- given to emotional variation, Natural Law (cooperation by reciprocity), and Economics (morality through cooperation and trade).

    The french and german and jewish are not only false but childish by comparison, and the theological not only false and childish but but harmful by comparison.

    1. The market demand for personal mindfulness (Spiritualism) whether empathic-femining (theological), moral-masculine(rational), or analytic-masculine(scientific) exists, and all three demands exist for most of us. The question is, given how the various religions solved mindfulness (Stoicism-epicureanism, buddhism, hinduism, abrahamism) which produces agency (stoicism), which produces optimism (hinduism), which produces withdrawal from reality (buddhism) and which denies and escapes reality (abrahamism).

    2. Religions must provide interpersonal mindfulness by creating a standard dialog, set of signals, and manners that are costly to learn and practice, but that by practicing display to others you are worthy of honest cooperation on the same terms.

    3. Religions must also provide social mindfulness (limitation of fear and comfort in the ethical, and moral. These are moral rules that serve the group’s competitive strategy – and all reflect the environmental challenges of the age of transformation in which men invented religions.,

    4. Religions must also provide political mindfulness (limits on political action and on rulers actions). I won’t cover each of them here.

    5. Religions must also provide a group strategy – gypsy parasitism, jewish parasitism, muslim parasitism, predation and conquest, christian undermining of the truth, knowledge, reason, law, property, aristocracy by rallying the peasantry and women and slaves against all and being as expansionary as islam – to counter islam. Buddhist submission and obedience Hindu class duty and function in the ‘harmony’. Chinese hierarchical family (bureaucracy). Anglo aristocratic egalitarianism (entrepreneurship and corporation).

    So 1. personal mindfulness (peace of mind), 2. interpersonal, 3. social, 4. political, 5. strategic.

    All of these are served by training in stoicism and epicureanism(realism, naturalism, reciprocity, living within your means, surrounding yourself with family and friends, and insulation from competitive status signaling), training interpersonal reciprocity, social reciprocity, training in political reciprocity, and training in group strategic reciprocity.

    The fact that we train people in reading, writing, arithmetic, mathematics, and the sciences, and indoctrinate them into falsehoods of marxism (class undermining), feminism(male undermining), and postmodernism (group undermining), but DON”T train them in stoic mindfulness, epicurean happiness, basic money, household finance, and accounting, basic law of contract and reciprocity, the testimony, the grammars, logics, rhetoric, and produce holidays that celebrate our seasons and heroes, thinkers, and sants is just a choice.

    The only addiction christianity adds is the transformation of western paternalism of masculine aristocracy, to the feminine submission to a false god, the pretense of equality of all, and the one good thing: the feminine emulation of jesus in the extension of forgiveness instead of semitic hypersensitivity to insult and slight – we call this christian love. It’s just self virtue signaling in exchange for immunity from offense by petty people endemic among the desperate, poor and ignorant.

    The real reason people rely on abrahamic religion is to disintermediate themselves from others status signals so that theyc an preserve mindfulness and self image despite continuous rejection. The reason we want to live in thd christian world is because we are not subject to continuous rejection but continuous tolerance and forgiveness (love).

    The program of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, is to UNDERMINE christian love from within. Undermine the faith. Undermine the ethics Generate envy and hatred between genders, classes, and identity groups, in order to sew discord that creates demand for an authoritarian state which can extract almost unlimited income from the population to resolve the conflicts that the government created.

    This is all you need to understand about (a) religion, (b) christianity in politics (c) how we can state christianity in legal terms, (d) how we can teach stoicism and epicureanism and history and truth rather than semitic lies, and (e) how we are undermined because christians will not fight the enemy.

    Christians are our weakness. We ‘masculine pagans’ would fight today – but we need christian numbers.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 18:26:00 UTC

  • ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS TURN ENTIRE CITIES INTO GHETTOS The Medieval and Ancient wo

    ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS TURN ENTIRE CITIES INTO GHETTOS

    The Medieval and Ancient world turned city ‘Quarters’ into ghettos for hosted hostile alien underclasses. All we need to do is turn entire secessionist cities into ghettos. They can practice their own customs there, but must remain there.

    An immigrant city is just a plantation for the financial and bureaucratic classes.

    —“While having lunch with @RandPaul in California, we got verbally assaulted by these aggressive libs complaining about incivility. Check out the vid! #unhinged”— Anon

    —“Lol they’re literally just talking to the guy, but sure let’s call it “verbal assault” and then cry about liberals destroying the English language later. Sorry if this hurt.” — renewmeme @renewmeme

    What hurt? I agree with the OP. About a third of women are mentally ill – that’s the real reason we closed the asylums: they were full of women. Whereas the extreme male manifests in autism, the extreme female manifests is psychosis.

    Combine with Infantilization of males in education, the lower testosterone of lower middle and upper proletarian classes, and indoctrination into pseudoscience,sophism and denialism in the university and we see this kind of behavior from women, and pseudo-males defend them.

    Add a hostile excitable minority practicing systematic undermining of western civilization and you get the scenario we just saw in the video.

    It’s not rocket science.

    It’s just hatred of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 13:06:00 UTC

  • STATE SPONSORED HYPERCONSUMPTION OF GOODS, SERVICES, INFO, AND VIRTUE SIGNALS —

    STATE SPONSORED HYPERCONSUMPTION OF GOODS, SERVICES, INFO, AND VIRTUE SIGNALS

    —“What we like or want may not be good for us.” –Curt Doolittle

    Context of the original quote was that we have used a variety of techniques to generate hyper-consumption and especially conspicuous hyper consumption, and even worse, conspicuous hyper consumption of virtue signals. In other words, we may like hyper consumption but that does not mean it is good for us, any more than hyperconsumption of the pleasure response by drugs is, or hyperconsumption of sedation by alcohol, or hyperconsumption of calming by nicotine, or anything else in any similar spectrum.

    So, yes, “all things in moderation” for the individual but this isn’t enforceable if the entirety of the political economy is generating hyperconsumption for hyper-taxation, and hyper-redistribution.

    The state should not engage in the provision of the incentive to hyperconsume. This only benefits the financial sector. Instead, just redistribute liquidity in response to shock and sags directly to the consumer and cause business to fight over it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 10:55:00 UTC

  • WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS TERRIFYING. IT’S NOT ME THAT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND. –“… (Do

    WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS TERRIFYING. IT’S NOT ME THAT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND.

    –“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

    The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both.

    AFAIK:

    1) All words are names (referrers).

    2) All Phrases Descriptions

    3) All sentences transactions

    4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive).

    5) All narrations, stories.

    6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive)

    7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience.

    8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding),

    9) All due diligence limits meaning.

    10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult)

    11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest).

    12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery.

    13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth).

    14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal,

    15) and all persuasion addressed to:

    i) an average of the audience,

    ii) an average of the audience’s influencers,

    iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers.

    I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided.

    As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work.

    The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery.

    As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements.

    And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak.

    So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect.

    “Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose.

    I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.”

    So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades.

    If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests.

    So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me.

    So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work.

    We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will.

    But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-18 19:13:00 UTC

  • WRITING NONFICTION BOOKS It’s very unlikely you can write a book. It’s likely yo

    WRITING NONFICTION BOOKS

    It’s very unlikely you can write a book. It’s likely you can write a paper. Its likely if you can write a series of papers that you can combine them into a book. Most of the time a paper is sufficient for a book. A book merely provides a set of historical examples, or hypothetical examples, that illustrate the sequence of dependencies on the one and and applications on the other.

    So, learn to write arguments (2pp). Then combine arguments into a paper (20pp), then papers into a book (200pp+).

    Most authors write books to document their learning experience. This is different from pretense that you have a problem figured out until you have finished your learning experience, accumulated sets of arguments, sets of papers (arguments in context) and can combine them into a book (narrations of examples past and potential that illustrate each argument and paper).

    There is a reason all libertarian books are introductory. There is a reason all feminist and anti-western authors write in postmodern prose. There is a reason philosophy is written in rationalism rather than the law of reciprocity. So that they can lie. Conversely, there is a reason hard science is written in operational language – so they cannot lie.

    cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 15:55:00 UTC

  • IT’S ALL RECIPROCITY … EXTENSION OF PHYSICAL LAWS TO HUMAN DISPLAY WORD AND DE

    IT’S ALL RECIPROCITY … EXTENSION OF PHYSICAL LAWS TO HUMAN DISPLAY WORD AND DEED

    While the principle innovation of P is Testimonialism, truthful testimony is merely reciprocity in speech. Agency is only possible under reciprocity. Trust is only possible under Reciprocity. Eugenia is only possible under Reciprocity. The foundation of P, the Natural Law of Reciprocity – is of course, just reciprocity: limiting one’s display word and deed to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality.

    So while the physical world is dependent upon entropy and it’s consequences in the laws of thermodynamics, life requires reciprocity across generations; and humans have memory and the ability to predict futures using it, and to act to seize opportunities from those predictions.

    But while cooperation is disproportionately productive (advantageous), and while we can trade debts, resulting in reciprocity over time, we can also consistently generate debts and live parasitically off others – until they retaliate (which they always do).

    Reciprocity breaks down through disintermediation that limits the ability to test whether the sum of debts and repayments result in a balance (reciprocity). And this is what the state has achieved in all walks of life under pursuit of equality. But the result has been reversal of the universalization of middle class manners ethics and morals, and the reversal of underclass eugenics.

    Humans can, through life, defeat entropy, and through productivity, continue to defeat it, despite our increasingly costly brains; but reverse that existence through the continuous production of debt (parasitism) rather than reciprocity (mutually beneficial production), and continuous eugenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 08:57:00 UTC

  • FB FUTURE Breaking up FB is not as important to me as regulating it. But if we w

    FB FUTURE

    Breaking up FB is not as important to me as regulating it. But if we were to break it up I would recommend breaking up publisher(content and advertising) and platform organizations, and remove Mark from the platform. And then open up the platform to other publishers. This preserves the income for the shareholders but eliminates the interference by the publisher (content control). I would do the same for google. Both of which are now infrastructure, and communication and business necessities – particularly for small international businesses.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 08:02:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/72688499_485728855357343_70954696429

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/72688499_485728855357343_7095469642973446144_o_485728848690677.jpg CONTRAST GOEDEL WITH P – REQUEST FROM KASH V.

    (Godel is a Platonist, I’m an operationalist)

    1. Man acts rationally, and by rationally amorally. But given the disproportionate value of cooperation, and the disproportionate risk of retaliation, it’s just in his interest to act morally much more often than immorally.

    1a. We can incrementally reduce observations of the universe, using our senses, reason, and instrumentation to descriptions of invariant constant relations (paradigms)

    1b + 3. We can describe (explain) all of experience as constant relations (a single paradigm)

    2. While our ability to reason is constant, every increase convergence of our instruments and paradigms increases the explanatory power available to our reason.

    4. The capacity to reason is a deterministic product of entropy at convenient temperatures in convenient conditions, for sufficient periods of time. It is likely that given the vastness of the universe, other creatures have evolved reason, and that while the logic of constant relations will exist, and mathematics as a logic of constant positional relations will exist in some form, that the composition of experience that results from different body structures will result in different techniques for employing reason. (think octopi). And that the ability of these creatures may vastly outperform ours.

    5. Because we are able to use our powers of prediction using free association to construct a model of the world we exist in, and the worlds we might exist in, and the worlds we cannot exist in, we can experience, many candidate worlds.

    5b. The set of demands we evolved and express daily is largely invariant. The set of paradigms we use to imagine opportunities for fulfilling those demands evolves (and devolves) constantly. So while we largely increase the coherence of paradigms, and approach a single paradigm for describing the universe, we have experienced the world differently in the past than in the present, and will so again experience it differently in the future.

    6. If we can construct an operational grammar and paradigm for a given set of constant relations, we can produce an operational logic of that set of constant relations, and conduct experiments logically by trial and error as we do in mathematics. To do so we require convergence of paradigms to the point of marginal indifference of those logical constructions. But the Analytic program failed, and Godel and Frege et all were wrong – closure does not exist.

    7. Yes the development of thought since Aristotle expanded on Democritus, has been consistent and rational with the exception of the semitic abrahamic dark ages of supernatural ignorance.

    8. Reason is reason is reasoning and there is nothing to it. There are however endless permutations of reason especially as knowledge increases.

    9. The via-negativa of Natural Law can be restated in the via-positiva as Natural rights, and this logic and empirical combination produces a science of cooperation, and law the institutional enforcement of cooperation under that law, and economics the measure of it’s success, and economics the language of analysis and measurement within that science.

    10.The material(noun) and the Operational(verb) are true (exist, and are testifiable). The platonic (ideal) is false. All sets of constant relations are identified, retained, applied, reinforced, and revised by merging physical stimuli with physical organization of information in the brain, producing a hierarchy of changes in state over time we call ‘experience’. So while it is correct to say that the universe is deterministic (composed of constant relations), it is only correct to say that we can observe sets of constant relations, identify them (category), compare them, name them, and predict future states of of them, and in relation to them. These memories and predications like running consist of physical potential, that produce results in time. In other words, al of reality is constructed physically, from a hierarchy of changes in state over time we call experience.

    12. Concepts do not exist. the potential for Concepts exists. Running only exists when one is running. We have the potential to run. We have the potential to identify sets of constant relations (concepts), but experience of contexts only exist when we are acting to recall them in time.

    13. It appears we can know the most parsimonious paradigm, and host of parsimonious sub-paradigms of increasing complexity (permutations) allowing us to speak the truth using evidence – science; that we can know the same for choices using arguments – philosophy; and we can know the same for collective organization using stories – theology.

    14. Existing religions are bad to terrible to suicidal – but human psychological, social, political, and strategic demand for the products of ‘religion’ (order) are endless. So we need to educate one another in mindfulness, ethics(interpersonal), morality (extrapersonal), political, and strategic (competitive), by means gracefully increasing and decreasing in accessibility: parable, story, history, reason and general rules, science and outcomes.CONTRAST GOEDEL WITH P – REQUEST FROM KASH V.

    (Godel is a Platonist, I’m an operationalist)

    1. Man acts rationally, and by rationally amorally. But given the disproportionate value of cooperation, and the disproportionate risk of retaliation, it’s just in his interest to act morally much more often than immorally.

    1a. We can incrementally reduce observations of the universe, using our senses, reason, and instrumentation to descriptions of invariant constant relations (paradigms)

    1b + 3. We can describe (explain) all of experience as constant relations (a single paradigm)

    2. While our ability to reason is constant, every increase convergence of our instruments and paradigms increases the explanatory power available to our reason.

    4. The capacity to reason is a deterministic product of entropy at convenient temperatures in convenient conditions, for sufficient periods of time. It is likely that given the vastness of the universe, other creatures have evolved reason, and that while the logic of constant relations will exist, and mathematics as a logic of constant positional relations will exist in some form, that the composition of experience that results from different body structures will result in different techniques for employing reason. (think octopi). And that the ability of these creatures may vastly outperform ours.

    5. Because we are able to use our powers of prediction using free association to construct a model of the world we exist in, and the worlds we might exist in, and the worlds we cannot exist in, we can experience, many candidate worlds.

    5b. The set of demands we evolved and express daily is largely invariant. The set of paradigms we use to imagine opportunities for fulfilling those demands evolves (and devolves) constantly. So while we largely increase the coherence of paradigms, and approach a single paradigm for describing the universe, we have experienced the world differently in the past than in the present, and will so again experience it differently in the future.

    6. If we can construct an operational grammar and paradigm for a given set of constant relations, we can produce an operational logic of that set of constant relations, and conduct experiments logically by trial and error as we do in mathematics. To do so we require convergence of paradigms to the point of marginal indifference of those logical constructions. But the Analytic program failed, and Godel and Frege et all were wrong – closure does not exist.

    7. Yes the development of thought since Aristotle expanded on Democritus, has been consistent and rational with the exception of the semitic abrahamic dark ages of supernatural ignorance.

    8. Reason is reason is reasoning and there is nothing to it. There are however endless permutations of reason especially as knowledge increases.

    9. The via-negativa of Natural Law can be restated in the via-positiva as Natural rights, and this logic and empirical combination produces a science of cooperation, and law the institutional enforcement of cooperation under that law, and economics the measure of it’s success, and economics the language of analysis and measurement within that science.

    10.The material(noun) and the Operational(verb) are true (exist, and are testifiable). The platonic (ideal) is false. All sets of constant relations are identified, retained, applied, reinforced, and revised by merging physical stimuli with physical organization of information in the brain, producing a hierarchy of changes in state over time we call ‘experience’. So while it is correct to say that the universe is deterministic (composed of constant relations), it is only correct to say that we can observe sets of constant relations, identify them (category), compare them, name them, and predict future states of of them, and in relation to them. These memories and predications like running consist of physical potential, that produce results in time. In other words, al of reality is constructed physically, from a hierarchy of changes in state over time we call experience.

    12. Concepts do not exist. the potential for Concepts exists. Running only exists when one is running. We have the potential to run. We have the potential to identify sets of constant relations (concepts), but experience of contexts only exist when we are acting to recall them in time.

    13. It appears we can know the most parsimonious paradigm, and host of parsimonious sub-paradigms of increasing complexity (permutations) allowing us to speak the truth using evidence – science; that we can know the same for choices using arguments – philosophy; and we can know the same for collective organization using stories – theology.

    14. Existing religions are bad to terrible to suicidal – but human psychological, social, political, and strategic demand for the products of ‘religion’ (order) are endless. So we need to educate one another in mindfulness, ethics(interpersonal), morality (extrapersonal), political, and strategic (competitive), by means gracefully increasing and decreasing in accessibility: parable, story, history, reason and general rules, science and outcomes.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 10:51:00 UTC

  • LOANS AGAINST TRUST by Luke Weinhagen Law and contract can be used to subsidize

    LOANS AGAINST TRUST

    by Luke Weinhagen

    Law and contract can be used to subsidize for the absence of specific trust, such as between strangers or untested business partners.

    Both are “loans” against the stored trust in a polity. Enforced and insured by the commons in the form of “WE as a common polity will impose a cost on any party that breaches law or contract”.

    Law and contract only provide incentives for adherence where you can expect positive reciprocity (trust producing – rule of law) or where you can rely on the enforcement mechanisms to compel adherence (trust consuming – rule by law).

    Trust consumption eventually gets us back to “Might makes Right” and brings us back to the question “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” (we descend the foundational rule stack). If trust is not there in some form, no one follow the law or sticks to contracts.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 18:05:00 UTC

  • CORPORATISM AS A VEHICLE FOR UNDERSTANDING ALL POLITICAL HISTORY I want to disam

    CORPORATISM AS A VEHICLE FOR UNDERSTANDING ALL POLITICAL HISTORY

    I want to disambiguate corporatism into a spectrum so that the criticisms are decidable by definition rather than by free-association. In other words, corporatism vs what?

    1. Corporatism. Bottom up: control of the state by economic common-interest groups vs Top down: the state’s organization of and control of the polity into economic common-interest groups.

    Corporatism arose from indo-european economic tripartism in the cooperative division of labor between military, administrative(educated), and laboring classes. The reason why it evolved in a militial order is obvious.

    The current “neo-corporatist” condition consists of negotiations between state(homogenous) labour (homogenous), and business (heterogeneous) to establish policy.

    This is the origin of social democracy. However, social democracy with forcible redistribution violates the ancestral paternalism, by putting control of common sproduction in the hands of the majority, and thereby taking away business’ necessity of care taking of labor as extension of family, and treating labor as resource rather than family members. (See pre-unification german industry, esp. Krupp).

    Heterogeneity of polity increases incentive to defect from this model, thereby producing the problems of the middle east and steppe, and the low trust of the far east (china) – all of which practice clan(kinship)-corporatism instead of economic interest corporatism.

    So I’ll cast social corporatism as rule of law, paternalism, and kinship, vs kinship by clan interests – vertical and hostile – rather than economic interests (esp class) – horizontal and interdependent. ie: economic produces economic trust, kinship produces clan trust. And the results are rather obvious.

    And so once again I’ll cast communism as monopoly underclass rule, libertarianism as monopoly middle class rule, and neoconservativsm as monopoly upper class rule, and cast tripartism as a division of labor between the classes for collective good.

    Socialism was a french invention largely a continuation of the extermination of the protestants (middle class) and the aristocracy (upper class). With new leadership merely rotating in to those positions and forcing out the economic middle that emerged in the anglo civilization (and which increased insecurity while increasing opportunity.)

    Fascism in Spain, Italy, and Germany was an attempt to Resist both communism (underclass monopoly) and french socialism (constraint of the middle class by the upper class for labor’s benefit), but not russian-jewish socialism (eradication of the middle class, and the upper class).

    And I’ll cast the term corporatism as an obscurant that relies upon suggestion by free association conveying no information other than “something bad”.

    So we have at least the pair of traditional axis: (a) rule for profit by individual or oligarchy(dictatorship, kinship, oligarchy), rule by collective classes(market), rule by monopoly classes (communism, russian-socialism, chinese socialism) and (b) clan corporatism (nationalism) vs economic corporatism (state), vs military corporatism (empire).

    So rule of law will result in market (economic corporatism) and nationalism (clan corporatism) or statism (state corporatism), with the possibility of paternalism (voluntary caretaking between the classes requiring nationalism.

    That is probably a distillation of everything meaningful that can be debated in the question of the organization of polities by criteria of decidability.

    And everything else is some form of bias coercion or deceit.

    I don’t think the above can be falsified. And it prevents our interpretation of history by eliminating contrary proposition (and definitions).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 09:43:00 UTC