Apr 26, 2017 2:21pm I would say that our senses cover a wide range of the energy spectrum, and other than temperature or sensitivity we are not lacking in available senses nor information processing power. I would say that it certainly appears that we can sense everything that we can act upon or react to. Which is all evolution can do for us. Our achievements have been in extending our ability to perceive and act at increasing scales, through the use of cooperation and instrumentation I would say that we evolved our reason in concert with our language, and that the limitation of serial utterance of language, and the relatively high cost of speech determines the utility of using stories (think ‘parallelization’) that make use of context (high free association ), and that precision (low context high precision) is the result of our general need to increase sense perception cognition decidability, and retention in concert with our increase in scales of cooperation and instrumentation. ergo: our minds evolved to be limited by our speech. As far as I know the demonstrated difference in intellectual performance over the past few centuries has been the conversion of recipe-thinking to general-rule-thinking. And that this has demonstrated that changes in the method of thought dramatically improve the structure of the brain and therefore mind, and the mind’s ability to process information by association. Ergo, seemingly burdensome training of the mind can dramatically increase processing power through the application of new general rules more correspondent with the scale of concepts we utilize. Storytelling, symbols, measures, writing and literacy, reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now testimonialism, all rewire the brain and the mind to use the tools at their disposal – admittedly at some cost of acquisition. We observe differences (changes). The limit is information given reaction time, and limit in causal relations. We evolved when we could make lots of use of time. We can process absurd informational density. I am not even sure if we know how to measure it. We can REASON with limited ability. So given that some portion of people can master higher precision and greater scale, and some lower precision and lower scale, the question is merely how to construct cooperation among people with different abilities, and we encounter one solution: voluntary exchange, and one problem: dispute resolution. While voluntary cooperation scales indefinitely, dispute resolution is limited to a maximum difference between individuals ability to judge (ergo, dunning kruger). Now, the universe cannot ‘lie’. Our imaginations and our brains are filled with folly we increasingly succeed in purging through the development of rules, operations, objects, relations, and values, and saturating the common folk in context and therefore eliminating their need for calculative(rational) equivalency. (environment, information, norms, institutions. Ergo some of us can create institutions, norms, information, and environment that the less cognitively able can depend upon as means of obviating their limited ability to calculate, and decreasing the cost of their acquisition of those patterns. But an individual regardless of his abilities CAN perform due diligence to the BEST of his abilities. And in fact, that is what we do. And we provide prior restraint in the form of institutions, procedures, laws, norms and traditions to both limit his ability to cause harm to others out of ignorance, and provide contextual, procedural and educational means of enabling him to act within those limits. We do this and always have done it whether it be baby, child, youth, adult, mature adult, or barbarian, slave, serf, freeman, citizen, sovereign. Of course, we always seek discounts, and particularly discounts that suit our biases and wishful thinking, and facilitate our use of suggestion, obscurantism and deceit within the limits we can get away with. To leap ahead, and seize your concern, The question might be instead, “why does one have the right to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit if cooperation and non conflict increasingly requires we eliminate them? I appreciate your concern for the common man. But in each era, the defenders of the anchors of the prior order of ideas and therefore man, attempt to preserve it – always wrongly. The test is simple: are we adding to the information processing of man or we constraining or reducing it?
Form: Mini Essay
-
No, We Sense All The World That Is Actionable
Apr 26, 2017 2:21pm I would say that our senses cover a wide range of the energy spectrum, and other than temperature or sensitivity we are not lacking in available senses nor information processing power. I would say that it certainly appears that we can sense everything that we can act upon or react to. Which is all evolution can do for us. Our achievements have been in extending our ability to perceive and act at increasing scales, through the use of cooperation and instrumentation I would say that we evolved our reason in concert with our language, and that the limitation of serial utterance of language, and the relatively high cost of speech determines the utility of using stories (think ‘parallelization’) that make use of context (high free association ), and that precision (low context high precision) is the result of our general need to increase sense perception cognition decidability, and retention in concert with our increase in scales of cooperation and instrumentation. ergo: our minds evolved to be limited by our speech. As far as I know the demonstrated difference in intellectual performance over the past few centuries has been the conversion of recipe-thinking to general-rule-thinking. And that this has demonstrated that changes in the method of thought dramatically improve the structure of the brain and therefore mind, and the mind’s ability to process information by association. Ergo, seemingly burdensome training of the mind can dramatically increase processing power through the application of new general rules more correspondent with the scale of concepts we utilize. Storytelling, symbols, measures, writing and literacy, reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now testimonialism, all rewire the brain and the mind to use the tools at their disposal – admittedly at some cost of acquisition. We observe differences (changes). The limit is information given reaction time, and limit in causal relations. We evolved when we could make lots of use of time. We can process absurd informational density. I am not even sure if we know how to measure it. We can REASON with limited ability. So given that some portion of people can master higher precision and greater scale, and some lower precision and lower scale, the question is merely how to construct cooperation among people with different abilities, and we encounter one solution: voluntary exchange, and one problem: dispute resolution. While voluntary cooperation scales indefinitely, dispute resolution is limited to a maximum difference between individuals ability to judge (ergo, dunning kruger). Now, the universe cannot ‘lie’. Our imaginations and our brains are filled with folly we increasingly succeed in purging through the development of rules, operations, objects, relations, and values, and saturating the common folk in context and therefore eliminating their need for calculative(rational) equivalency. (environment, information, norms, institutions. Ergo some of us can create institutions, norms, information, and environment that the less cognitively able can depend upon as means of obviating their limited ability to calculate, and decreasing the cost of their acquisition of those patterns. But an individual regardless of his abilities CAN perform due diligence to the BEST of his abilities. And in fact, that is what we do. And we provide prior restraint in the form of institutions, procedures, laws, norms and traditions to both limit his ability to cause harm to others out of ignorance, and provide contextual, procedural and educational means of enabling him to act within those limits. We do this and always have done it whether it be baby, child, youth, adult, mature adult, or barbarian, slave, serf, freeman, citizen, sovereign. Of course, we always seek discounts, and particularly discounts that suit our biases and wishful thinking, and facilitate our use of suggestion, obscurantism and deceit within the limits we can get away with. To leap ahead, and seize your concern, The question might be instead, “why does one have the right to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit if cooperation and non conflict increasingly requires we eliminate them? I appreciate your concern for the common man. But in each era, the defenders of the anchors of the prior order of ideas and therefore man, attempt to preserve it – always wrongly. The test is simple: are we adding to the information processing of man or we constraining or reducing it?
-
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
Provoking Thoughts: Man’s First Occupation: Predator
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before you. To burn their cities to ashes. To take their possessions. To hear the wails of their women. And, To rape their wives and daughters. That is what is best in life. As a few have noticed. By posting a quote by Genghis Khan, I was making a fairly serious statement. (Not the least of which was de-christianizing the translation of the original quote (which, if I remember correctly was spoken in mongolian, written down phonetically using *chinese* characters, translated into persian, translated into german, and then translated into english. I’m not positive but most of the ‘secret history’ followed that route. ) Now, in the context in which I made that post, I was trying to illustrate a few things at once: 1) That hunting man and animal *is* his preferred profession. And that man is not Rousseauian. It is not surprising that all other variations of the semi-sentient apes were exterminated upon our arrival. Nor why the only competition the great plagues have had is Islam first and communism second. 2) That we have spent a great deal of effort ‘regulating’ man’s preferred profession. And that the many achievements of man were made by suppressing that profession 3) **BUT**, that to CHOOSE the method of suppressing that profession requires we preserve that profession: hunting, killing, destroying, and taking – we can construct many orders from enslavement on one end to markets on the other. 4) And to preserve that profession such that we create the advanced order that we have in the ancient and modern worlds requires the Aryan (markets) and the Christian (the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.) 5) Because there is a vast difference between predation and parasitism of the khan, and the conquest and rule of people by the production of markets through which they transcend the beast, the slave, the serf, the freeman, the civilian, the sovereign – and the god. What we have failed to learn (which I am so glad someone reminded me of yesterday) is that having conquered from spain to china, and from the arctic circle to egypt, and having tried to create markets in each of those region, that we failed among all but our own. Therefore the evidence suggests that there is something special about our kin group, tribe, and race that makes markets possible. But if we must preserve the Aryan and the Christian to rule by natural law, we must also preserve the warrior to obtain and hold the condition of natural law. And we must preserve the warrior hunter’s joy and lust in Aryan and Christian forms, so that those that cannot transcend cannot harm us. If they can harm must they can be weakened. If they cannot be weakened they can be exterminated. Not with hatred, and not for profit, but for defense. Not for defense of us alone. But for the defense of human kind. And the transcendence we are inspired to achieve. So, (a) I want to cause you to attempt to disagree with this statement by stating it provocatively, (remember, this is the purpose of hyperbole that conservatives rely upon. the Asians use contradictions to cause you to think. Aristocracy uses hyperbole to cause you to think. (b) I want to force you to face a necessary truth: that violence is just a resource that we can use to create good by the incremental suppression of all means of parasitism – and that to incrementally suppress means of parasitism among hunters, requires that we maintain exceptional skill in hunting, killing, taking, destroying. (c) we created this world by mastering, professionalizing, and using violence to obtain and hold rule, through which we imposed markets, and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. I experiment a lot. I run tests. All my arguments are tests. Each test constitutes an attempt to construct a proof. When they are complete (closed), parsimonious, and clear my tests are complete, and a proof constructed. But you should not dismiss the difference between an analytic list and an emotive or poetic bit of inspiration. They are attempts to make you (and i) think about those assumptions we hold, beliefs we hold, justifications we feel, and arguments we practice. So that not only are markets created, and not only is hatred extirpated, but that ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, are removed from our thoughts.
-
Provoking Thoughts: Man’s First Occupation: Predator
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before you. To burn their cities to ashes. To take their possessions. To hear the wails of their women. And, To rape their wives and daughters. That is what is best in life. As a few have noticed. By posting a quote by Genghis Khan, I was making a fairly serious statement. (Not the least of which was de-christianizing the translation of the original quote (which, if I remember correctly was spoken in mongolian, written down phonetically using *chinese* characters, translated into persian, translated into german, and then translated into english. I’m not positive but most of the ‘secret history’ followed that route. ) Now, in the context in which I made that post, I was trying to illustrate a few things at once: 1) That hunting man and animal *is* his preferred profession. And that man is not Rousseauian. It is not surprising that all other variations of the semi-sentient apes were exterminated upon our arrival. Nor why the only competition the great plagues have had is Islam first and communism second. 2) That we have spent a great deal of effort ‘regulating’ man’s preferred profession. And that the many achievements of man were made by suppressing that profession 3) **BUT**, that to CHOOSE the method of suppressing that profession requires we preserve that profession: hunting, killing, destroying, and taking – we can construct many orders from enslavement on one end to markets on the other. 4) And to preserve that profession such that we create the advanced order that we have in the ancient and modern worlds requires the Aryan (markets) and the Christian (the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.) 5) Because there is a vast difference between predation and parasitism of the khan, and the conquest and rule of people by the production of markets through which they transcend the beast, the slave, the serf, the freeman, the civilian, the sovereign – and the god. What we have failed to learn (which I am so glad someone reminded me of yesterday) is that having conquered from spain to china, and from the arctic circle to egypt, and having tried to create markets in each of those region, that we failed among all but our own. Therefore the evidence suggests that there is something special about our kin group, tribe, and race that makes markets possible. But if we must preserve the Aryan and the Christian to rule by natural law, we must also preserve the warrior to obtain and hold the condition of natural law. And we must preserve the warrior hunter’s joy and lust in Aryan and Christian forms, so that those that cannot transcend cannot harm us. If they can harm must they can be weakened. If they cannot be weakened they can be exterminated. Not with hatred, and not for profit, but for defense. Not for defense of us alone. But for the defense of human kind. And the transcendence we are inspired to achieve. So, (a) I want to cause you to attempt to disagree with this statement by stating it provocatively, (remember, this is the purpose of hyperbole that conservatives rely upon. the Asians use contradictions to cause you to think. Aristocracy uses hyperbole to cause you to think. (b) I want to force you to face a necessary truth: that violence is just a resource that we can use to create good by the incremental suppression of all means of parasitism – and that to incrementally suppress means of parasitism among hunters, requires that we maintain exceptional skill in hunting, killing, taking, destroying. (c) we created this world by mastering, professionalizing, and using violence to obtain and hold rule, through which we imposed markets, and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. I experiment a lot. I run tests. All my arguments are tests. Each test constitutes an attempt to construct a proof. When they are complete (closed), parsimonious, and clear my tests are complete, and a proof constructed. But you should not dismiss the difference between an analytic list and an emotive or poetic bit of inspiration. They are attempts to make you (and i) think about those assumptions we hold, beliefs we hold, justifications we feel, and arguments we practice. So that not only are markets created, and not only is hatred extirpated, but that ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, are removed from our thoughts.
-
Why Were Westerners Unsuccessful At Exporting Aryanism: Markets in Everything?
WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see
-
Why Were Westerners Unsuccessful At Exporting Aryanism: Markets in Everything?
WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see
-
Abrahamism: The Source of Ignorance and Deceit
NOT JUST ISLAM BUT ABRAHAMISM: THE INFORMATION DISEASE: THE SOURCE OF IGNORANCE AND DECIET Um. No. Islam’s destroyed almost all the works of the greeks and romans that they could find. And the reintroduction of greek and roman literature into europe occurred as the academics who were about to be persecuted by the muslims fled to the west for safety. Islam, the Black Blague from China, are followed by communism, the mongol golden horde, as the greatest dealers of death. That means that between Abraham’s Judaism, Christianity, and Islamism, and Abraman’s new religion: the Cosmopolitianism of the Ashkenazi (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, and) that Abrahamism is the most deadly plague every to face humanity. Even MORE SO than the black plague. A disease of the mind – from ‘polluted minds’, and a disease of the body (‘from polluted lands’), together are more deadly than any combination of wars in history. If we can struggle to end physical diseases, why do we not equally struggle to end informational diseases? We can. Natural Law’s Testimonial Truth.
-
Through Brotherhood We Transcend Ourselves, Our People And MN
THROUGH BROTHERHOOD WE TRANSCEND OURSELVES, OUR PEOPLE, AND MAN It is only through the brotherhood of warriors that we can construct the contract of reciprocity, that insures our sovereignty, and as such, as a consequence of that sovereignty, we can only act and speak without violating that contract by use of the natural, common, law of sovereign men, a judicial ‘priesthood’ that masters and evolves the technology of that law, a market for freedom of association and disassociation; a market for reproduction(family); a market for the production of goods, services, and information; a market for the production of commons; a monarchy as a judge of contracts of last resort, and a market for polities under which each clan, tribe, and nation, can construct commons that assist every family, clan, tribe, and nation, in competing against the dark forces of time, ignorance, the vicissitudes of nature, and the devolutionary demands of the ‘lesser peoples’ of this world. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.