—Where are the US political party manifestos?—THE MOST ACCURATE AND COMPLETE STATEMENT YOU WILL FIND. The left’s manifesto has been public for over a century, and is represented in the ten planks. And the left has been successful and (a) a complete canon of pseudoscience in the social sciences (b) conquest of the primary education and secondary education systems, (c) conquest of the media, and entertainment businesses (d) invasive immigration of the underclasses, (e) financialization of the economy (f) systematic intentional destruction of our constitution of natural law, by selective advocacy of cases that expose the weaknesses in created by the initial draft’s compromise with the southern states, and the violations of natural law added to the constitution after the conquest and defeat of the southern states. The right’s manifesto CANNOT be made public under majoritarian democracy since the right’s program is entirely EUGENIC. There is a reason the right speaks metaphorically and morally – if they spoke scientifically it would be challenging. Now, the right (as usual) is ‘right’. But its unacceptable under democracy to state that the entire reason we lifted Europe out of ignorance and poverty was that northern Europe like greco-roman civilization was terribly meritocratic, and northern Europe additionally heavily eugenic. The puritans who founded the USA were pursuing a eugenic strategy.
Form: Mini Essay
-
US Party Manifestos? Well, That’s An Interesting Question….
—Where are the US political party manifestos?—THE MOST ACCURATE AND COMPLETE STATEMENT YOU WILL FIND. The left’s manifesto has been public for over a century, and is represented in the ten planks. And the left has been successful and (a) a complete canon of pseudoscience in the social sciences (b) conquest of the primary education and secondary education systems, (c) conquest of the media, and entertainment businesses (d) invasive immigration of the underclasses, (e) financialization of the economy (f) systematic intentional destruction of our constitution of natural law, by selective advocacy of cases that expose the weaknesses in created by the initial draft’s compromise with the southern states, and the violations of natural law added to the constitution after the conquest and defeat of the southern states. The right’s manifesto CANNOT be made public under majoritarian democracy since the right’s program is entirely EUGENIC. There is a reason the right speaks metaphorically and morally – if they spoke scientifically it would be challenging. Now, the right (as usual) is ‘right’. But its unacceptable under democracy to state that the entire reason we lifted Europe out of ignorance and poverty was that northern Europe like greco-roman civilization was terribly meritocratic, and northern Europe additionally heavily eugenic. The puritans who founded the USA were pursuing a eugenic strategy.
-
Q&a: Why The USA Fascination With Exporting Democracy?
—“Why does the US government insist on making other countries be democratic?”— THE COMPLETE ANSWER The world wars dramatically changed western civilization to which we said ‘never again’. This has driven American policy since world war one. American treats Europe as a set of petulant client states that are incapable of self-rule. This is not new. Americans have believed this of Europeans since the founding of the country. THE POSTWAR POLICY 1) We cannot allow countries to attempt to use border expansion to increase wealth. 2) We will force all countries to focus on internal development of consumer capitalism, human rights, because this will eliminate any need for inter-state conflict, and it will generate economic ties that will make conflict undesirable and expensive. 3) All people will rationally choose consumer capitalism if given the ability to choose their own government, because everyone wants to consume, and all people wish to be free. 4) Therefore we will support the will of all people to establish a democratic, consumer,capitalist society. AND THE BIG, UNSTATED, “HOWEVER” 5) if people choose poorly and institute a government that violates these ambitions we will punish that government and those people until they make the correct, peaceful choice. SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM 1) is a good idea 2) is a good idea 3) is absolutely false, and incomprehensibly ignorant. consumer capitalism and democracy are very, very, limited goods, after which both are destructive to family, culture, and civilization. 4) is what the states does because it is wrong about 3. 5) is the consequence of doing 4, while still under the illusion of 3. THE USA IS A GOOD INSURER. BUT A BAD DIRECTOR.
-
There Is No Socialism In China
—“Why has socialism, or “Socialism of Chinese Characteristics” been so successful in China?”—- It hasn’t been. It’s state corporatism that has been successful in china. China is run as a for-profit corporation of 1+billion people, using the country’s intergenerational borrowing capacity to attempt to create a modern consumer economy by using that borrowing capacity to move vast numbers of people from villages to urban centers in the hope that it will generate sustainable economic velocity. The outcome is good so far but just as the french revolution’s experiment is not quite over, that of china has a long way to go yet. It is a very poor, very corrupt country that remains very poor very corrupt. And capital is fleeing the country like rats leaving a sinking ship – so that is pretty good evidence that those living there with resources know that it will soon end.
-
There Is No Socialism In China
—“Why has socialism, or “Socialism of Chinese Characteristics” been so successful in China?”—- It hasn’t been. It’s state corporatism that has been successful in china. China is run as a for-profit corporation of 1+billion people, using the country’s intergenerational borrowing capacity to attempt to create a modern consumer economy by using that borrowing capacity to move vast numbers of people from villages to urban centers in the hope that it will generate sustainable economic velocity. The outcome is good so far but just as the french revolution’s experiment is not quite over, that of china has a long way to go yet. It is a very poor, very corrupt country that remains very poor very corrupt. And capital is fleeing the country like rats leaving a sinking ship – so that is pretty good evidence that those living there with resources know that it will soon end.
-
What Do We Meany by Natural Law?
(with updates by Doolittle) A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.What is Law?Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
-
What Do We Meany by Natural Law?
(with updates by Doolittle) A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.What is Law?Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
-
Pro Life and Pro Death
By Eli Harman To be right wing is to be pro-life. That doesn’t mean to be against taking life; sometimes that’s what life demands. But it means to love life and relish it, and live life to its fullest (which quite often will be in a measured and deliberate manner.) The left wing are pro death. They don’t enjoy life. They dread it, they shrink from it. They’re always seeking to evade its responsibilities, to tear down its exemplars and to escape from its demands rather than living in accordance with them. Reckless sensation seeking and novelty seeking, for their own sakes, are their preferred escapes from the sting of persistent failure to live up to life’s demanding requirements for genuine success and satisfaction. They seek recognition for uniqueness rather than for excellence which, being forever beyond their grasp, disgusts and repulses them. They loath those who they would benefit from respecting, honoring and emulating. They defy and rebel against those who they would benefit from following. Their instinct is not to learn, nor improve, but to hamstring those who exceed them. Their creed is to never obtain by honest means what they can try, and fail, to achieve by dishonest ones; by lying, cheating, and stealing. They continue to live only because they are too chickenshit – too cowardly and weak – to end themselves. But they will doom others without limit or remorse, if they think, by those means, they can dodge accountability a little longer.
-
Pro Life and Pro Death
By Eli Harman To be right wing is to be pro-life. That doesn’t mean to be against taking life; sometimes that’s what life demands. But it means to love life and relish it, and live life to its fullest (which quite often will be in a measured and deliberate manner.) The left wing are pro death. They don’t enjoy life. They dread it, they shrink from it. They’re always seeking to evade its responsibilities, to tear down its exemplars and to escape from its demands rather than living in accordance with them. Reckless sensation seeking and novelty seeking, for their own sakes, are their preferred escapes from the sting of persistent failure to live up to life’s demanding requirements for genuine success and satisfaction. They seek recognition for uniqueness rather than for excellence which, being forever beyond their grasp, disgusts and repulses them. They loath those who they would benefit from respecting, honoring and emulating. They defy and rebel against those who they would benefit from following. Their instinct is not to learn, nor improve, but to hamstring those who exceed them. Their creed is to never obtain by honest means what they can try, and fail, to achieve by dishonest ones; by lying, cheating, and stealing. They continue to live only because they are too chickenshit – too cowardly and weak – to end themselves. But they will doom others without limit or remorse, if they think, by those means, they can dodge accountability a little longer.
-
The New Right: Returning to Aristocratic Egalitarianism
(text version) (important) (positive positioning) [It’s what we do. Own it.] Let me stay on message: As a philosopher, I manufacture intellectual weaponry in the war against lies. And I strive to speak truthfully about the causes of the decline of western civilization, and how to repair them permanently. An effort that requires I surface and expose many of the competing enlightenment fallacies, liars, ad lies, that we, from each cultural tradition, hold dear. And this falsification, I admit, I perform prosecutorially, because I believe this is a war not just for western civilization, but for the vast benefits that western civilization has delivered to mankind – often over most of mankind’s passionate objections. But make no mistake that I remain an Aristocratic Egalitarian, a Classical Liberal, and therefore a Libertarian, an ‘Operationalist’ or ‘strict constructionist’ and a universal Nationalist. Where Aristocratic Egalitarian means the natural aristocracy struggles to prevent rule by anyone other than the natural, common, judge-discovered law. Classical Liberal Dissenter means the use of houses of government to construct a market for exchanges in pursuit of mutually beneficial competitive commons, and that we need not agree for groups to construct a commons, only fail to find lawful reason to prevent it. Libertarian means rule of law, using natural, judge-discovered, common law, and voluntary association, disassociation, voluntary cooperation, non-cooperation, via voluntary exchange. Operationalist means that all contract, regulation, legislation, and judge discovered law, must be written in strictly constructed, operational language, operationally articulated from first principles of non-imposition of costs. Universal Nationalist means that I acknowledge that the traditions, institutions, laws, norms, family structures, and policies, required by different tribal groups differ to the extent that we are all better off, happier, and in less conflict, if our governments create commons for the needs of our tribes, rather than to attempt to justify a common good that can only, in the end, seek to make everyone equally unsatisfied. At some point in the past, scale was of such military importance, and the investment necessary to raise people out of illiteracy and poverty, that the benefits of large states were greater than the disadvantages of them. But in the current era, where men with small arms, and a small number of nuclear weapons makes conquest of neighboring states all but impossible, and the cost of corruption in large governments, and the dissatisfaction of increasingly different peoples, whose desires have been let loose by adoption of consumer capitalism, and who struggle to achieve them are constrained by large social and political orders, designed to assist in the transition to modernity, not produce local excellences for local differences. Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute