Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Q&A: Curt: Why Is Western Civ Eugenic?

    [A]ristocracy, Meritocracy, Rule of Law, Market Economies, Manorialism(controlled access to land), voluntary mate selection, late marriage, nuclear family, migratory skilled labor, Low Tolerance Policing/high trust requirement, aggressive hanging, militial warfare (volunteer infantry), harsh winters, mathusian farming production, plagues, economic shocks, and disasters, have the following effects: 1 – force improved long term, mate selection 2 – lower generational rates of reproduction 3 – limit reproduction to those who are in the genetic ‘middle class’ and upward. 4 – redistribute resources upward to middle class and away from lower class reproduction. 5 – cull lower classes aggressively. Which is important, because every person that’s ‘problematic’ at the bottom is six times as costly as every person that’s ‘beneficial’ at the top. The basic math is like this: to organize a society in the voluntary organization of production you must get 80% of the resources in to 20% of population, and that 20% of the population must be ‘intelligent’ enough to make use of it. That means you must get your median IQ somewhere in the 100-106 range before you can really do much toward developing a high trust market economy. And you want to get as close to 112 to 115 if you want to out-compete the rest of the planet with innovations sufficiently to live what we in the west consider a marginally different quality of life. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • LIBERALISM (PROGRESSIVISM) IDEALISTIC? It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, an

    https://www.quora.com/Is-liberalism-idealistic-as-opposed-to-being-realistic/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=58c7d61fIS LIBERALISM (PROGRESSIVISM) IDEALISTIC?

    It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, and entirely false, which is why it sells.

    You don’t think religions sell because they’re realistic or true? Neither do political ideologies.

    Here is some humbling and painful truth:

    1) Those civilizations that were most successful in preventing from access to food, delaying reproduction, preventing access to reproduction, enslaving, starving, killing, sending to war, or abandoning to the elements, the largest number of their lower classes, consistently produce the highest standards of living.

    Why? It’s pretty simple math: productive people are only so productive. The very best only a bit more productive, and they are small in number. The person at the bottom is six times more damaging than the person at the top is beneficial. SIX TIMES. (Or at least, like Pareto’s rule, that it’s the inverse of, it’s a very good rule of thumb.)

    2) Western Civilization, from the corded ware (Kurgan) people onward, (the european branch of the Aryan Invasions) out of Ukraine and what is now southern Russia, adopted these eugenic practices and redistributed resources upward increasing the rates of the middle class reproduction. Beginnig with the church’s ban on intermarriage, and the adoption of Bipartite Manorialism in Frisia, and the aggressive hanging of 1/2 to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages – almost everyone living in Europe was a descendent of the genetic if not economic and social middle class.

    3) american puritans recruited people of ‘character’ and the original at least puritan colonies were intended to be a eugenic experiment. This only ended with the marxist, socialist, bolshevik, and soviet cooption of the university and media as an overwhelming counter-enlightenment to that provided by Darwin and Spencer. The pseudosciences of Boaz, Marx, Freud, and even Cantor were propagated to restore the underclass to some level of political control now that they had the economic means available that were provided by the industrial revolution, and the somewhat foolish enfranchisement of non-property owners and women. Meritocracy after all, is a eugenic strategy.

    4) Western civilization, beginning with the separation of western empirical, common, judge discovered law (law), from celebrations, festivals, and education (religion), has always been empirical. Our greek reason and british empiricism that we call ‘science’ today evolved from this legal tradition. To attack this empiricism, particularly after Darwin and Maxwell’s revelations, and Nietzche’s attempt to resurrect greek religion just as bacon, lock, smith, and hume had resurrected greek reason – the left invented multiple layers of progressive falsehoods:

    The myth of oppression of the equal underclasses rather than the necessity of domestication of the inferior underclasses.

    The Utopian vision of a world run by the underclasses (marxism). Despite the evidence that the world universally sorts by iq and genetic class except for rotations in and out of the middle class due to mating and economic lottery effects.

    The great lies of social science: Marxian history, Boazian Anthropology, Freudian Psychology.

    WHEN THESE FAILED to produce a revolution the left turned to “Scientific Socialism”.

    The great lies of economic pseudoscience: managed economies, central planning, world socialism.

    The Great Lies of Political science: That democracy was a good, rather than a luxury. That democracy was possible for the resolution of disputes in heterogeneous polities rather than the prioritization of wants in homogenous polities. That majoritarian monopoly was desirable, or produced beneficial ends. That

    The Great Lies of Law: that rule of law was not determined by the natural properties of mankind that we could enumerate to allow each other to cooperate, but that these laws were arbitrary, discretionary commands that could be followed like the rules of a corporation.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to the Culture of Critique (attack on culture).

    The Frankfurt school’s false criticisms of art, of western civilization, of white men, of western history.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to it’s only remaining option:

    1) to immigrate underclasses in order to obtain power through invasion and displacement.

    2) to switch from criticism to political correctness and the enfranchisement not o productive labor and families but of every fringe group possible

    3) to switch from rational argument to simply repeating messages and lies. (alinsky etc).

    THE RESULT is what we live with today:

    1) the destruction of the family that was the condition of enfranchisement into the american eugenic order.

    2) the destruction of the rule of law so that the constitution is no longer a document of the science of cooperation but a justification for war against western civilization.

    3) the destruction of the Whig History of the continuous evolution of western civilization.

    4) the devolution of the parties into married whites, and unmarried white women and the underclasses.

    5) The big sort, where people are nationally relocating to be near people like them.

    6) We are on the brink of civil war (and frankly I’m working to start it)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 12:52:00 UTC

  • Executive Roles and Character (biz)

    [W]e are all suited for different roles. I prefer partnerships rather than hierarchies. And this is how I usually operate. SALES (PRESIDENT/CEO) – I like Sales and Revenue jobs – but it’s hard to control relationships upon which sales depend. One needs to be more intuitive and ‘likeable’, gather and distribute information, rather than creative. (I have to be likeable and share information) PROFIT AND LOSS (CTO/OPERATIONS) – I love P&L jobs – I have control over them. One needs to be better at problem solving, and persuasive. Creativity is necessary and rewarding. (I have to be right and creative) BALANCE SHEETS (MBA/FINANCE) – I hate Balance Sheet jobs. – I never feel like I can control them. One needs to keep a lot of details in memory, and resort them, and report on them. And most creativity is … limited. (I have to be diligent, and not wrong.) This is how I tell people why I prefer NOT to hold the CEO role, but the problem is finding someone not stupid enough to be the CEO. Normally I don’t like to take the CEO title, but prefer to have a ‘President’ and myself the “Chief Strategy Officer”. In a perfect world you have a three person partnership for customers (president and CEO), inside the company (CTO/Strategy), and suppliers (CFO/MBA). I don’t believe in using CPAs for CFO, and instead use MBA’s for CFO, and CPA’s for VP accounting. In my experience CPA’s cannot accurately report BOTH financial and operational accounting on the same P&L and Balance Sheet, nor do they produce rolling reports that let you see trends. Why? Because this requires a bit of extra work developing posting ‘macros’ (Processes) so that data isn’t pooled (munged), and so that it’s clear whether one is making money from operations, from capital trades, or from financialising the business. Curt Doolittle

  • THE RULE OF DEGENERACY and ESCAPISM —“Early Hinduism and Buddhism had much of

    THE RULE OF DEGENERACY and ESCAPISM

    —“Early Hinduism and Buddhism had much of the Aryan spirit down. It created aspiration, duty, and sacred hierarchical incentives, though of course, it wasn’t perfect and we can in more detail discuss various things, but it had the heroism and transcendence. …. Many modern bourgeois Westerners mistake something like Buddhism as humanistic, when it was in fact a warrior religion, created when Hinduism was becoming more sacerdotal and less of that warrior religion. …. Zen Buddhism did the same thing when the broader Buddhism was starting to become too doctrinal and not in-the-world. This Aryan spirit for being in-the-world (and thus inherently some kind of warrior) is what’s the real key here, and how I think I can synergize it with science and your scientific system (and that’s of course not an accident, as science is derivative of Aryan morality).— Josh Jeppson

    It would be good for mankind to trace that aryan spirit through the various evolutions and devolutions. It would provide us with additional justification for legal truth, and literary heroism.

    Why? Because I think it is an instance of the *Rule of Escapism*:

    3 – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive”

    2 – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”

    1 – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.”

    0 – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.”

    -1 – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.”

    -2 – “Any system of thought that is not explicily eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.”

    (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 05:47:00 UTC

  • EXECUTIVE ROLES AND CHARACTER SALES (PRESIDENT/CEO) – I like Sales and Revenue j

    EXECUTIVE ROLES AND CHARACTER

    SALES (PRESIDENT/CEO)

    – I like Sales and Revenue jobs – but it’s hard to control relationships upon which sales depend. One needs to be more intuitive and ‘likeable’, gather and distribute information, rather than creative. (I have to be likeable and share information)

    PROFIT AND LOSS (CTO/OPERATIONS)

    – I love P&L jobs – I have control over them. One needs to be better at problem solving, and persuasive. Creativity is necessary and rewarding. (I have to be right and creative)

    BALANCE SHEETS (MBA/FINANCE)

    – I hate Balance Sheet jobs. – I never feel like I can control them. One needs to keep a lot of details in memory, and resort them, and report on them. And most creativity is … limited. (I have to be diligent, and not wrong.)

    This is how I tell people why I prefer NOT to hold the CEO role, but the problem is finding someone not stupid enough to be the CEO. Normally I don’t like to take the CEO title, but prefer to have a ‘President’ and myself the “Chief Strategy Officer”. In a perfect world you have a three person partnership for customers (president and CEO), inside the company (CTO/Strategy), and suppliers (CFO/MBA). I don’t believe in using CPAs for CFO, and instead use MBA’s for CFO, and CPA’s for VP accounting. In my experience CPA’s cannot accurately report BOTH financial and operational accounting on the same P&L and Balance Sheet, nor do they produce rolling reports that let you see trends. Why? Because this requires a bit of extra work developing posting ‘macros’ (Processes) so that data isn’t pooled (munged), and so that it’s clear whether one is making money from operations, from capital trades, or from financialising the business.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 05:17:00 UTC

  • Is Liberalism Idealistic As Opposed To Being Realistic?

    It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, and entirely false, which is why it sells.

    You don’t think religions sell because they’re realistic or true? Neither do political ideologies.

    Here is some humbling and painful truth:

    1) Those civilizations that were most successful in preventing from access to food, delaying reproduction, preventing access to reproduction, enslaving, starving, killing, sending to war, or abandoning to the elements, the largest number of their lower classes, consistently produce the highest standards of living.

    Why? It’s pretty simple math: productive people are only so productive. The very best only a bit more productive, and they are small in number. The person at the bottom is six times more damaging than the person at the top is beneficial. SIX TIMES. (Or at least, like Pareto’s rule, that it’s the inverse of, it’s a very good rule of thumb.)

    2) Western Civilization, from the corded ware (Kurgan) people onward, (the european branch of the Aryan Invasions) out of Ukraine and what is now southern Russia, adopted these eugenic practices and redistributed resources upward increasing the rates of the middle class reproduction. Beginnig with the church’s ban on intermarriage, and the adoption of Bipartite Manorialism in Frisia, and the aggressive hanging of 1/2 to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages – almost everyone living in Europe was a descendent of the genetic if not economic and social middle class.

    3) american puritans recruited people of ‘character’ and the original at least puritan colonies were intended to be a eugenic experiment. This only ended with the marxist, socialist, bolshevik, and soviet cooption of the university and media as an overwhelming counter-enlightenment to that provided by Darwin and Spencer. The pseudosciences of Boaz, Marx, Freud, and even Cantor were propagated to restore the underclass to some level of political control now that they had the economic means available that were provided by the industrial revolution, and the somewhat foolish enfranchisement of non-property owners and women. Meritocracy after all, is a eugenic strategy.

    4) Western civilization, beginning with the separation of western empirical, common, judge discovered law (law), from celebrations, festivals, and education (religion), has always been empirical. Our greek reason and british empiricism that we call ‘science’ today evolved from this legal tradition. To attack this empiricism, particularly after Darwin and Maxwell’s revelations, and Nietzche’s attempt to resurrect greek religion just as bacon, lock, smith, and hume had resurrected greek reason – the left invented multiple layers of progressive falsehoods:

    The myth of oppression of the equal underclasses rather than the necessity of domestication of the inferior underclasses.

    The Utopian vision of a world run by the underclasses (marxism). Despite the evidence that the world universally sorts by iq and genetic class except for rotations in and out of the middle class due to mating and economic lottery effects.

    The great lies of social science: Marxian history, Boazian Anthropology, Freudian Psychology.

    WHEN THESE FAILED to produce a revolution the left turned to “Scientific Socialism”.

    The great lies of economic pseudoscience: managed economies, central planning, world socialism.

    The Great Lies of Political science: That democracy was a good, rather than a luxury. That democracy was possible for the resolution of disputes in heterogeneous polities rather than the prioritization of wants in homogenous polities. That majoritarian monopoly was desirable, or produced beneficial ends. That

    The Great Lies of Law: that rule of law was not determined by the natural properties of mankind that we could enumerate to allow each other to cooperate, but that these laws were arbitrary, discretionary commands that could be followed like the rules of a corporation.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to the Culture of Critique (attack on culture).

    The Frankfurt school’s false criticisms of art, of western civilization, of white men, of western history.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to it’s only remaining option:

    1) to immigrate underclasses in order to obtain power through invasion and displacement.

    2) to switch from criticism to political correctness and the enfranchisement not o productive labor and families but of every fringe group possible

    3) to switch from rational argument to simply repeating messages and lies. (alinsky etc).

    THE RESULT is what we live with today:

    1) the destruction of the family that was the condition of enfranchisement into the american eugenic order.

    2) the destruction of the rule of law so that the constitution is no longer a document of the science of cooperation but a justification for war against western civilization.

    3) the destruction of the Whig History of the continuous evolution of western civilization.

    4) the devolution of the parties into married whites, and unmarried white women and the underclasses.

    5) The big sort, where people are nationally relocating to be near people like them.

    6) We are on the brink of civil war (and frankly I’m working to start it)

    https://www.quora.com/Is-liberalism-idealistic-as-opposed-to-being-realistic

  • Are There Serious Contemporary Fascist Philosophers?

    Fascism is a ‘military’ strategy for Marshaling all economic, political, and cultural resources for the purpose of opposing Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism, and totalitarianism by the conduct of military, economic and cultural warfare.

    Just as Napoleonic Total War is a strategy for marshaling all national resources for the conduct of military warfare prior to the industrial revolution, when economic warfare was relatively ineffective.

    Just as today we use economic warfare almost exclusively to contain Russian expansion into southern Europe, eastern Europe and the Baltic, and as we did use to constrain Iran into constraining its expansion into Iraq, Syria and Israel.

    Ergo:

    1. MILITARY: Nationalization of resources for military war: Napoleon Total War (State Credit under Nation States), Physical warfare was appropriate for the era.
    2. ECONOMIC: Nationalization of resource for military, economic and cultural war: Fascism, or Economic Warfare, by the construction of an autarkic (self dependent) economy. The combination of physical, economic and cultural warfare was appropriate for the era.
    3. FINANCIAL: Nationalization of federal trade policy to cause economic collapse: I don’t have a word for it but operationally it would be called “Financial Warfare”., by depriving competitors of access to the world markets and financial system. (which destroys economic velocity, political authority, and social stability). Financial warfare is appropriate for the era.
    4. CULTURAL : the Frankfurt school of Marxism was perhaps the most effective form of warfare developed in the twentieth century. The objective is to destroy a civilization from within by sewing discord and internal conflict. It has taken many decades but combined with vast underclass immigration it has been almost successful in destroying the American Rule of Law experiment.

    PHILOSOPHERS?
    In this sense, it is no longer necessary for us to develop philosophers for the purpose of Military Total War (state credit), Economic Total War (Fiat Money), or Financial Total War (International Financial System)

    It is however necessary (and I am one of them) to develop philosophers to counter the combination of false history, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda, using academy, state, media complex, to conduct cultural warfare.

    So no. There are no Fascist philosophers per se, for the same reason there are no philosophers of napoleonic warfare.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-serious-contemporary-Fascist-philosophers

  • Does Evolutionary Theory Presuppose A Preceding Grand Design Or Natural Law?

    Natural Law (Empirically Discovered Law) consists of general rules, that are location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion independent methods of providing decidability in matters of conflict.

    • (Law is prohibitive -negative- assertions)
    • Negative ethics of Natural Law are usually reducible to the Silver Rule: do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    Natural Rights (Desirable Contract Provisions) consist of those general rules, stated not as negative prohibitions, but as positive aspirations, such that all governments must bring into being – regardles of location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion, as a list of those conditions under which the government will exercise violence in order to resolve conflicts, so that prosperous cooperation can continue – given that the government is the insurer of last resort.

    • (Rights are positive -desirable- assertions).
    • Positive Ethics of Natural Rights are usually reducible to the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you.

    By combining Natural Law, and Natural Rights, we produce RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS of the natural CONTRACT for COOPERATION that is necessary for humans (or any sentient being), to avoid parasitism, predation, conflict, and war.

    SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
    Natural(Obligations) Law and Natural Rights are consequently reducible to a very simple set of laws:

    1- That in the choice between avoidance (boycott), cooperation (trade), and conflcit (war), it is only rational to avoid war in the absence of parasitism and predation.

    2 – That our moral instincts, which punish cheating even if very costly, are reducible to the prohibition on parasitism in order to preserve the incentive for cooperation, because of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate loss of non-cooperation, and that catastrophic loss of conflict.

    3 – That the differences in our moral instincts are reducible to our reproductive differences:

    • Progressive: Mother/Sister: consumption bias: short term. Feed the OFFSPRING regardless of the quality of the child or the cost to the tribe’s defense
    • Libertarian: Brother: trade bias: medium term. Form alliances to build capital until we BROTHERS have resources of our own.
    • Conservative: Father: save/defense/offense bias: long term. Preserve the ability of the TRIBE to fight competitors

    PHYSICAL LAWS
    These laws are then reducible to very simple physical law: that genetic organisms, particularly animals that can move, discover patterns by which they can capture free energy, use it, and export the unusable as waste heat.

    Or put another way: no organism can survive if it is the subject of sufficient parasitism that such parasitism will reduce its reproductive consequences.

    Ergo: there is no altruism in nature, because its suicidal. At best we find kin selection that is not.

    SO IN CLOSING
    Natural law is a consequence of the conservation of energy in physical law and nothing else.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-evolutionary-theory-presuppose-a-preceding-grand-design-or-natural-law

  • Is Liberalism Idealistic As Opposed To Being Realistic?

    It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, and entirely false, which is why it sells.

    You don’t think religions sell because they’re realistic or true? Neither do political ideologies.

    Here is some humbling and painful truth:

    1) Those civilizations that were most successful in preventing from access to food, delaying reproduction, preventing access to reproduction, enslaving, starving, killing, sending to war, or abandoning to the elements, the largest number of their lower classes, consistently produce the highest standards of living.

    Why? It’s pretty simple math: productive people are only so productive. The very best only a bit more productive, and they are small in number. The person at the bottom is six times more damaging than the person at the top is beneficial. SIX TIMES. (Or at least, like Pareto’s rule, that it’s the inverse of, it’s a very good rule of thumb.)

    2) Western Civilization, from the corded ware (Kurgan) people onward, (the european branch of the Aryan Invasions) out of Ukraine and what is now southern Russia, adopted these eugenic practices and redistributed resources upward increasing the rates of the middle class reproduction. Beginnig with the church’s ban on intermarriage, and the adoption of Bipartite Manorialism in Frisia, and the aggressive hanging of 1/2 to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages – almost everyone living in Europe was a descendent of the genetic if not economic and social middle class.

    3) american puritans recruited people of ‘character’ and the original at least puritan colonies were intended to be a eugenic experiment. This only ended with the marxist, socialist, bolshevik, and soviet cooption of the university and media as an overwhelming counter-enlightenment to that provided by Darwin and Spencer. The pseudosciences of Boaz, Marx, Freud, and even Cantor were propagated to restore the underclass to some level of political control now that they had the economic means available that were provided by the industrial revolution, and the somewhat foolish enfranchisement of non-property owners and women. Meritocracy after all, is a eugenic strategy.

    4) Western civilization, beginning with the separation of western empirical, common, judge discovered law (law), from celebrations, festivals, and education (religion), has always been empirical. Our greek reason and british empiricism that we call ‘science’ today evolved from this legal tradition. To attack this empiricism, particularly after Darwin and Maxwell’s revelations, and Nietzche’s attempt to resurrect greek religion just as bacon, lock, smith, and hume had resurrected greek reason – the left invented multiple layers of progressive falsehoods:

    The myth of oppression of the equal underclasses rather than the necessity of domestication of the inferior underclasses.

    The Utopian vision of a world run by the underclasses (marxism). Despite the evidence that the world universally sorts by iq and genetic class except for rotations in and out of the middle class due to mating and economic lottery effects.

    The great lies of social science: Marxian history, Boazian Anthropology, Freudian Psychology.

    WHEN THESE FAILED to produce a revolution the left turned to “Scientific Socialism”.

    The great lies of economic pseudoscience: managed economies, central planning, world socialism.

    The Great Lies of Political science: That democracy was a good, rather than a luxury. That democracy was possible for the resolution of disputes in heterogeneous polities rather than the prioritization of wants in homogenous polities. That majoritarian monopoly was desirable, or produced beneficial ends. That

    The Great Lies of Law: that rule of law was not determined by the natural properties of mankind that we could enumerate to allow each other to cooperate, but that these laws were arbitrary, discretionary commands that could be followed like the rules of a corporation.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to the Culture of Critique (attack on culture).

    The Frankfurt school’s false criticisms of art, of western civilization, of white men, of western history.

    WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to it’s only remaining option:

    1) to immigrate underclasses in order to obtain power through invasion and displacement.

    2) to switch from criticism to political correctness and the enfranchisement not o productive labor and families but of every fringe group possible

    3) to switch from rational argument to simply repeating messages and lies. (alinsky etc).

    THE RESULT is what we live with today:

    1) the destruction of the family that was the condition of enfranchisement into the american eugenic order.

    2) the destruction of the rule of law so that the constitution is no longer a document of the science of cooperation but a justification for war against western civilization.

    3) the destruction of the Whig History of the continuous evolution of western civilization.

    4) the devolution of the parties into married whites, and unmarried white women and the underclasses.

    5) The big sort, where people are nationally relocating to be near people like them.

    6) We are on the brink of civil war (and frankly I’m working to start it)

    https://www.quora.com/Is-liberalism-idealistic-as-opposed-to-being-realistic

  • Conservatism must speak in historical, moral, allegorical, and religious languag

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-neo-progressivism-so-reliant-upon-the-re-appropriation-of-Marxist-doctrine-and-Critical-Theory/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=aafd25ea1) Conservatism must speak in historical, moral, allegorical, and religious language because if stated ratio-scientifically it’s reducible to ‘eugenics in everything’, just as all of western civilization has been since the Kurgan invasions. So conservatives do not lie they just do not speak the truth.

    2) Neo-Liberalism is just an attempt to turn america into the levant or south america so that an upper managerial caste can form and profit from administration of a vast underclass, just as the cosmopolitans did in eastern Europe before migrating to the states. They cannot say this. And there is no way to speak truthfully. Since they failed at pseudo-rational marxist religion, pseudoscientific economics and social science, and just gave up advocacy and started attacking western civilization at every level (cultural marxism / postmodernism / the frankfurt school).

    Democracy creates incentives to lie. Rule of law (constitutionalism) creates incentives to tell the truth. But conservatives don’t tell the truth, and neo-liberals just lie.

    Humans are vastly unequal and our evolution has been 5x that of the difference between humans and chimpanzees over the past 30k years alone. These differences are largely visible as differences in rates of maturity, depth of maturity, and sexual dimorphism, and the relative sizes of the lower and upper classes.

    This means that conservatism is true but a large domestic empire is impossible. It means that progressivism is false, and that a large domestic empire will produced colored casts very much like india with little or no rotation.

    Everyone lies.

    The only solution is to break up the empire and continue the BIG SORT.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 16:15:00 UTC