– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. – BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means. – STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory. – RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. – DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost. – HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now). CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Form: Outline
-
Ancient Group Strategies Writ Large
– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. – BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means. – STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory. – RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. – DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost. – HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now). CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
“Why is neo-progressivism so reliant upon the re-appropriation of Marxist doctri
—“Why is neo-progressivism so reliant upon the re-appropriation of Marxist doctrine and Critical Theory?”— 1) 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.
-
Executive Roles and Character
Aug 17, 2016 12:17pmSALES (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
-
Executive Roles and Character
Aug 17, 2016 12:17pmSALES (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 of Human Problems: Information, Incentives, and Genetics
By Rob De Geer Almost all human problems and solutions stem from three sources: Information, incentives, and genetics. The three function across the time spectrum: 1 – Information being a short-term (thus all the noise on education). 2 – Incentives in the midterm (creating reasons to apply information and do good practice). 3 – Genetics, the removal or increase of undesirable/desireable traits.
-
Source of Human Problems: Information, Incentives, and Genetics
By Rob De Geer Almost all human problems and solutions stem from three sources: Information, incentives, and genetics. The three function across the time spectrum: 1 – Information being a short-term (thus all the noise on education). 2 – Incentives in the midterm (creating reasons to apply information and do good practice). 3 – Genetics, the removal or increase of undesirable/desireable traits.
-
Class Structure as Necessary Hierarchy in Limits. Militia (every able bodied man
Class Structure as Necessary Hierarchy in Limits.
Militia (every able bodied man sworn to defend sovereignty of all.
Aristocracy (martial/judicial – limits ) (organization of cooperation)
Priestly (public intellectual – advocacy) (organization of ambitions)
Burgher (organization of production distribution and trade)
Family (organization of production of generations)
Labor (production of goods and services) (organization of physical reality)
Dependent (Young, Infirmed, and Old)
Underclass (those who cannot contribute but just cost)
Criminal-class (career predators and parasites)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 02:33:00 UTC
-
Objectives and Time Preferences of Different Schools of Economic Thought
I — OBJECTIVE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS — The different economic schools pursue different ends: a) Austrian: Social Science : reduction of frictions. Emphasis on institutions of cooperation. (“Paleo-Libertarianism / Natural Law”) b) Freshwater: Rule of Law: Non-interference with planning, but insurance against informational asymmetries, at the expense of consumption. Emphasis on ‘balance’. (“Classical Liberalism / Constitutionalism”) c) Saltwater: Discretionary Rule – favoring consumption at the expense of savings, capital, and planning. Emphasis on equality and spending. (“social democracy / leftism”) II — TIME PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS —- We can judge the time preference by the levers that each school advocates or shuns, from shortest to longest. – Direct Redistribution ( not practiced ) “New” but Saltwater will jump on it. – Fiscal Policy – Saltwater – Social Policy – Saltwater – Monetary Policy – Freshwater – Tax and Trade policy – Freshwater – Infrastructure Policy – Freshwater – Education Policy (human capital) Immigration Policy (Austrian) – Institutional Policy (Austrian)
-
Objectives and Time Preferences of Different Schools of Economic Thought
I — OBJECTIVE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS — The different economic schools pursue different ends: a) Austrian: Social Science : reduction of frictions. Emphasis on institutions of cooperation. (“Paleo-Libertarianism / Natural Law”) b) Freshwater: Rule of Law: Non-interference with planning, but insurance against informational asymmetries, at the expense of consumption. Emphasis on ‘balance’. (“Classical Liberalism / Constitutionalism”) c) Saltwater: Discretionary Rule – favoring consumption at the expense of savings, capital, and planning. Emphasis on equality and spending. (“social democracy / leftism”) II — TIME PREFERENCE OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS —- We can judge the time preference by the levers that each school advocates or shuns, from shortest to longest. – Direct Redistribution ( not practiced ) “New” but Saltwater will jump on it. – Fiscal Policy – Saltwater – Social Policy – Saltwater – Monetary Policy – Freshwater – Tax and Trade policy – Freshwater – Infrastructure Policy – Freshwater – Education Policy (human capital) Immigration Policy (Austrian) – Institutional Policy (Austrian)