Form: Quote Commentary

THIS GUY IS AWESOME

I wish I was as good at communicating my ideas as he is.

Check this out. It’s his bullet points from my latest interview with Henrik at Red Ice Radio:

===

High Points:

The Old Right failed because its premise—that outsiders, with enough political enfranchisement, have a sufficiently high propensity to adopt the Western way of life (North Sea ethic)—was false.

‘Equality between men’ was just a politically expedient narrative to overpower the Western monarchies.

Rothbard, fatally according to Curt, believed ethics could be based on property and loan, rather than non-conflict.

Keynesian pseudo-science is based on the belief or practice of escaping full accounting (non-operational aggregation) and creating enough wealth to not care.

People in the IQ 80s are too costly to organize via classical liberalism; they can only be gradually weeded out through strict enforcement against crime and voluntary sterilized-based, income-guaranteed contracts.

We’re entering the Caesar phase, where usually classically liberal-abiding people can no longer tolerate not interfering in the market with a Caesar-like figure (in America, Trump), because that narrow commercialist ethic has been used for too long against them.

The Right routinely loses because democratic methods are the current, locked-in mode and through which no ethic of limiting consumption is palatable to the masses [Evola and Spengler obviously talk a great deal about the historiography of this circumstance.].

Egalitarianism and the Blank Slate mentality are largely the product of female evolutionary behavior, where women have little control over the quality of their offspring (because men are more materially dominant for nearly the entirety of the species’ history) and thus have a reason to support indiscriminate welfarism, where men have more control over the genetic quality of their offspring and therefore don’t.

This lack of material power by women leads them to ally with each other toward this welfarist goal, where men ally with each other to control the fertility of women and eliminate other male competitors [this makes Feminism nothing but a slave revolt against male-imposed eugenics].

This isn’t calling one party good or evil, just evolutionary emergence.

Conservatives allow that which doesn’t hurt the tribe over the long-term; Progressives pursue personal dysgenic libertine profit, even while intuiting that it hurts the tribe, because they don’t value that time horizon.

No particular political psychology or gender perspective is ‘right’ or should argue as such if it’s not just trying to similarly achieve a discount (in this case, getting another party to essentially ‘give away’ something, through enough moral and emotional harassment).

Instead, a negotiation between the perspectives where possible could yield a much more productive sustained solution [though, like he said with the IQ 80s, some groups will be nearly impossible, if not impossible, to sustainably work with, because they can’t even begin to be reasoned with].

Governments were an important institution for creating commons, but we monopolized its function, rather than creating a robuster market of cooperating political blocs. This makes Doolittle very close to being an ancap; he just understands economics too well to make the mistake of supporting total privatization.

Curation of commons’ two main methods: (1) strict enforcement against crime, and (2)remuneration toward those who abide by public standards of behavior in the commons, but are lagging behind the threshold of useful labor through one-child guaranteed income contracts.

Right now, a great deal of Western decline is caused by liquidation of commons and subsidizing of fertility of the underclass—magnifying the cycle—and the confusion of how to negotiate our way out.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/26/fight-isis-or-we-stop-buying-oil-trump-would-consider-ending-purchases-from-saudi-arabia/(told ya’ that was comin’)