Form: Reply

WHY THE WEST COULDN’T ARTICULATE ITS STRATEGY AND THE JEWS COULD

—” Curt, can you explain this part more fully, possibly in a new post?

<quote>”just as all three jewish class philosophies (marxism/libertarianism/neo-conservatism), lacked a full accounting. And while western made did not lack this full accounting, he developed it by competition in war, rule, polities, markets, and marriage, by tradition and habit and trial and error, not by articulated reason and deliberative law as did the jews. So while western man could defeat with physical science the supernatural fictionalism of the jews, he could not resist marxism, libertarianism, and neo-conservatism of the jews. And Rand supplied that articulation.”<end quote>”—Brett Sterling

The short answer (well, not so short) is that pastoral and diasporic peoples can privatize the commons or parasite upon the territorial commons, while land holding people must pay the high costs of holding the territorial commons. And so you see this difference in the ethics of the agrarian-militia, agrarian-imperial, and pastoral-raider, and diasporic merchant peoples.

So the commons (capital inventories) produced by each of these people differs greatly. So inventory all that is necessary to hold a nation, and inventory what is necessary to hold a tribe or family under an agrarian or agrarian-pastoral empire, or to hold a tribe as a separatist free-rider on another group’s territorial commons.

What you find is that self, family, tribe, nation capital distributions between private, familial, tribal, common, national, and portable, fixed capital, territorial capital, institutional capital, and normative capital investments vary between them – predictably.

In other words, just as conservatives(fathers) invest equally in all six moral foundations, libertarians(brothers) in fewer, and progressives(mothers and sisters) in fewest, that land holders(aristocracy), landed merchants(classical liberals), diasporic merchants(jews), parasites(gypsies), and raiders (pirates, islamic slavers etc) collect the capital that they can make use of – and obtain the rewards of capital they either do posses, or the discounts from the elimination of capital that they don’t need to possess.

In other words, people develop capital strategies, people hold moral, legal, cultural, codes, that reflect those strategies and people develop methods of argument (science or pseudoscience, reason or ‘pseudo-reason’, ‘religion or law’, history or myth, advice or command, low trust or high trust) – that reflect the needs of their group’s evolutionary strategy (competitive strategy, survival strategy). And as far as I know the cause of a group’s strategy was temporal and environmental (where they were when they encountered more or less advanced competition), but that over time their demographic distribution(low or high pedomorphism and iq) and genetic distribution (personality traits), evolved to reflect that strategy, and they cannot easily escape it without integration into a much larger host (genetically, strategically, culturally).

So the problem was that ‘those who rule do’, and ‘those who wish otherwise write about it’. The aristocratic cultural tradition, the common law, the art of battle, the art of running a business, these were all handed down from generation to generation. They only needed replication once we started moving people into the middle class. It was only those lacking power that wrote anything.

Western man debated real things in reality with real consequences. And he had no authority to appeal to (until christianity, which he subverted for his needs – at least in europe.)

This was not true in the jewish tradition because they used the ability to debate jewish religion and law to force failures out of the group and indoctrinate group members. So this tradition was heavily articulated. And it was also abstract.

So we hit the enlightenment and the agrarian and industrial revolutions and western man struggled to produce in each of his cultures a means of perpetuating his traditions in rational form.

So we see:

1 – (anglo) Empirical: locke/smith/hume/american-legalists,

2 – (german) Rational: kant/schopenhauer/hegel,

3 – (jewish) Pseudo-science: Mendelsohn/marx/freud/boaz/frankfurt-school,

4 – (french) Literary: montesquieu/voltaire/rousseau/postmodernists

Each trying to preserve their method of argument and their group evolutionary strategies, and their capital structures.

THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM;

The western group evolutionary strategy was to industrialize the domestication of man, for profit through dragging men through barbarism > slavery > serfdom > freeman > citizen and to profit from the proceeds of doing so.

The abrahamic evolutionary strategy was to organize barbarians, slaves, serfs and some of the freemen to resist domestication and achieve in resistance and reproduction by declaration of solidarity to a cult, what could not be achieved by civilization.

In other words: the west cant, or at least couldn’t until Darwin, Spencer and Nietzsche, that the success of the western tradition was largely in its eugenics: the domestication of the animal man for profit.