Source: Facebook

POSTWAR POLICY IN ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT

(must read)

—“What would you say to a military analyst that said, you know the US has followed this model of non-intervention for the past 2 decades and look what we have, we need to get serious about military action.”– Peter Boettke

Peter then goes to compare the post-cold-war era (the communist era, now the islamic war era) military policy to our current limited use of laissez faire economics: more of a leaning from the center than a commitment regardless of current costs.

1) THE MEANING OF POLICY.

Policy: “All other things being equal we prefer X over Y. But we are not utopian, ideological, stupid or reckless, but empirical, and so all other things are not as often equal as we might like or imagine.”

So the application of set logic rather than rational choice to the meaning of ‘policy’ is a Black or White fallacy akin to moral fallacy akin to criminal fallacy: non intervention, good character, moral action, and non-criminal action does not mean all of us fail to intervene, to possess episodes of poor character, to act immorally, and to break petty crimes, or in extremes all of the above.

From the military POV their policy and our policy has in fact, been non-intervention except when we cannot avoid it for some political or economic or strategic reason. This differs from the cold war policy of continuous intervention in order to stop the spread of world communism.

2) THE APPLICATION OF THAT POLICY TO INCREASING RATHER THAN DECREASING RESISTANCE

A policy of intervention over the past 20 years by which we treated islamism with the same interventionism that we did world communism (whose tactics the islamists adopted) might or might not have produced superior results to a policy of non-intervention.

From the military POV we took our cold war peace dividend and squandered it, since communism in secondary civilizations merely migrated into islamism in tertiary civilizations – as we should have rationally expected it to.

Modernity is … challenging to male status because modernity decreases the number of options for climbing the male dominance hierarchy to the left of the curve. The importance of male status increases with a decline in economic, emotional, and intellectual ability. So we should see and do see increasing hostility to modernity in both ruling and lower classes, and the affinity for modernity limited to the genetic middle classes.

This is the correct model for interpreting resistance to modernity. Islamic modernization should, by this analysis, make communist modernization a trivial cost by comparison.

If you want to create a war, then remove food, shelter, labor, or ability to climb a dominance hierarchy from the classes who are most dependent upon marginal food, labor and ability to climb the dominance hierarchy, and their ruling classes who profit from (if only in status) from the current order.

Conversely, if you want to mobilize a war, either threaten such conditions, or offer an aspirational means by which to circumvent them. Men change state in social orders in order to climb a dominance hierarchy or prevent themselves from falling from their position in it.

3) THE CYCLES OF HISTORY: A REACTION TO ARISTOCRACY

Anglos entered modernity first, adapted first, and the french (moralism), the germans (rationalism) the jews (secular religion we call communism) all resisted modernity accordingly. The jews succeeded in gaining temporary power in Russia, and their success spread to china, and then world wide, in the greatest murder since the islamic expansion,(together which has been worse than the black plague).

If you learn anything from my work, I hope it is that the ‘enlightenment’ or the ‘restoration of western civilization’ is still in progress, and spreading as did agrarianism, as did the bronze age, and transforming the world with our modern technologies. And that the wars of europe, revolutions in christianity, communism/socialism/libertinism/neoconservatism, islamism, and whatever follows them, are continuations of the same process of disruption we call the enlightenment.

And that the Enlightenment, the Greco-Roman Age, and The Invention of Aristocracy under the Aryan Expansion, constitute a single movement that the rest of the world aggressively resists: the transcendence of man through the continuous application of markets in everything, and the continuous disruption caused by those markets, as males find continuous new opportunities to climb the dominance hierarchy, and obtain wealth, status and women.

Aryanism = Markets and Markets = Merit, and the beast we call homo-sapiens-sapiens does not seem to like this model outside of the european peoples.

The Grand Question that remains, is only whether this tendency is cultural, demographic, or genetic. I have been an advocate of the fact that it is only necessary for it to be cultural and demographic. However, the science is not in my favor, as most recent genetic evidence is reinforcing the genetic contingent’s argument.

If so, and it is genetic, we are the only peoples who can drag mankind out of the status of animal and into transcendence. If as I suspect, it has always been demographic, then that explains the cultural model, as well as the genetic.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine