( humor) (diary)
( Blizzard working conditions. Get a knitted hat and put it on. Get an extension cord. Plug in your computer, and plug in a heating pad. Put on your robe. Put the heating pad inside the robe against your chest. Turn on the heating pad. Turn on the computer. Yummy. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 11:10:00 UTC
UNCOMFORTABLE THOUGHTS ON MEN AND WOMEN
At some point we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that women are property of families in all of history, and men fight for that form of property just as they do for slaves, domesticated animals, and territory. And that those peoples that retain the treatment of women as property of the family kin-corporation (a capital asset) will always, over time, defeat those that do not (us).
Now, when we say something is property, we generally refer to that which lacks sentience. But even with property we do not confer a monopoly of control, but a limited one. For example, I may purchase the Mona Lisa or another great artwork, and I may purchase a full-granary, and I may purchase a lake. But we do not grant one another the right to destroy the art, destroy the grain, or pollute the lake. This is called the right of “ABUSUS”, and it is rarely granted – it is only granted for those things that are not productive in and of themselves. In other words, you are prohibited from causing negative externalities by the consumption or destruction of a good. In this sense you possess rights of USUS (use) and FRUCTUS (the fruits of) property that can cause externalities, and are always and everywhere not in monopoly control of property.
Men do not tolerate defectors, nor traitors in their responsibility to the kin-group in matters of war. They are profiting from the taking of an asset from the kin group. Why a woman can profit from the taking of a reproductive asset, produce externalities by doing so, and deprive future generations of her offspring, is no different from acting as a traitor or defector.
If a woman is to exit her kin group, she deprives the kin group of an asset. It’s up to the kin group whether they will defend against the loss of an asset. those groups that prevent assets from defecting will defeat those groups that do not.
Conversely, if a woman is to bear children at the cost of her people, then she acts parasitically.
This is not to say that any other right other than ABUSUS can be withheld from women – or from men who wish to import women from non-kin groups. So the door swings both ways. So to limit outbreeding from either direction seems a retention of capital. Except that there are marginal undesirables that breed themselves out of the ingroup by doing so, and into the lower groups.
We are not the higher evolved unless higher evolution succeeds in competition. We do not choose what is a greater evolutionary strategy. Our survival does.
It is no more possible for a people (tribe of men and their property) to survive the loss of warriors and producers, than it is for a people (tribe of men and their property) to survive loss of their women and their childbearing.
Moroever, it is merely an act of ABUSUS for a woman to profit from the gains of the people (the men and their property) while not bearing children, just as it is an act of ABUSUS for a man to profit from the gains of the people (men and their property) while not policing property, maintaining property, and defending property.
Once we understand this set of evolutionary necessities much of the rhetoric of human life (Moral excuse making) is just a convenient set of lies by which to avoid paying the cost of persistence of a people.
And while women may not care for their people (men and their property) men must care. And if men do not care, then they are not men, they are just domesticated animals that are either costly or profitable, but unable to demonstrate capacity for political (group) decisions.
I don’t particularly like this stream of reasoning. But it is what it is.
if the west is to continue to drag humanity into transcendence we who CAN RULE, must return to the costly but profitable industry OF RULE.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 10:52:00 UTC
NAZI FANTASIES ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIBERTARIAN FANTASIES. THE CONDITIONS OF BOTH FANTASIES CANNOT BE REPLICATED. THE FUTURE REQUIRES NEW SOLUTIONS/
Death camps. So what. If you convince the mainstream that the case is overstated that is not the same as saying the case is nonexistent.
Nope. it would just shift. to ‘so what. it was still bad, and the nazis caused millions to die. It is just jerking off.
You can read hitler’s writing and read his words, and it is nothing like jefferson’s, churchill’s, or even Marx’s, Trotsky’s or Lenin’s. He was well read. Intelligent. But he places a lot of ‘faith’ in that which he has no reason to. Becaues he was playing what’s called a ‘momentum’ game. He succeeded with it. But momentum in stocks is not the same as profits and productivity in industry. Eventually you’re screwed if you can’t convert it. Hitler didn’t have a plan. He had an ambition. And unable to construct a plan he created a momentum stock. Given that the german civilization could have achieved it on his behalf, given motivation and permission, well… he didn’t so much neeed it.
You are, and others are, just trying to find an excuse to live in the past in a condition that no longer exists, rather than to construct a future, in the condition that it now exists.
We can have the same aspirational aesthetic. WE can do it. But we cannot do it the way he did. Those conditions do not exist.
So wasting time on Nazi arguments is NO DIFFERENT FROM WASTING THEM ON LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENTS.
It’s the same ‘mental disease’.
The future is one in which we produce an institutional set of solutions to our problem, and apply violence to enact them, and violence to prevent their reversal, and then we use activisim and those laws to end all competitors.
we can win competitively. But we cannot win against desirable lies that can be acted upon by women and our underclasses.
THE WEAK GRASP AT WHAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND. THE STRONG MAKE WHAT THEY WILL.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 10:27:00 UTC
RE: “CURT: YOU REMIND ME OF EVOLA”
I get that a lot because we are both making aristocratic arguments. And doing so unapologetically. But that is where the comparison ends. I see him as a poet or inspirational essayist, not a philosopher or scientist, but an artist. Those are the tools he uses.
I see myself using the same tools as Hayek, Marx, Darwin, Hume, Smith, and Locke: I write about the institutional frameworks necessary for cooperation, because cooperation as i see it produces competitive advantage in desirability of society, economic productivity, scientific innovation, military advantage, and genetic evolution.
In my mind my work is largely a refutation of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, and the Frankfurt School, as well as against the Anglo Puritans and their postmoderns that have adopted their work. And as a refutation I’m trying to complete the scientific enlightenment, by exposing and defeating the great lies of the cosmopolitans and their second attempt at a new religious conquest of the west, and correcting the Anglos, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Eastern Europeans, Russians, and to a lesser degree the (hopeless) French.
I don’t claim any particular brilliance, and the rather slow pace of my work may confirm that humility, but I do claim to ‘have got it right’, even if for no other reason than I stand on the shoulders of giants, (and that among them is Turing – who is not studied by philosophers despite the fact that he has probably answered the questions they have been seeking.) So I live in an era where a great synthesis is possible, and the attack on our civilization by the Cosmopolitans has been successful enough that there exists intellectual demand for a work of this nature. And so most of my work over the past two years is largely in an attempt to articulate what is a very sweeping set of ideas in a form that is digestible by more than a literate few. And I’m getting there.
I see myself as an answer to Marx, by extending Hayek’s work – he had found that the answer was in the law. But he was not able to define truth nor did he grasp that the asymmetric costs of competition between truth and falsehood could only be resolved by a market for prosecuting falsehood in the distribution of information, just as we had prosecuted falsehood in the distribution of services and products.
To solve this problem one must solve the problem of truth. The problem of truth consists however, not in justificationary explanation, but in warranty of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. The problem of developing that warranty is the criteria that the jury must comprehend, and the judge must facilitate. And this is what I have done. In the end result, testimonialism consists of a set of warranties of due diligence that will prohibit error bias and deceit to such a significant degree that the cost of it will be unbearable, and the market for competition between ideas can be restored to one of symmetric costs.
The rest of the work just explains how and why that is possible, and why it has in the past been successful, and why in the present it would be preferable.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 09:46:00 UTC
http://www.voltairenet.org/article195196.htmlThierry Meyssan
RE:Trump
I’ll be damned. Spot on. Great read.
As a minor suggestion, you IMPLY an argument that I would not.
Like Reagan, Trump operates from a common American moral intuition. He does not fear competitors, but sees them as an opportunity to demonstrate superiority. And within that context, he sees the empire as a burden we can no longer afford. He wants to dissolve that Empire because it prevents us from competing. This is counter intuitive to the bureaucrat and relatively obvious to the successful entrepreneur.
He has confidence that America can compete militarily, economically, and culturally, if freed from the burden of empire that was necessary – first of independence, second to prevent American reconquest by europeans, third to prevent the American south from political and material ownership of the westward expansion, fourth in the war of German ascension, and fifth to prevent the rise of communism, and now sixth in the islamic war against modernity. (Although I might argue that all these wars are conducted in defense of the enlightenment, and rebellions against modernity.)
And now we are in an era where American (Anglo) wealth is no longer disproportionately an advantage, and when the techniques by which war is conducted have devolved – eliminating the Peace of Westphalia, and restoring the natural order by which the state no longer has control over non state actors, and as such wars are conducted informationally, economically, culturally, by religious conversion, by immigration, by asymmetric reproduction, by raiding and wearing-down, rather than in the Westphalian model of the war of states conducted exclusively by state actors.
Trump is intuitive, and practical. He has more in common with generals and entrepreneurs than financiers and bureaucrats. And he has little in common with those of use who are primarily intellectuals and scientists – other than his guidance by evidence and an intuition evolved from evidence.
So in his world view the current war against modernity (Islam) and the current war against the manufacturer, distributor, marketer, and entrepreneur of modernity (Anglo), is now a war that all civilizations should pay for, given that they have adopted the product of the anglos (modernity).
For China(River), and Russia(steppe), Europe(forest), and Anglo(island), cultures, Islamism is an equal problem and american competition will be improved by forcing other empires (Civilizations) to bear the cost of what appears to be yet another extremely expensive war of modernity.
So in the end, I see all his actions as the normal insights, not of intellectuals, not of statists, but of generals, and of entrepreneurs. And I suspect we over-intellectualize his thoughts and actions just as we over intellectualized Reagan’s.
The entrepreneur and the military strategist do not try to apply forces of coercion so much as create opportunities to win where as little resources as possible can be applied.
The Donald Uses The Market in all things. That’s his intuition. It is the intuition of the weaker and the poorer middle classes of industries and states. And American can no longer afford to fight as if she is the strongest and wealthiest. We aren’t.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 09:09:00 UTC
—-“Man can only fight for what he knows, so man must fight for the ability to know.”— Felicity J. Chernukhin
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 22:12:00 UTC
(William Hurt is an amazing actor.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 21:59:00 UTC
Naftogaz is Gazprom’s Ukrainian door to Europe. Ukraine isn’t currently importing Russian gas for its own market’s consumption. But it is receiving payment for shipping Gazprom’s gas through pipelines that cut across the full length of the Ukrainian landscape. The money received from Russia to pay for that transit is equal to about 10% of the Ukrainian budget, according to government estimates. If it vanished, it would be a big problem for the Ukrainian economy.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 21:57:00 UTC
Both east asians and westerners have systematically selected for more ‘feminine’ traits, largely through the higher reproduction of more ‘immature’ looking women. (Why this was possible I am not sure.)
The east asians seem to have selected for immaturity (pedomorphism) to a point where it’s been somewhat destructive. It appears that despite such selection to a lesser degree, we might have also.
But that those groups that do not select as such (and still aggressively herd women as possessions) have not.
This is one of those ‘uncomfortable truths’.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 21:36:00 UTC
***The only substantial differences between the races that I have uncovered is verbal acuity achieved by the process of reduction of gender dimorphism through reproductive selection, and reduction in impulsivity achieved by the process of pedomorphic reproductive selection, the demand for rational intertemporal planning caused by cold climate agrarianism, the upward redistribution of consumption and reproduction to the middle and upper classes under various forms of manorialism, and the consistent culling of the lower classes by war, famine, disease, and aggressive hanging or murder of the criminal.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 20:50:00 UTC