Source: Facebook

  • Q&A: CURT: AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN EUROPE? —“Would you also say, sir, that Europ

    Q&A: CURT: AND SOCIAL CAPITAL IN EUROPE?

    —“Would you also say, sir, that Europe’s Scientific and industrial Revolutions were the result of this high trust/social capital, as opposed to the prevailing narrative that colonialism = industrial/scientific revolution? It’s always been a theory of mine that social capital is what allowed Europe and Western Civilization to accelerate ahead of other Civs, which runs contrary to the Guns, Germs and Steel narrative”—

    Well, the tradition was there in the 700’s when the Friesians started immigrating to land in England. And by 1200’s Bacon had studied this contractualism and invented empiricism. And starting about the same time they started aggressively hanging vast numbers of troublemakers, and restoring the trade that would become the Hansa (Germanic) civilization.

    So my view is that the colonial expansion ARRESTED the growth of germanic north sea civilization, and that while there was amazing wealth generated in England, France, holland, Spain, and Portugal by this switch from north sea to Atlantic, that the reason for the division between germanic and English civilizations that culminated in the world wars, was this catastrophe we call colonialism.

    Now, Americans speak English, but we separated from England before England split from germanic civilization. The majority of American whites are from germanic decent. And the majority of anglo whites are from pre-Germanic split. So that is why we have the language of the English and a culture more Prussian-like the germans.

    And in my opinion, from what I’ve seen throughout history, as far as I can tell, the industrial revolution would have occurred in northern Europe just as it nearly occurred in Athens. England blew up just like Athens for the same reason – overreach.

    If you have an empirical society, with enough literacy, and enough cultural capital, you will eventually produce innovations, since there is no opportunity to survive and compete by parasitism.

    In other words, if we create rule of law we will continue to evolve. We have no choice. It’s the societies that dont create incremental suppression through natural law that stagnate.

    Becuase it is too easy to develop stagnating-corruption and parasitism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 07:23:00 UTC

  • Q&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS —“Can you please elaborate o

    Q&A: MR DOOLITTLE: QUESTION ABOUT ECONOMIC ORDERS

    —“Can you please elaborate on this “Once cheap labor stops, and marginal differences in knowledge are exhausted, what remains is a nation’s ability to dynamically reorganize production in real time, and to competitively innovate in real time.”

    Are you saying that productivity and innovation are not dependent on a nation’s wealth, size or population, but instead on how it organizes its existing resources to achieve maximum output? Basically, higher social capital = better long term growth and innovation?”—

    Yes. Thank you, I don’t think of putting it that way. But for example, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, are small countries with small populations. But they are homogenous germanic peoples with high trust polities. This trust is just like having oil, gold, great farmland, or any other local asset. It’s an economic advantage.

    So all resources being equal, the competitive difference between societies would be determined by the absence of corruption and the presence of rule of law.

    The conflict generally comes with the tradeoff between military, trade, and credit capacity at scale, and ability to suppress corruption and tailor law, policy, and norms to the needs of local groups.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 07:14:00 UTC

  • I NEED HELP WITH THIS TODAY PLEASE (Can you all please help me flesh this out a

    I NEED HELP WITH THIS TODAY PLEASE

    (Can you all please help me flesh this out a bit? The table at the bottom?)

    THE EMERGING NEW RIGHT MOVEMENT

    ———————————————————————–

    CENTRAL ARGUMENTS

    ———————————-

    1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe.

    2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits.

    Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations.

    But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense).

    This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society.

    So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm.

    3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare..

    That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically.

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT?

    It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west.

    We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit.

    We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force.

    The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers).

    And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization….

    … or we will break it all to pieces.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    THE CLASSES

    ——————–

    ARISTOCRATIC RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy)

    Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism,

    (left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.)

    UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis)

    (the slowly converting anglo libertarians)

    Stefan Molyneux

    Tom Woods

    (left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers)

    MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis)

    (Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx)

    Ramsey Paul

    LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right)

    Christopher Cantwell

    (Left Equivalent social justice warriors)

    WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers)

    The inequalitarians

    The racists

    The Fashy Militants

    (left equivalent = anarchists)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 07:06:00 UTC

  • FORCING PEOPLE TO COME TO THE TABLE TO TRADE If you don’t understand what I’m do

    FORCING PEOPLE TO COME TO THE TABLE TO TRADE

    If you don’t understand what I’m doing, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all.

    Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same.

    So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).

    This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments).

    The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal.

    I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violece, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations.

    They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist.

    But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 06:01:00 UTC

  • “Can’t pigeonhole the New Right because of Scientific Truth. Can’t pigeonhole th

    —“Can’t pigeonhole the New Right because of Scientific Truth. Can’t pigeonhole the AltRight because of meme magic.”— Austyn Pember


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:36:00 UTC

  • “The New Right scares the living daylights out of The Cathedral. They try their

    —“The New Right scares the living daylights out of The Cathedral. They try their utmost best to pigeonhole the AltRight and fail every single time – because they do not understand the core of the movement: Scientific Truth. We are angry over being lied to.”—Deon Janse van Rensburg


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:27:00 UTC

  • ABSENT JURIDICAL DEFENSE WE MUST RETURN TO VIOLENCE As Sovereign men we create j

    ABSENT JURIDICAL DEFENSE WE MUST RETURN TO VIOLENCE

    As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs.

    But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us.

    As far as I know we can kill Soros.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:20:00 UTC

  • BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR I get accused of bourgeoise values all the tim

    BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR

    I get accused of bourgeoise values all the time, and I always think it’s childish, or ignorant. Generals conduct strategy and that means logistics. The last mile, for today, may depend on the character of men, but all the miles behind them, and all the yesterdays and tomorrows depend upon the logistics: production and supply lines.

    A dangerous, happy, well-fed soldiery capable of defeating an enemy is equipped and supported by a happy, produdtive, well fed, population competitively defeating in economics and intellectual means their competitors, just as the soldiers their competitors.

    I tend to think of ‘last-mile-ers’ as children: well-intentioned, passionate, but ignorant and naive.

    My own values are classical, intellectual, and perhaps a bit effete. I do not seek to win the great wars by my values. Nor by the elation of the throng. But by cool headed plans and execution of them, with discipline over many years.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:11:00 UTC

  • I SEE NO REASON TO TOLERATE BURGHER (BOURGEOISE) INTERFERENCE IN POLITICAL ORDER

    I SEE NO REASON TO TOLERATE BURGHER (BOURGEOISE) INTERFERENCE IN POLITICAL ORDERS

    Let’s compare Soros’ activism, with PPPP’s activism against Gawker.

    The courts can be, if we repair the constitution, a method by which the wealthy can police what the politicians choose not to. This is a good. We have juridical defense in these cases.

    But why can we not sue Soros for corruption by circumventing the courts, where we have juridical defense?

    The moment we let the state determine law rahter than terms of contract we surrender to state corruption, and the corruptibility of the state.

    So far, in the west, we have, at least until the past few generations, been able to preserve the rule of law as sacred natural order beyond which no man may transgress.

    This is our defense. Not politicians. They are corrupt to the last – because they must be.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:03:00 UTC

  • THOSE WHO FIGHT WITH ME SHALL BE MY BROTHERS (To continue to agitate my racist f

    THOSE WHO FIGHT WITH ME SHALL BE MY BROTHERS

    (To continue to agitate my racist friends a bit)

    He who fights with me shall be my brother.

    I may not want him to marry my sister, nor may he want me to marry his. But together, as brothers in arms, we create for one another the ability to make that choice. Apart, we do not. And this is but one of many choices we have or do not have if we fight or do not fight as brothers.

    So he who fights with me for sovereignty, property, family, tribe, and nation shall forever be my brother. There is no more to be said.

    Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism enfranchises All Men Who Fight As Brothers to preserve property and sovereignty for families, into the initiatic brotherhood of soldiers upon taking the irrevocable Oath.

    I see no color between brothers, only in the preservation and expansion of beauty of all colors within families who fight for property and sovereignty as defenders of self, property, families, tribes, and nations.

    Yes, our different tribes and races possess different adaptations. These are mostly in the distribution and sophistication of intellectual gender traits: masculine space, and feminine language. Yes we mature more and faster, and less, and slower. As such some of us are more pliable younger and longer, and others less pliable both younger and shorter. And as such more impulsive and less.

    But given that our differences are largely in the size of our underclasses, caused by our regional success at reducing them; and given the challenges of limiting the harm done by them, thereby inhibiting the good done by most of the rest, if then we help those that have greater problems domesticating their underclasses, and they help us by domesticating their underclasses, the differences between us with gradually reduce, and we can all transcend into the gods we seek.

    I do not hate on those who do not harm me and mine. And evidence of history is that small nations do least harm, and large empires do most.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 04:57:00 UTC