(It was just as important to domesticate women’s reproductive impulses to reflect economic needs rather than military needs, as it was to domesticate man’s military impulses and redirect them to economic needs. We have systematically forced both men and women out of parasitism and into production – and it’s hard to be productive.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 06:29:00 UTC
ANCIENT GROUP STRATEGIES WRIT LARGE
– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified.
– BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means.
– STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory.
– RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies.
– DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost.
– HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now).
CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES
It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:22:00 UTC
We cannot ever allow women (r selection) to dictate our genetics (k selection) because (a) it is the males who generate evolutionary change, and (b) women prefer to mate for aggression and impulsivity, which is contrary to the ability of a people to evolve increasingly complex societies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:18:00 UTC
REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT
Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one in the country has the power to do it. And the only external group willing to use power to do it, will just make it worse (Russians). Even though the optimum people to do it are their genetic siblings right next door (Poland). And other peoples (the Americans, Canadians, and Germans) have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it. (yes really). Ukraine’s problem is a Jewish-libertarian’s dream: about 40 oligarchs (rich people) who range from men of commercial achievement and character, to Russian ex-gangsters, to families that control judicial corruption, to jews looking to restore Ukraine to their undeclared homeland.
Very few people know how to fix the United States of America. But because of our arms, our traditions of legal revolt, and culture of aristocratic martial tradition, we have the ability and power to enact that change. We just need to have the will to do it. But because of that same culture we need a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means of revolt, in order to execute our will.
Now, every major revolution in the anglo world (anglo-saxon-contractualism) has occurred in no small part, because of expansion of the methods of communication and innovations in technology. We have the ability to communicate and coordinate vast numbers of people that no prior era has ever imagined.
Washington had nothing at all but pocket change, character, and some helpful propagandists who used the printing press. Stalin did what he did and had nothing on par with the tools we have at our disposal. Mao did what he did, and he nad nothing on part with the tools we have at our disposal. Napoleon had a lot more going for him than we do. Cromwell had more at his disposal than we do.
But whether one is inside the government or outside the government, it does not matter if one has a set of demands, a plan of transition, a means of raising the cost of the status quo through insurrection, a small minority of males willing to risk life and limb, and a communication system capable of distributing information, tactics, and strategy to participants.
The world has never been so fragile and in such great transition as it is today – or at least, it has not since the Marxist (Jewish) enlightenment inspired the lower classes to seek power as much as the empirical (anglo) enlightenment inspired the middle classes to seek power. But the difference today is that we cannot, under duress, return to the farm. THere are but a few days of food water and energy in the pipline, and in a momentum economy, like a momentum stock market, the system is increasingly vulnerable to shocks. (Thank your Keynesians for their efforts at ‘balanced equilibrium, rather than your Classical Liberals, for their “changes in capital”).
We can more easily fix america than any group ever chose to fix any nation in history.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
(I have no idea where I am at the moment) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:18:00 UTC
(where is that post where you start off with naturalism and realism…)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 11:01:00 UTC
What if there are no possible futures you desire? What if none you can tolerate? None you can survive?
This is the problem of the combination of market economy and unregulated reproduction, and the destruction of the family.
The market can solve the provision of incentives. But it cannot solve the problem of insufficient demand for human labor of any skill level.
We can have capitalism and wealth only with reproductive limitations.
We can have involuntary organisation ( North Korea) and unregulated reproduction and poverty.
Or we can have a voluntary order for those capable of participating and an involuntary order for those not able to participate. And we can regulate reproduction.
But then what we have today creates for many, an intolerable or unsurvivable world.
But you have the left push for policies of dysgenia and the right for policies of eugenics and neither is honest about the reasons they push for policies.
R selection destroys as certainly as war, disaster, plague and famine.
They are not kind they are cruel. We are not cruel we are moral.
The resin we fail is that we do not reduce all our problem to this one question?
If bearing children creates a moral hazard then how can one claim it is a right and not predation?
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 10:24:00 UTC
–“the default mode of the modern age is the disruption of the family. No need for the Others to play the devil.”— Adam Voight
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 09:48:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 09:47:00 UTC
http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/Yes but are we sufficiently different that natural law does not serve as perfectly decidable in matters of cooperation and conflict?
That we differ enough in some ways does not mean we are incompatible.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 09:44:00 UTC
HOW ARE WE SLAVES?
– Inability to Exit
– Inability to secede
– Involuntary association
– Mandatory civil service
– Non-Dischargeable Debts
– Alimony and Child Support
– Property Taxes rather than fees (farming humans)
– Income taxes without determination of their use.
– Deprivation of rights of suit in defense of private and commons
– Deprivation of rights of juridical defense prior to harm.
– Deprivation of driver’s licenses for non-driving offenses.
– Punishment for non-property crimes
– Prohibition on voluntary servitude.
(more?)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 06:55:00 UTC