You know, the fact that the modern church (a) tolerated pedophiles and worse, (b) refused to rectify(sic) the situation, (c) has not reformed to allow married priests, and (d) has now directly turned against european civilization – doubling down on supernaturalism and (e) selected an anti-european pope, means it is time to end that church and bring about another. Why is it that we persist this middle eastern savagery rather than transcend the abrahamic dark ages, and emerge a people of natural law, nature, and the transcendence of man?
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Result is Eugenic Reproduction
CONSERVATISM = ARISTOCRACY = MERITOCRACY = EMPIRICISM. AND MARKETS ARE EMPIRICAL – AND THE RESULT IS EUGENIC REPRODUCTION 1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. 2. Conservatism demands human agency over animal impulse. familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital. 3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality. 4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited. 2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat). 5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families. 6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families. 7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility. The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. CONSERVATIVES Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and the rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.) Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
The Result is Eugenic Reproduction
CONSERVATISM = ARISTOCRACY = MERITOCRACY = EMPIRICISM. AND MARKETS ARE EMPIRICAL – AND THE RESULT IS EUGENIC REPRODUCTION 1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. 2. Conservatism demands human agency over animal impulse. familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital. 3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality. 4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited. 2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat). 5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families. 6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families. 7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility. The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. CONSERVATIVES Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and the rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.) Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
—“Why do geniuses have a low EQ?”—
THAT’S A MISTAKE. You’re attributing a skill to a similarity. In other words, very smart people understand each other just as well as ordinary people understand each other just as well as very stupid people understand each other. But just as you can’t understand very smart people, they can’t necessarily understand you. There are a lot more average people (66%) than there are exceptional people (the under 1%). This makes average people think they have a skill, rather than, that they are just surrounded by many people more like them. So emotions and others play a larger role in the life of ordinary people than they do very smart people. And it is harder to imagine why someone would rely on the opinion and intuitions of others when “they are so often wrong or foolish”. WHY? At 7 points (1/2 standard deviation) one can provide help to one another. At 15 points (1 standard deviation) the higher can provide management and leadership to the lower, but at 22 points (1–1/2 standard deviation) we have difficulting understanding each other, and at 30 points (2 standard deviations), we have a great difficulty understanding one another. We are just as different as types of ants. The difference is that our differences are cognitive and emotional not physical. EXAMPLE I had a very hard time understanding why ‘normies’ worried or had fears or concerns about trivial things, and how important trust of others was, and how much of their information and decisions they obtained from others rather than their own investigation, and moreover, what they found entertaining and interesting. I thought people were just plain mean and evil until I understood how … limited they were … and that they were just doing the best that they could. Once I understood it I was horrified, and depressed for months. )
-
—“Why do geniuses have a low EQ?”—
THAT’S A MISTAKE. You’re attributing a skill to a similarity. In other words, very smart people understand each other just as well as ordinary people understand each other just as well as very stupid people understand each other. But just as you can’t understand very smart people, they can’t necessarily understand you. There are a lot more average people (66%) than there are exceptional people (the under 1%). This makes average people think they have a skill, rather than, that they are just surrounded by many people more like them. So emotions and others play a larger role in the life of ordinary people than they do very smart people. And it is harder to imagine why someone would rely on the opinion and intuitions of others when “they are so often wrong or foolish”. WHY? At 7 points (1/2 standard deviation) one can provide help to one another. At 15 points (1 standard deviation) the higher can provide management and leadership to the lower, but at 22 points (1–1/2 standard deviation) we have difficulting understanding each other, and at 30 points (2 standard deviations), we have a great difficulty understanding one another. We are just as different as types of ants. The difference is that our differences are cognitive and emotional not physical. EXAMPLE I had a very hard time understanding why ‘normies’ worried or had fears or concerns about trivial things, and how important trust of others was, and how much of their information and decisions they obtained from others rather than their own investigation, and moreover, what they found entertaining and interesting. I thought people were just plain mean and evil until I understood how … limited they were … and that they were just doing the best that they could. Once I understood it I was horrified, and depressed for months. )
-
On the Future of The British Isles (if Not All Scandinavia)
Economic consumption is, like drugs, or religion, a comforting method of personal, familial, cultural, and political suicide. Some people think about their near term experiences, some about their children’s, some of their peoples long term horizons. (ie: the left, the libertarian, the right.) That which is unique about anglo civilization is incompatible with the faustian bargain that the french-and-german have chosen. The united states will have a second civil war soon because we have resisted returning to the european model of different states, and tried to preserve our inherited british empire in a world where we no longer possess economic and technological asymmetry. Meanwhile Europe, following the USA, assumes that she will achieve american economic and military prowess through unity. This might be possible if divided into protestant, catholic, orthodox civilizations just as american continuity might be possible if divided into Germanic (central), Scotts Irish(southern), Anglo (new england), white “Coastal Islanders” (seattle, portland, san francisco), and Jewish (New york city, Los Angeles). The fact is that the Han, Korean, and Japanese have won the argument: Homogeneity wins over the long term. Ethnicity wins over diversity. Executive government wins over democracy. When I watch the japanese and koreans and now the chinese, I still remember when we were like that – rather than a house, a thousand times divided. The value is not scale but smallness. The only value to scale is war. Small polities produce political, economic, and social equality -because they can. Move capital to people not people to capital. Equilibrate differences in production through trade negotiation. MOST IMPORTANTLY In the coming technological era, when not only phiysical labor but clerical labor is no longer productive, political economic and social asymmetry will increase dramatically, and the returns on popllitical control even more exacerbated than modern medieval and ancient eras. Ergo *the greatest advantage any demographic possesses is homogeneity and a continuously shrinking under class, lower class, and laboring class.* Let each group pay the costs of continuous modernization rather than burdening others. Thi sis the only way to create cooperative rather competing politics and norms. The future is Switzerland or the Levant/India/Brazil/South America. The Anglo Peoples, during the period of expansion, produced a continuous civilization of our own. Britain can either return to her leadership of our people, or continue to decline into a client state of either germany or america. We are not capable of holding the flag any longer. We have been invaded by the third world. And we will now have a civil ar to separate from them.Apr 02, 2018 12:16pm -
On the Future of The British Isles (if Not All Scandinavia)
Economic consumption is, like drugs, or religion, a comforting method of personal, familial, cultural, and political suicide. Some people think about their near term experiences, some about their children’s, some of their peoples long term horizons. (ie: the left, the libertarian, the right.) That which is unique about anglo civilization is incompatible with the faustian bargain that the french-and-german have chosen. The united states will have a second civil war soon because we have resisted returning to the european model of different states, and tried to preserve our inherited british empire in a world where we no longer possess economic and technological asymmetry. Meanwhile Europe, following the USA, assumes that she will achieve american economic and military prowess through unity. This might be possible if divided into protestant, catholic, orthodox civilizations just as american continuity might be possible if divided into Germanic (central), Scotts Irish(southern), Anglo (new england), white “Coastal Islanders” (seattle, portland, san francisco), and Jewish (New york city, Los Angeles). The fact is that the Han, Korean, and Japanese have won the argument: Homogeneity wins over the long term. Ethnicity wins over diversity. Executive government wins over democracy. When I watch the japanese and koreans and now the chinese, I still remember when we were like that – rather than a house, a thousand times divided. The value is not scale but smallness. The only value to scale is war. Small polities produce political, economic, and social equality -because they can. Move capital to people not people to capital. Equilibrate differences in production through trade negotiation. MOST IMPORTANTLY In the coming technological era, when not only phiysical labor but clerical labor is no longer productive, political economic and social asymmetry will increase dramatically, and the returns on popllitical control even more exacerbated than modern medieval and ancient eras. Ergo *the greatest advantage any demographic possesses is homogeneity and a continuously shrinking under class, lower class, and laboring class.* Let each group pay the costs of continuous modernization rather than burdening others. Thi sis the only way to create cooperative rather competing politics and norms. The future is Switzerland or the Levant/India/Brazil/South America. The Anglo Peoples, during the period of expansion, produced a continuous civilization of our own. Britain can either return to her leadership of our people, or continue to decline into a client state of either germany or america. We are not capable of holding the flag any longer. We have been invaded by the third world. And we will now have a civil ar to separate from them.Apr 02, 2018 12:16pm -
On Prostitution
(Because someone just asked.) (“Taking a position on sex workers” is an awkward turn of phrase. So I’ll instead give an opinion on natural law of prostitution.) 1 – As far as I know, since males must work for female services, and since, females (largely) decide, all male-female relationships consist of some sort of exchange. So, all but causal male and female relations are simply on a spectrum of prostitution – from purely reciprocal affection through to purely commercial service. 2 – Prostitution (anywhere on the spectrum) can consist of a voluntary, productive, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of imposition of costs upon others by externality and is therefore ethical (interpersonally) and moral (extra-personally). 3 – Practiced as a means of obtaining additional income in order to pay down debts, or to create investments, (the better Call Girls and Escorts) seems is very hard to argue with – although this tends to permit prostitution as a luxury for the middle and upper classes when it’s the working and lower classes (and especially the underclasses) that are both most likely to engage in it, and who are most likely to abuse it (for affection, for income), and then require medication (drugs) to tolerate it. 4 – It is traditionally a last-ditch means of income for those who cannot find equal income by more desirable means. In many cases it is a means of economic survival. It is almost never a career a woman wants to remain in. It is just more economically rewarding (and more independent) than her available alternatives. And as such it is a difficult and unpleasant career to exit. As such it causes a dependency spiral. 5 – The principle problem with prostitution, like many, many moral questions, is the externalities, not the activity. (a) it creates the greatest and most expensive moral hazard of unwanted reproduction, thereby burdening all of society, and (b) it is not an occupation that we would wish our family members to engage in, so we are constantly defending against it (just like credit, drug, and alcohol use). (c) it is a constant threat to breaking up families given the unnatural stress of intergenerational monogamy during the first twenty years of marriage when women devote attention to children because they must, and a man most feels the ‘demand’ for intercourse. (d) And families serve as the first industry, the first corporation, in the hierarchy of corporations we call ‘civilization’. (e) And while in history, prostitutes and traveling workers and soldiers fulfilled one another’s needs, by the 20th century we had achieved nearly universal pairing off (marriage) along with the near abandonment of migratory craftsmen and migratory soldiers. 6 – Ergo, the principle issue with prostitution is – like all things – keeping it invisible to the commons. So like all sex, it is not a problem in a bedroom, or between individuals. And it is hard to argue with it as a ‘sugar daddy’ or ‘mistress’ or ‘select clients’, or ‘side job’. It is a problem, when it is either necessary for survival or transforms into a condition that requires medication. Since that medication is evidence of spiraling. And spiraling always ends up externalizing the costs upon the rest of the polity. 7 – No person may take an action the restitution for which he cannot pay. And one simply cannot pay for the consequences to society that are produced by destruction of marriages, loss of life’s potential, and the vicious spiral of decline, medication, and crime that results from it. 8 – Therefore, liability for spreading disease, liability for fomenting divorce, liability for encouraging others to engage in prositution, liability for supplying medication to preserve someone’s participation in prostitution, liability for creating the moral hazard of prostitution (baiting, entrapping, trafficing), and liability for ‘polluting the commons’ are all liabilities one must avoid – because one cannot perform sufficient restitution to correct for those consequences. But if any person out of public sight and sound offers and negotiates an exchange of sex for money – that is entirely ethical and moral. CheersApr 02, 2018 12:31pm -
On Prostitution
(Because someone just asked.) (“Taking a position on sex workers” is an awkward turn of phrase. So I’ll instead give an opinion on natural law of prostitution.) 1 – As far as I know, since males must work for female services, and since, females (largely) decide, all male-female relationships consist of some sort of exchange. So, all but causal male and female relations are simply on a spectrum of prostitution – from purely reciprocal affection through to purely commercial service. 2 – Prostitution (anywhere on the spectrum) can consist of a voluntary, productive, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of imposition of costs upon others by externality and is therefore ethical (interpersonally) and moral (extra-personally). 3 – Practiced as a means of obtaining additional income in order to pay down debts, or to create investments, (the better Call Girls and Escorts) seems is very hard to argue with – although this tends to permit prostitution as a luxury for the middle and upper classes when it’s the working and lower classes (and especially the underclasses) that are both most likely to engage in it, and who are most likely to abuse it (for affection, for income), and then require medication (drugs) to tolerate it. 4 – It is traditionally a last-ditch means of income for those who cannot find equal income by more desirable means. In many cases it is a means of economic survival. It is almost never a career a woman wants to remain in. It is just more economically rewarding (and more independent) than her available alternatives. And as such it is a difficult and unpleasant career to exit. As such it causes a dependency spiral. 5 – The principle problem with prostitution, like many, many moral questions, is the externalities, not the activity. (a) it creates the greatest and most expensive moral hazard of unwanted reproduction, thereby burdening all of society, and (b) it is not an occupation that we would wish our family members to engage in, so we are constantly defending against it (just like credit, drug, and alcohol use). (c) it is a constant threat to breaking up families given the unnatural stress of intergenerational monogamy during the first twenty years of marriage when women devote attention to children because they must, and a man most feels the ‘demand’ for intercourse. (d) And families serve as the first industry, the first corporation, in the hierarchy of corporations we call ‘civilization’. (e) And while in history, prostitutes and traveling workers and soldiers fulfilled one another’s needs, by the 20th century we had achieved nearly universal pairing off (marriage) along with the near abandonment of migratory craftsmen and migratory soldiers. 6 – Ergo, the principle issue with prostitution is – like all things – keeping it invisible to the commons. So like all sex, it is not a problem in a bedroom, or between individuals. And it is hard to argue with it as a ‘sugar daddy’ or ‘mistress’ or ‘select clients’, or ‘side job’. It is a problem, when it is either necessary for survival or transforms into a condition that requires medication. Since that medication is evidence of spiraling. And spiraling always ends up externalizing the costs upon the rest of the polity. 7 – No person may take an action the restitution for which he cannot pay. And one simply cannot pay for the consequences to society that are produced by destruction of marriages, loss of life’s potential, and the vicious spiral of decline, medication, and crime that results from it. 8 – Therefore, liability for spreading disease, liability for fomenting divorce, liability for encouraging others to engage in prositution, liability for supplying medication to preserve someone’s participation in prostitution, liability for creating the moral hazard of prostitution (baiting, entrapping, trafficing), and liability for ‘polluting the commons’ are all liabilities one must avoid – because one cannot perform sufficient restitution to correct for those consequences. But if any person out of public sight and sound offers and negotiates an exchange of sex for money – that is entirely ethical and moral. CheersApr 02, 2018 12:31pm -
We All Make the Mistake of Harmony Rather than Reciprocity
Even though they are most like us, East Asians made a few mistakes in history – principally beginning with confucius not solving the problem of politics because it would be offensive. and worse, converting from their original empirical rule, to moral rule, when their civilization got so large that they overwhelmed their institutions. and worse, when they resisted technological innovation as ‘disruptive’. and worse when mao tried to stop the separation of ruling but poor north from wealthy south. Love of harmony is actually a catastrophic mistake. Instead, love reciprocity. We made the same mistake with christianity. Not submission but reciprocity. And you know, that’s all I do right? Try to restore Violence, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Natural Law, and Markets in Everything. Nietzche wasn’t right you know. He understood the problem. He just was entirely wrong about what to do with it. You cannot produce harmony via positive, but via negative: by demand for reciprocity you will produce continuously evolutionary harmony at the expense of the current status quo – and thereby prevent rents and calcification that enventually produce vulnerability to competitors and shocks.Apr 02, 2018 2:05pm