Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • 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

  • Animal Rights

    1 – When we use the term ‘right’ like many terms, we conflate it with moral, legal, just, and a host of other terms that are reducible to “I just want it this way”. 2 – For a right to exist, two or more parties must enter into a contract of some sort whether private (written or verbal), commercial (written), social (norms), or political (laws). A contract consists of an exchange of rights and obligations, and both parties must benefit from it. 3 – That contract must be ‘insured’ (enforced) by a third party. In most cases a headman, a leader, or a judge in a government. 4 – When a breach occurs, one must appeal to the third party, to enforce the rights and obligations under the contract. This is where the term ‘right’ comes from. One enforces a right under contract. 5 – In any contract we must have some set of reciprocal rights and obligations, or it is not rational that the contract was voluntary rather than coerced. 6 – In order to enter into a contract one must be able to understand, consent to it, and perform it. 7 – Animals, children, the elderly, the infirmed, and the incompetent – and aliens if there are any for that matter – cannot necessarily enter into a contract voluntarily, nor perform it, nor be rationally held liable for performance under it. 8 – In fact, some primitive peoples could not, and some still cannot do so. Many if not all people, especially those people with IQ’s in the average range (2/3 of europeans) between 90-110, and almost anyone above 110, can do so. Animals cannot conceive of such things. 9) – Animals – especially complex mammals – are valuable to us. So we extend protections to those animals to prevent people from destroying that value. 10 – We are no longer in a position were we are economically dependent upon preying upon animals for our survival. 11 – We are no longer ignorant of the emotional indifference between ourselves and at least complex animals. 12 – But – and this is the real reason – we are no longer in a position where we desire to, need to, and in many cases, can afford to, tolerate people who treat animals badly. For the simple reason that we do not want such people among us: they have many other nasty habits. And because we have worked hard to extirpate hatred and abuse from the human heart, and we do not want bad behavior imitated. In other words, punishing animal cruelty tends to expose psychopaths in particular. 13 – So animals cannot have rights, but we can extend them protections, as insurers, just as we do other incompetents, not only to rid ourselves of people who behave badly, and not only to continue to train one another to remove hatred and abuse from the human heart, and not only because they are an asset we want to preserve and enhance, and not only because happy animals make the world a better place for us, but because at this point in our development, at least under western conditions, we no longer have the economic need to do otherwise. 14 – However, we must also understand that there is a not insignificant portion of the population – particularly female – that is no longer reproducing or caring for children, and is biochemically directing those energies to animals in lieu of that outlet. Moreover, there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that feels powerless and lacking status, and finds defense of animals or nature as a means of obtaining control (meaning.). There is a not insignificant portion of the populace that is not otherwise productive, is not competent and competition, and seeks meaning through political order instead of economic competition. And there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that finds group participation in rallying politically a means of status seeking and membership seeking. And those are just another set of psychological problems we have not solved in modernity, now that women have control of their reproduction, and legal, and economic independence from their biology. 15 – In other words, we can establish (institutionalize) common property rights (animals are members of the commons) over animals for whatever reason we choose to, and therefore insure them for present and future. We do the same to territory and to arts, and to many things: “You can use this productively but you may not cause negative externality”. Or, You may enjoy its beauty but not destroy it. These are just means of establishing limited property rights over anything we choose to limit property rights. In fact, we rarely grant rights to destroy scarce or valued assets for other than the purpose of consumption or transformation. 16 – But it is impossible for animals to possess rights. It is only possible for us to grant them protections. The fact that the law is ‘imprecise’ in the use of this language is simply yet another problem of vocabulary lagging behind our rate of development.
    Apr 02, 2018 3:27pm

  • Animal Rights

    1 – When we use the term ‘right’ like many terms, we conflate it with moral, legal, just, and a host of other terms that are reducible to “I just want it this way”. 2 – For a right to exist, two or more parties must enter into a contract of some sort whether private (written or verbal), commercial (written), social (norms), or political (laws). A contract consists of an exchange of rights and obligations, and both parties must benefit from it. 3 – That contract must be ‘insured’ (enforced) by a third party. In most cases a headman, a leader, or a judge in a government. 4 – When a breach occurs, one must appeal to the third party, to enforce the rights and obligations under the contract. This is where the term ‘right’ comes from. One enforces a right under contract. 5 – In any contract we must have some set of reciprocal rights and obligations, or it is not rational that the contract was voluntary rather than coerced. 6 – In order to enter into a contract one must be able to understand, consent to it, and perform it. 7 – Animals, children, the elderly, the infirmed, and the incompetent – and aliens if there are any for that matter – cannot necessarily enter into a contract voluntarily, nor perform it, nor be rationally held liable for performance under it. 8 – In fact, some primitive peoples could not, and some still cannot do so. Many if not all people, especially those people with IQ’s in the average range (2/3 of europeans) between 90-110, and almost anyone above 110, can do so. Animals cannot conceive of such things. 9) – Animals – especially complex mammals – are valuable to us. So we extend protections to those animals to prevent people from destroying that value. 10 – We are no longer in a position were we are economically dependent upon preying upon animals for our survival. 11 – We are no longer ignorant of the emotional indifference between ourselves and at least complex animals. 12 – But – and this is the real reason – we are no longer in a position where we desire to, need to, and in many cases, can afford to, tolerate people who treat animals badly. For the simple reason that we do not want such people among us: they have many other nasty habits. And because we have worked hard to extirpate hatred and abuse from the human heart, and we do not want bad behavior imitated. In other words, punishing animal cruelty tends to expose psychopaths in particular. 13 – So animals cannot have rights, but we can extend them protections, as insurers, just as we do other incompetents, not only to rid ourselves of people who behave badly, and not only to continue to train one another to remove hatred and abuse from the human heart, and not only because they are an asset we want to preserve and enhance, and not only because happy animals make the world a better place for us, but because at this point in our development, at least under western conditions, we no longer have the economic need to do otherwise. 14 – However, we must also understand that there is a not insignificant portion of the population – particularly female – that is no longer reproducing or caring for children, and is biochemically directing those energies to animals in lieu of that outlet. Moreover, there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that feels powerless and lacking status, and finds defense of animals or nature as a means of obtaining control (meaning.). There is a not insignificant portion of the populace that is not otherwise productive, is not competent and competition, and seeks meaning through political order instead of economic competition. And there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that finds group participation in rallying politically a means of status seeking and membership seeking. And those are just another set of psychological problems we have not solved in modernity, now that women have control of their reproduction, and legal, and economic independence from their biology. 15 – In other words, we can establish (institutionalize) common property rights (animals are members of the commons) over animals for whatever reason we choose to, and therefore insure them for present and future. We do the same to territory and to arts, and to many things: “You can use this productively but you may not cause negative externality”. Or, You may enjoy its beauty but not destroy it. These are just means of establishing limited property rights over anything we choose to limit property rights. In fact, we rarely grant rights to destroy scarce or valued assets for other than the purpose of consumption or transformation. 16 – But it is impossible for animals to possess rights. It is only possible for us to grant them protections. The fact that the law is ‘imprecise’ in the use of this language is simply yet another problem of vocabulary lagging behind our rate of development.
    Apr 02, 2018 3:27pm

  • Stop blaming other people, and blame the one in the mirror.

    —“CURT: WHY ISN’T WINSTON CHURCHILL DEMONIZED FOR STARVING INDIANS TO FEED EUROPEANS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR”— A Hindu (Indian) A REPRIMAND FOR ASKING THE QUESTION (Part of my ongoing effort to make people look in the mirror rather than blame others) **The following is what I tell every ethnic group on earth. You aren’t special.** Your question is typical of a failed people wishing to blame others for their condition … 1 – Who grant themselves a social, economic, political, military and intellectual equality that does not exist. The very idea that all humans are equal is anti-empirical, and merely a means by which to encourage economic cooperation and competition rather than violent conflict. It is an ambition in cooperation not an existential property of humans, or human groups. Quite the opposite. 2 – Who assume that we grant each other equal standing for anything other than utilitarian reasons – in order to increase trade and reduce opportunity for conflict. 3 – Who assume that the utility of cooperation is endless, when it is merely whenever it is more rewarding than not cooperating. Or in the case of the primitive civilizations, when it is more profitable to “Mature them out of superstition(india), destructive traditions and customs (india), ignorance(india), illiteracy(india), poverty (india), overbreeding(india), child mortality, early death, systemic filthiness (india), disregard for maintenance of the commons (india), resistance to truth telling (india), pervasive self-justificationary excuse making (india), pervasive familial corruption(india), inability to develop a middle class (india), vast asymmetry between the size of the classes (india), who cannot defend themselves (muslim gunpowder empires), – than it is to rule them, profit from ruling them, and like a good parent, try to raise them out of that current state. 4 – Why should we pay any cost of parenting a primitive people unless it is profitable? History demonstrates quite clearly that extermination is more profitable than cooperation. 5 – When we are at war, why would we not favor family, kin, and civilization over primitive peoples? Isn’t that the reason for pervasive indian corruption? Favoring family over commons? 6 – And why should we treat undomesticated human animals any differently than any other undomesticated animal? The answer is, we don’t until we can trade with them. So the problem is, parenting a people until we can trade with them. LOOK IN THE MIRROR Whenever you want to blame someone else, exhaust your opportunity to blame the person, the family, the tribe, the nation, the civilization **in the mirror**. Despite having one of the three early great civilizations, and despite amassing capital (not wealth, but capital), why did India and indians consistently fail? Why could she not resist Whites? Why couldn’t she resist the mongols? Why couldn’t she resist the muslims? Why couldn’t she resist the british? And conversely, why did east asia and the west europe succeed? Why do indians always fail? West Europe probably exceeded china for the simple reasons of geography and culture. Had china not had to resist barbarians at her walls, she might have continued her expansion into the new world. On the other hand, once China explored the rest of the world, they saw nothing worth bringing home. Once the west saw the rest of the world, they saw opportunity for expansion. And so the west dragged primitive peoples out of primitivism (ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, infant mortality, early death, disease, corruption, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe hostile to human life. **We are not family, we are not kin, we are not friends, we are at best trading partners of convenience,** that fight by population, religion, means of government, and economic productivity, rather than fight by violence. And if you think otherwise you are simply fooled by your ability to absorb 3000 years of western civilization, and profit from doing so, while the british empire establishes the world trade destroyed by the muslims, and the americans pay the high cost of policing that system of world trade against primitive peoples of all civilizations, not the least of which were the russians, the chinese, the communists, and now the muslims. ANd no doubt, had india been powerful enough to mount a resistance, her also. We are all compatible at the feast. When in famine, it’s self, family, and kin we defend. No man is a hero to his debtors. Yet you are our debtors. Do not assume any equality whatsoever. All equality is merely a useful means of maturing you so that you’re profitable rather than a risk or cost. TRUTH: EVEN DARWIN AND MALTHUS WERE TOO KIND Territory is what you hold because you can. You can hold territory because you produce a people who can fight, and an economy to arm them against competitors. The purpose of ‘human rights’ – which are nothing but property rights – is not to produce human rights per se, but to demand states produce wealth by internal reformation rather than achieve wealth through conquest. In other words, it is a means of self defense. A form of cost reduction. The purpose of directing states to produce internal reformation and wealth so that they join the world economy, is to prevent another world war, and in no small part to convert from war by violence to war by commerce. For the simple reason that war by commerce tends to produce the opposite effect: continuous self improvement. This is the paradox of economic competition. If you do not understand this then you are still of a religious rather than scientific disposition, and believe in comforting falsehoods. **So stop blaming other people, and look in the mirror.**

  • Stop blaming other people, and blame the one in the mirror.

    —“CURT: WHY ISN’T WINSTON CHURCHILL DEMONIZED FOR STARVING INDIANS TO FEED EUROPEANS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR”— A Hindu (Indian) A REPRIMAND FOR ASKING THE QUESTION (Part of my ongoing effort to make people look in the mirror rather than blame others) **The following is what I tell every ethnic group on earth. You aren’t special.** Your question is typical of a failed people wishing to blame others for their condition … 1 – Who grant themselves a social, economic, political, military and intellectual equality that does not exist. The very idea that all humans are equal is anti-empirical, and merely a means by which to encourage economic cooperation and competition rather than violent conflict. It is an ambition in cooperation not an existential property of humans, or human groups. Quite the opposite. 2 – Who assume that we grant each other equal standing for anything other than utilitarian reasons – in order to increase trade and reduce opportunity for conflict. 3 – Who assume that the utility of cooperation is endless, when it is merely whenever it is more rewarding than not cooperating. Or in the case of the primitive civilizations, when it is more profitable to “Mature them out of superstition(india), destructive traditions and customs (india), ignorance(india), illiteracy(india), poverty (india), overbreeding(india), child mortality, early death, systemic filthiness (india), disregard for maintenance of the commons (india), resistance to truth telling (india), pervasive self-justificationary excuse making (india), pervasive familial corruption(india), inability to develop a middle class (india), vast asymmetry between the size of the classes (india), who cannot defend themselves (muslim gunpowder empires), – than it is to rule them, profit from ruling them, and like a good parent, try to raise them out of that current state. 4 – Why should we pay any cost of parenting a primitive people unless it is profitable? History demonstrates quite clearly that extermination is more profitable than cooperation. 5 – When we are at war, why would we not favor family, kin, and civilization over primitive peoples? Isn’t that the reason for pervasive indian corruption? Favoring family over commons? 6 – And why should we treat undomesticated human animals any differently than any other undomesticated animal? The answer is, we don’t until we can trade with them. So the problem is, parenting a people until we can trade with them. LOOK IN THE MIRROR Whenever you want to blame someone else, exhaust your opportunity to blame the person, the family, the tribe, the nation, the civilization **in the mirror**. Despite having one of the three early great civilizations, and despite amassing capital (not wealth, but capital), why did India and indians consistently fail? Why could she not resist Whites? Why couldn’t she resist the mongols? Why couldn’t she resist the muslims? Why couldn’t she resist the british? And conversely, why did east asia and the west europe succeed? Why do indians always fail? West Europe probably exceeded china for the simple reasons of geography and culture. Had china not had to resist barbarians at her walls, she might have continued her expansion into the new world. On the other hand, once China explored the rest of the world, they saw nothing worth bringing home. Once the west saw the rest of the world, they saw opportunity for expansion. And so the west dragged primitive peoples out of primitivism (ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, infant mortality, early death, disease, corruption, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and a universe hostile to human life. **We are not family, we are not kin, we are not friends, we are at best trading partners of convenience,** that fight by population, religion, means of government, and economic productivity, rather than fight by violence. And if you think otherwise you are simply fooled by your ability to absorb 3000 years of western civilization, and profit from doing so, while the british empire establishes the world trade destroyed by the muslims, and the americans pay the high cost of policing that system of world trade against primitive peoples of all civilizations, not the least of which were the russians, the chinese, the communists, and now the muslims. ANd no doubt, had india been powerful enough to mount a resistance, her also. We are all compatible at the feast. When in famine, it’s self, family, and kin we defend. No man is a hero to his debtors. Yet you are our debtors. Do not assume any equality whatsoever. All equality is merely a useful means of maturing you so that you’re profitable rather than a risk or cost. TRUTH: EVEN DARWIN AND MALTHUS WERE TOO KIND Territory is what you hold because you can. You can hold territory because you produce a people who can fight, and an economy to arm them against competitors. The purpose of ‘human rights’ – which are nothing but property rights – is not to produce human rights per se, but to demand states produce wealth by internal reformation rather than achieve wealth through conquest. In other words, it is a means of self defense. A form of cost reduction. The purpose of directing states to produce internal reformation and wealth so that they join the world economy, is to prevent another world war, and in no small part to convert from war by violence to war by commerce. For the simple reason that war by commerce tends to produce the opposite effect: continuous self improvement. This is the paradox of economic competition. If you do not understand this then you are still of a religious rather than scientific disposition, and believe in comforting falsehoods. **So stop blaming other people, and look in the mirror.**

  • The underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal.

    1 – IQ produces many incremental ‘goods’ (morality, cooperation, adaptation, invention, cost of learning) 2 – Neoteny/Pedomorphism/Juvenilization produces lower rate and depth of maturity, more aquiline features, longer development times, and greater ‘distance’ from impulses. 3 – The balance between the male brain and the female brain produces behavioral differences. Populations vary in this distribution of biases, just as they vary in the distribution of maturity. (Climate and disease gradients largely determine this.) 4 – Asymmetric reproduction (upward reproduction) improves these conditions, and symmetric reproduction does the reverse. Hence why cities are dysgenia-factories. 5 – ‘Something wonderful happened’ either before (black sea) or when we combined horse, wheel, and bronze. But it ‘appears’ that the black sea -caspian created a rapid recursively improving gene pool. Same with yellow river. Most but west and far east were also isolated. 6 – So the answer is that when the original people moved west into poland and germany, and developed a trading civilization among the north sea baltic peoples that they already possessed a genetic and possibly cultural advantage. 7 – The roman empire destroyed celtic civilization (as they did carthaginian and east mediterranean), which appears to have been the ‘core state’ of europe – and created opportunity for the high germanics to migrate, and eventually conquer rome. 8 – Now, nordic peoples practiced a form of late marriage and manorialism for a long time, possibly ‘always’. But by 700 the people of the low countries institutionalized it, and this formalized reproductive eugenics. Bipartite manorialism is demarcated by the Hajnal Line. 9 – Beginning with the redevelopment of major trade lines, about 1000, and certainly by the establishment of the Hansa in 1200, europeans started aggressively hanging ‘troublemakers’. 10 – downward movement of middle class reproduction meant that by the late medieval/early modern period much of european population above the Hajnal line was genetically middle class. Add literacy, and redistribute the dead capital in the church hands – and magic happened. 11- So it appears that the advantage is genetic and long standing, but is amplified substantially by (a) heroic culture, and (b) culling of the underclass through systemic eugenics, starvation, war, and disease. 12 – Ergo, the underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal, and the untrainable one’s ‘removed from the breeding pool’. And we have reversed those IQ gains in just 150 years.

  • The underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal.

    1 – IQ produces many incremental ‘goods’ (morality, cooperation, adaptation, invention, cost of learning) 2 – Neoteny/Pedomorphism/Juvenilization produces lower rate and depth of maturity, more aquiline features, longer development times, and greater ‘distance’ from impulses. 3 – The balance between the male brain and the female brain produces behavioral differences. Populations vary in this distribution of biases, just as they vary in the distribution of maturity. (Climate and disease gradients largely determine this.) 4 – Asymmetric reproduction (upward reproduction) improves these conditions, and symmetric reproduction does the reverse. Hence why cities are dysgenia-factories. 5 – ‘Something wonderful happened’ either before (black sea) or when we combined horse, wheel, and bronze. But it ‘appears’ that the black sea -caspian created a rapid recursively improving gene pool. Same with yellow river. Most but west and far east were also isolated. 6 – So the answer is that when the original people moved west into poland and germany, and developed a trading civilization among the north sea baltic peoples that they already possessed a genetic and possibly cultural advantage. 7 – The roman empire destroyed celtic civilization (as they did carthaginian and east mediterranean), which appears to have been the ‘core state’ of europe – and created opportunity for the high germanics to migrate, and eventually conquer rome. 8 – Now, nordic peoples practiced a form of late marriage and manorialism for a long time, possibly ‘always’. But by 700 the people of the low countries institutionalized it, and this formalized reproductive eugenics. Bipartite manorialism is demarcated by the Hajnal Line. 9 – Beginning with the redevelopment of major trade lines, about 1000, and certainly by the establishment of the Hansa in 1200, europeans started aggressively hanging ‘troublemakers’. 10 – downward movement of middle class reproduction meant that by the late medieval/early modern period much of european population above the Hajnal line was genetically middle class. Add literacy, and redistribute the dead capital in the church hands – and magic happened. 11- So it appears that the advantage is genetic and long standing, but is amplified substantially by (a) heroic culture, and (b) culling of the underclass through systemic eugenics, starvation, war, and disease. 12 – Ergo, the underclasses were not ‘oppressed’. They were domesticated like any other animal, and the untrainable one’s ‘removed from the breeding pool’. And we have reversed those IQ gains in just 150 years.

  • –“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—

    https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/
    Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.” (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.) Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that: 1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge. 2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world. 3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life. 4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency. In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’. ITS ALL AVAILABLE If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’. See … https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ And if you read …. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it. Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law. The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.
    Mar 30, 2018 12:16pm

  • –“Curt: How Would You Explain Your Beliefs?”—

    https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/
    Well, I .. I don’t use the word ‘belief’, because I don’t use the concept of ‘faith’, or the concept of ‘justification’. So I would instead, say “this is my understanding, or this is history as I understand it, or these are my understandings.” (I will explain some other time why resource and opportunity scarcity and lack of agency attract ‘beliefs’ and why resource and opportunity plenty and possession of agency attract ‘understandings’. Or you can ponder that on your own.) Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that: 1. my work consists of completing that thing we call the scientific method, and systematically applying it to the entire scope of human knowledge. 2. My ambition is to eliminate the propagation of falsehoods in the commons – particularly given that we’ve industrialized lying during the past century, and that this means of lying has been designed to undermine our civilization just as were judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, boazianism, freudianism, and Frankfurt and postmodern schools in the modern world. 3. my understanding of history is that western civilization evolved not first but fastest because we required a militia in our territory, and as a byproduct of organizing a militia, discovered what we think of today as scientific (or I call ‘testimonial’) truth – and as a consequence, markets in every aspect of life. 4. The rest of my work explains how to evolve our traditional system away from a second dark age, and continue the process of dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, disease, and lack of agency. In historical context, let’s just say that almost all of the world is only partly through the scientific revolution, and that this will help humanity with understanding the ‘rest of the way’. ITS ALL AVAILABLE If you want an understanding of propertarianism, believe it or not, ‘its all there for the taking’. See … https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ And if you read …. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ … which includes a description of history and western civilization’s unique place in it. Then you will have a basic understanding. But this is like learning any other discipline – and is very close to learning a mixture of programming and law. The technical part is quite difficult. But you don’t need to understand it. All you need to understand is that small homogenous nationalist polities operating under what I call ‘perfect government’ will produce the desires of socialists, libertarians, and aristocrats, without providing any of the m with a monopoly that allows them to live parasitically upon the others.
    Mar 30, 2018 12:16pm

  • The Origin of the West – It’s Time To Return To Rule

    The Origin of the West: The Militia Constitution is nothing but a contract. A contract is nothing without insurance. That insurance is nothing but the militia. That militia nothing but moral men bearing arms. It’s time to return to rule. We must accept that our experiment failed. There is no industry more profitable than rule. And there is no industry at which we better excel. Why do we tolerate being taxed, rather than taxing?