THE DESTRUCTION OF MOTHERHOOD —“Curt you said something a long time ago….”— Yes… that western women are losing the art of motherhood and parenting which was transferred intergenerationally through direct experience, just like the military responsibility of men. Women may no longer have either the knowledge or the confidence to mother children. So not only have we destroyed the family, not only have we infantilized our children for multiple generations, but we have destroyed motherhood, fatherhood, responsibility for the commons and the nation. So are we nothing more than decreasingly civilized, decreasingly domesticated, irrelevant individual animals herded by the government for tax revenue? And for what purpose? So that women could enter the workplace and increase the scope and scale of government? so that we could delay entry into the workplace and lengthen retirement out of it? So that we must immigrate hordes of the undomesticated underclasses and commit genocide against our people? To undo all western civilization for no other purpose than to justify a school system and tax system that serves as little more than socially and developmentally destructive day care? The alternative is simply to restore ourselves to rulership, specialize in rulership, and breed in the luxury of rulership.
Source: Original Site Post
-
More on Market Fascism
What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo? There are two differences: 1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud. So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges. You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law. In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed. 2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders. In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited. These are simple, but far reaching demands.
-
More on Market Fascism
What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo? There are two differences: 1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud. So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges. You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law. In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed. 2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders. In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited. These are simple, but far reaching demands.
-
In The End, It’s Pretty Simple
MORITZ BIERLING NAILS IT: —“It’s rather simple really. Once you see costs beyond prices, and returns beyond profit, what we previously thought to be simply parasitic extraction is revealed as payment for participation in the market created by the aristocracy and maintained by the militia. It’s all about the accounting.”— Moritz Bierling
-
In The End, It’s Pretty Simple
MORITZ BIERLING NAILS IT: —“It’s rather simple really. Once you see costs beyond prices, and returns beyond profit, what we previously thought to be simply parasitic extraction is revealed as payment for participation in the market created by the aristocracy and maintained by the militia. It’s all about the accounting.”— Moritz Bierling
-
Different Economies
As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them. But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.
The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do. It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes). Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class. It isnt. -
Different Economies
As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them. But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.
The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do. It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes). Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class. It isnt. -
Different Economies for Different Classes
Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES? —“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).
SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes. The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market. So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes. I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
Different Economies for Different Classes
Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES? —“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).
SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes. The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market. So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes. I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
The Future of Religion
JOSLIN AND DOOLITTLE ON THE FUTURE OF RELIGION Curt: I think that the notion of religion in the archaic sense, is probably done forever except for the ‘stupid people’. And just as the current state religion is democratic pseudoscientific, secular, humanism, any replacement religion will require a narrative and inspirational (transcendent or accommodating) that is even more modern. So my argument would be more to focus on festivals and certification rituals, and education, and simply revert to our traditional myths as the basis for our narratives.
Bill Joslin: I see. Through social rituals and narratives mythos is restored without the need for it to be a conceptual frame for reality. We profit from social function but isolate away the potential for deception-fraud… loose coupling (programming reference) of logos and mythos. That is brilliant. Curt: Bingo.