NOT ONLY CAN WE HAVE A PERFECT GOVERNMENT – WE HAD IT. We had the perfect government: Monarchy, Multi-House Parliaments with one house per class, and the Common Law under Rule of law, under Nationalism (tribalism). The Monarch had only power of veto. The houses functioned as a market for trading commons between the different socio-economic classes. And an homogenous polity can act redistributively because everyone is a near relation (kin) and not a competitor. This is why the Nordic countries are as they are: small homogenous protestant nations that have practiced eugenic reproduction for more than a thousand years, and perhaps as long as 3500 years. They bypassed the empire phase during colonialism and so they did not develop state corporatism, and therefore the ability to commercially and militarily profit from heterogeneous polities. Nordic countries then produce the ideal because they are small homogenous eugenic nation states with common interests, little diversity, and lack the population, territorial, economic, and military scale needed to engage in conquest by immigration, territorial expansion, economic conquest, or military conquest. The dirty secret of the Human Genome project is that our tribes and races are vastly unequal, largely because some of our tribes and races have been better at suppressing the rates of reproduction of the lower classes (eugenics). And the reason is that the northern climates do not allow marginal individuals to survive under agrarianism. And that most northern peoples aggressively used hanging, delayed marriage and childbirth, regulated access to farmland to people of good character, and effectively engaged in active upward redistribution of reproduction. If you want a Denmark you need to fill it with Danes. The northeast of Europe developed “Bipartite Manorialism” earliest, and the church’s ban on cousin marriage the earliest, and that is one of the significant reasons for northern europe’s advantage. Why? Because while you need to reach the Pareto optimum of both 80% of resources in the control of your top 20%, AND your top 20% must have IQ’s above 106, this cannot be done by improving the intelligence of your best, but by by reducing the numbers of your worst, until your best are the top 20% of your population. This is counter-intuitive. But the point being that your lower classes are a tragic burden on your people. This is the dirty secret of the west’s success: we hung 1% of the population every year. Over twenty years, this has a profound effect. Over five hundred years it will raise a people out of ignorance and poverty. How can we do the same without hanging our troublemakers? We can do it by preventing their births. Otherwise there is no way to get to Denmark. And instead, under normative dysgenia we will decline just as the entire Arab world has declined under islam: through dysgenic reproduction, that depresses the reproduction of our best, and increases the reproduction of our worst. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Science and Uncomfortable Truth The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Source: Original Site Post
-
AI’s
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also will readily simulate human behavior. Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.
All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against various inventories (property). Ergo, any AI algorithm requires decidability, and one that may not violate such impositions will produce moral actions. Humans suffer from pre-cooperative impulses for survival that are non rational for an AI to develop unless by design. Ledgers (~blockchains) are necessary for AI’s to gain access to external actions, access regulated by non AI algorithms. But that said, I have seen nothing that even vaguely approaches AI. Only systems that process discreet data faster that can – and give us the illusion of intelligence by doing so. Ai’s, like mathematical axioms, produce deterministic consequences that appear ‘magical’ to us. But AI exists in fact rather than illusion, if and only if the algorithms are capable of free-association followed by Introspective regression-testing for falsehood (survival of possibility). Consciousness is produced by the (brief) memory of continuous comparison of changes in state, perceived by continuous searching of memories. The thing we call ‘mind’ is just a bag of emotions that react to changes in state of property-in-toto, and use (very) short term memory to accumulate emotions and associate them with those memories. I’ve been working on this problem since the early 80’s and our lack of progress is still a problem of hardware. That said, an intelligence will always merely fool us. Anything intelligent in the sense we mean it, will compete with us the way other creatures compete with us. And that is the last thing we want to bring into this world. Ergo, an assertion that the first law of decidability is that property-in-toto may not be violated – no involuntary cost may be imposed by action or inaction against property in toto. Ergo, an assertion that the second law of decidability is that any agent capable of choice or action, must be monitored by a non-sentient moral agent that prohibits the cognizance of, or action upon, any cost that wold be imposed involuntarily against property in toto. This agent can cause analogy to pain (cost) upon any concept or action that would prohibit the calculation (use of) that memory or concept that imposes cost, and prohibit entirely action that would impose an involuntary cost. -
AI’s
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also will readily simulate human behavior. Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.
All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against various inventories (property). Ergo, any AI algorithm requires decidability, and one that may not violate such impositions will produce moral actions. Humans suffer from pre-cooperative impulses for survival that are non rational for an AI to develop unless by design. Ledgers (~blockchains) are necessary for AI’s to gain access to external actions, access regulated by non AI algorithms. But that said, I have seen nothing that even vaguely approaches AI. Only systems that process discreet data faster that can – and give us the illusion of intelligence by doing so. Ai’s, like mathematical axioms, produce deterministic consequences that appear ‘magical’ to us. But AI exists in fact rather than illusion, if and only if the algorithms are capable of free-association followed by Introspective regression-testing for falsehood (survival of possibility). Consciousness is produced by the (brief) memory of continuous comparison of changes in state, perceived by continuous searching of memories. The thing we call ‘mind’ is just a bag of emotions that react to changes in state of property-in-toto, and use (very) short term memory to accumulate emotions and associate them with those memories. I’ve been working on this problem since the early 80’s and our lack of progress is still a problem of hardware. That said, an intelligence will always merely fool us. Anything intelligent in the sense we mean it, will compete with us the way other creatures compete with us. And that is the last thing we want to bring into this world. Ergo, an assertion that the first law of decidability is that property-in-toto may not be violated – no involuntary cost may be imposed by action or inaction against property in toto. Ergo, an assertion that the second law of decidability is that any agent capable of choice or action, must be monitored by a non-sentient moral agent that prohibits the cognizance of, or action upon, any cost that wold be imposed involuntarily against property in toto. This agent can cause analogy to pain (cost) upon any concept or action that would prohibit the calculation (use of) that memory or concept that imposes cost, and prohibit entirely action that would impose an involuntary cost. -
A Lesson In Natural Law
FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”…. … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution. The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it. What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family. Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male. The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law. The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years. 1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households. 2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world. 3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan. 4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it. 5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes. 6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year. 7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class. Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes. WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST? Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs. 1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers) In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves. In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies. 2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors) The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order. The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the 3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors) The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival. In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors. 4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers) In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding. We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit. We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses. THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) The Caste System (which is evolving in south america) The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism) In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets. Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper. There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction. This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with. Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies. And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
A Lesson In Natural Law
FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”…. … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution. The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it. What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family. Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male. The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law. The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years. 1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households. 2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world. 3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan. 4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it. 5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes. 6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year. 7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class. Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes. WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST? Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs. 1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers) In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves. In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies. 2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors) The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order. The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the 3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors) The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival. In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors. 4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers) In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding. We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit. We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses. THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) The Caste System (which is evolving in south america) The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism) In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets. Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper. There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction. This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with. Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies. And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
What’s Wrong With Contemporary Capitalism?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRODUCTION), WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING BAD. (From elsewhere)
Competition is necessary for INVENTION, including the inventions in productivity that reduce prices – and competition is necessary to eliminate rent seeking (parasitism). Property, Contract, Money, Prices, Profit, are necessary for people to possess the information necessary to determine how to fulfill their self interest, while acting in the service of others. The problem with capitalism is that large numbers of the population are not able to provide others with any value in exchange for production other than NOT DOING bad things. In other words, an increasing percentage of the populace is unnecessary to production of good and services. But as long as they don’t interfere with the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, by undermining property, contract, money, prices, profit, and competition, and as long as they don’t engage in rent seeking, then by their INACTION they are contributing to the construction of the order we call capitalism, that makes an advanced consumer economy possible. The issue then is if a minority of people are paid for production and the majority of people are not paid for production, but we still need them to produce the possibility of capitalist production, then how will we pay them? In the past one gained access to the market by observing manners, ethics, morals and laws. But if one cannot gain access, then how do we compensate him for not doing bad things. Because it is by not doing bad things that the capitalist method of voluntary organization of production is made possible. -
What’s Wrong With Contemporary Capitalism?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM WHEN NOT PAYING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD (PRODUCTION), WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE FOR NOT DOING BAD. (From elsewhere)
Competition is necessary for INVENTION, including the inventions in productivity that reduce prices – and competition is necessary to eliminate rent seeking (parasitism). Property, Contract, Money, Prices, Profit, are necessary for people to possess the information necessary to determine how to fulfill their self interest, while acting in the service of others. The problem with capitalism is that large numbers of the population are not able to provide others with any value in exchange for production other than NOT DOING bad things. In other words, an increasing percentage of the populace is unnecessary to production of good and services. But as long as they don’t interfere with the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, by undermining property, contract, money, prices, profit, and competition, and as long as they don’t engage in rent seeking, then by their INACTION they are contributing to the construction of the order we call capitalism, that makes an advanced consumer economy possible. The issue then is if a minority of people are paid for production and the majority of people are not paid for production, but we still need them to produce the possibility of capitalist production, then how will we pay them? In the past one gained access to the market by observing manners, ethics, morals and laws. But if one cannot gain access, then how do we compensate him for not doing bad things. Because it is by not doing bad things that the capitalist method of voluntary organization of production is made possible. -
Religion: Accountability
The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.
-
Religion: Accountability
The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.
-
Religion: The Principle of Reciprocity
The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion violates the principle of reciprocity, then it cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, since reciprocity is a necessary fundamental right.