Theme: Civilization

  • Privilege as a Commons

    [C]ritics of privilege allege that it is unearned, and therefore unfair. Well, part of that’s true, so far as it goes. I didn’t earn my privilege. I inherited most of it. But I do pay to maintain it. And I must pay to add to it, so that I may pass on more to my children.Every time I’m extended privilege, I’m necessarily given the opportunity to abuse it.

    When I go into a store, say, and am not followed around by security, I’m given the opportunity to steal. By foregoing that opportunity, I’m bearing an opportunity cost, and in so doing, paying for my privilege, and at the same time, maintaining it as a commons for others like me to enjoy.

    When I am pulled over by a policeman, and am polite and cooperative rather than belligerent and reactive, not only do I purchase a better outcome for myself, but for everyone who resembles me (in whatever way.)

    Every time I seek to do my share, rather than to shirk; to pay my way, rather than to free ride; to give, rather than take; I pay into the privilege bank. I can only ever cash in a fraction of that. But if I can count on others like me to do likewise, we all come out ahead.

    Now, if someone would be willing to bear those costs, but their coethnics are not, or are less willing than others, that’s unfortunate for them.

    But if they demand the same privilege, it is they who are demanding something unearned, and that their coethnics have not demonstrated a willingness to pay for, or at least an equal willingness to pay for. They are demanding that others take a risk for their benefit in extending them privilege; one that has not been shown to be a good risk but rather, a bad one, one not worth the cost of taking.

    If you want privilege, then pay for its construction as a commons. But do not attack those who do and demand that they share their privilege with you, and offer nothing in return.

    Now some might object that this is “collectivism” or “collective responsibility” and we should instead only judge anyone as individuals.

    But that is not a reasonable objection nor a reasonable suggestion.

    I don’t hold anyone accountable for the misdeeds of people who resemble them. But I can’t necessarily tell them apart. There is a cost involved in telling them apart. It takes time, effort, energy, resources, etc… And even then, there is risk, because it’s not foolproof.

    Now, if someone doesn’t want to be profiled, or discriminated against, there are three ways they can realistically attack this issue.

    They can help make it easier (and therefore less costly) for me to distinguish them from less reputable elements by using signals (dress, mannerisms, speech etc…) which demonstrate that they are not a threat, that they are successful, reliable, etc…

    They can increase the value of what they can OFFER me so that I have more incentive to invest in telling them apart.

    Or they can suppress the misbehavior of the disreputable element within their community themselves to reduce the NEED for me to tell them apart; to reduce the risk for me of failing to tell them apart.

    But to simply demand that I presume they are not part of that element, when I have no way of knowing whether they are part of that element or not, is to demand that I take a risk. And even if that risk is a good risk, and worth my while in their case, that demand includes the demand I extend the same benefit of the doubt to all others. And that is not worth my while.

    This is, so far as I can tell, an accurate and truthful (though not necessarily full) account of what social justice warriors are talking about when they talk about “privilege.”

    It’s nothing to be ashamed of. And when they rally and shame you over your privilege, they are behaving as a spoiled child behaves when it throws a temper tantrum, and for the same reason. They want you to give them something but they don’t want to give you anything in return. So they resort to moral, emotional and social blackmail, hoping you will give them what they want to leave you alone.

    But they never will leave you alone, because as long as this method works, they will never quit using it, never quit making demands, never quit throwing tantrums like bratty children.

    Never give in.

    Reposted from Eli Harman:
    Privilege as a Commons

  • Privilege as a Commons

    [C]ritics of privilege allege that it is unearned, and therefore unfair. Well, part of that’s true, so far as it goes. I didn’t earn my privilege. I inherited most of it. But I do pay to maintain it. And I must pay to add to it, so that I may pass on more to my children.Every time I’m extended privilege, I’m necessarily given the opportunity to abuse it.

    When I go into a store, say, and am not followed around by security, I’m given the opportunity to steal. By foregoing that opportunity, I’m bearing an opportunity cost, and in so doing, paying for my privilege, and at the same time, maintaining it as a commons for others like me to enjoy.

    When I am pulled over by a policeman, and am polite and cooperative rather than belligerent and reactive, not only do I purchase a better outcome for myself, but for everyone who resembles me (in whatever way.)

    Every time I seek to do my share, rather than to shirk; to pay my way, rather than to free ride; to give, rather than take; I pay into the privilege bank. I can only ever cash in a fraction of that. But if I can count on others like me to do likewise, we all come out ahead.

    Now, if someone would be willing to bear those costs, but their coethnics are not, or are less willing than others, that’s unfortunate for them.

    But if they demand the same privilege, it is they who are demanding something unearned, and that their coethnics have not demonstrated a willingness to pay for, or at least an equal willingness to pay for. They are demanding that others take a risk for their benefit in extending them privilege; one that has not been shown to be a good risk but rather, a bad one, one not worth the cost of taking.

    If you want privilege, then pay for its construction as a commons. But do not attack those who do and demand that they share their privilege with you, and offer nothing in return.

    Now some might object that this is “collectivism” or “collective responsibility” and we should instead only judge anyone as individuals.

    But that is not a reasonable objection nor a reasonable suggestion.

    I don’t hold anyone accountable for the misdeeds of people who resemble them. But I can’t necessarily tell them apart. There is a cost involved in telling them apart. It takes time, effort, energy, resources, etc… And even then, there is risk, because it’s not foolproof.

    Now, if someone doesn’t want to be profiled, or discriminated against, there are three ways they can realistically attack this issue.

    They can help make it easier (and therefore less costly) for me to distinguish them from less reputable elements by using signals (dress, mannerisms, speech etc…) which demonstrate that they are not a threat, that they are successful, reliable, etc…

    They can increase the value of what they can OFFER me so that I have more incentive to invest in telling them apart.

    Or they can suppress the misbehavior of the disreputable element within their community themselves to reduce the NEED for me to tell them apart; to reduce the risk for me of failing to tell them apart.

    But to simply demand that I presume they are not part of that element, when I have no way of knowing whether they are part of that element or not, is to demand that I take a risk. And even if that risk is a good risk, and worth my while in their case, that demand includes the demand I extend the same benefit of the doubt to all others. And that is not worth my while.

    This is, so far as I can tell, an accurate and truthful (though not necessarily full) account of what social justice warriors are talking about when they talk about “privilege.”

    It’s nothing to be ashamed of. And when they rally and shame you over your privilege, they are behaving as a spoiled child behaves when it throws a temper tantrum, and for the same reason. They want you to give them something but they don’t want to give you anything in return. So they resort to moral, emotional and social blackmail, hoping you will give them what they want to leave you alone.

    But they never will leave you alone, because as long as this method works, they will never quit using it, never quit making demands, never quit throwing tantrums like bratty children.

    Never give in.

    Reposted from Eli Harman:
    Privilege as a Commons

  • HIS SENTIMENTAL APOLOGIA WITH MY HISTORY OF THE WEST. WHICH IS ACTIONABLE?

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/08/who-put-west-western-civilization-timeless-robert-royal.html#comment-362393CONTRAST HIS SENTIMENTAL APOLOGIA WITH MY HISTORY OF THE WEST. WHICH IS ACTIONABLE?

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/08/who-put-west-western-civilization-timeless-robert-royal.html


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 00:30:00 UTC

  • WHO PUT THE WEST IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION? WE KNOW ALREADY. …. WE DID. AT OUR B

    WHO PUT THE WEST IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION? WE KNOW ALREADY. …. WE DID. AT OUR BIRTH.

    (here is the narrative you’re looking for)

    1) The origins of the uniqueness of western civilization are something we have known for nearly a century. On the steppes of Ukraine, (now southern Russia), our ancestors led verbal, contractual, historical, tradition, focused on listening to testimony (story telling), possessing myths, but lacking authoritarian symbolism, idols, or mysticism. They were typical of the indo european people.

    2) With the unification of the horse, wheel, and bronze, these pig, sheep, and goat herders, turned to raiding and dropped the peaceful and cooperative mythology and adopted the aggressive warrior mythology. thus dividing the indo-european peoples. The heroic age was born. The other tribes responded by creating ‘religion’ from mythology as a *resistance movement*. Some groups later used religion as the first legal system, and then later, for greater ‘precision’ in homogenizing punishments and crimes, created more precise ‘law’.

    3) These conquerors spread in all directions, forced by tribal competition to adopt the new technologies just as all other military technologies have since been adopted out of necessity.

    4) Each of the three major branches, northern and western aryans (Europeans), southern aryans (Iranians), and eastern aryans(Indians), (we do not know what happened to those people in the far east yet other than that they appear to be gone), used the new technology to rule their own people, and if possible or necessary to gain good territory, to conquer and rule other peoples, and then extract taxation to pay for the high cost of bronze, horse, and wheel.

    5) This ruling caste succeeded in conquering everything within the european and asian plains from Asia to Spain, and as far south as Egypt.

    6) They used manorialism, and serfdom to cause upward redistribution of reproduction from the underclasses to the middle and upper classes – if we can somehow stretch the meaning of middle class back into those eras. And they used war, winters, taxation, and aggressive punishment to cull troublemakers – even enforcing late marriage. The consequence was a reduction in the ratio of the unproductive underclasses to the productive classes. We call this ‘domestication’ when we refer to plants and animals, but we call it ‘oppression’ when we do it to humans. But these people applied domestication to man with the same passion that they did to their herds.

    6) In those places where they were most successful because of less territorial competition (Europe), they maintained the contractualism between the peerage (aristocracy) and maintained egalitarian meritocracy(those who fight earned rights), and the prohibition on the concentration of power in any of them.

    7) The Greeks, Hittites, Romans, and Celts all practiced this same contractualism, sovereignty, heroic ethic, and aristocratic egalitarianism by merit. Conversely the fertile crescent did not since their chief problem was using propaganda to organize large populations in concert with the flood cycle. And by the time the Axial Age hit China, the aristocracy and peasantry were already formed, and ritual developed as a means of controlling the tendency of the aristocracy to exhaust production for their feasts. So they maintained authority, and the Crescent maintained authority. while the european branch of the aryans maintained contratualism meritoratic egalitarianism, and personal, heroic, sovereignty.

    8) When martial men, members of an initiatic brotherhood of warriors, whether normative, legal, or ritualistic, must negotiate they rely upon martial epistemology (empiricism) and hold to the sacredness of truth (testimony) and contract if for no other reason than in battle one can bear very high costs of error, optimism, betrayal and dishonesty. These men negotiate and argue their positions and the headman (general, chieftain, or king) judges and chooses from the different arguments presented. It is this testimonial, argumentative, debate, from which reason and eventually aristotelian ‘science’ takes it’s origins.

    9) The Romans adopted greek thinking, but not greek rhetoric since they thought it full of what we would consider to day ‘weasel words’ and so they favored ‘plain speech’. So they adopted stoic natural law as their inspiration, not greek politicized speech. Moving man closer to empiricism.

    10) There are only three ways of coercing man, and we evolved all three of them: religious inclusion or exclusion, legal punishment and liberty, credit consumption or deprivation. We can control people through religion, law, and credit. Religion is a loose method of control, law a precise but limited, and credit an individualistic method of control. But each also has different cost structure. Religion is cheap, law requires a tax structure to finance it, and credit requires elaborate institutions and high trust between credit issuers. The same is true for education: literacy is expensive, numbers more so, law more so, and philosophy even more so. So the combination of resisting the germanic migrations, the exhaustion of the slave economy, the Justinian plague, the loss of the north african grains to the muslims, and centuries of raiding against the mediterranean, the Agaean/Mediterranian civilization could not compete any more than the prior dark age could compete against the sea peoples who are most likely a migrating wave of our ancestors. So the church was able to govern, but only by imposing christianity by force, closing the stoic and greek schools, and allowing the empire to devolve into thousands of regional manors each defending what it could, with its own resources. Religion is cheap if imprecise government. The church ruled with literacy, and diplomacy, and superstition, where rome had ruled with religious liberty, law, and credit.

    11) The Europeans try to resurrect Roman law once they rediscovered it. The Templars come along and develop the first system of international credit but the Pope, knowing his brother was deeply in debt to the Templars, framed them in the hope of rescuing his brother from the debt, and possibly claiming the Templar holdings for the church. However, the Pope didn’t understand banking: money is always at work or it is useless and he destroyed the Templars and banking, leaving the Jews – who unlike the Templars – were weak, to fill the void in the market for credit. But as we know now, there was no gold not working in Templar hands.

    12) About the same time two things occur: the British lawyer Bacon, arrived with his invention of empiricism – a novel invention over Aristotelian near-science. And the formation of the Hanseatic civilization we refer to by many names (Germanic, Protestant, Northern European), but was caused by the adoption by the Frisians of bipartite manorialism, which was the most eugenic economic system in the history of man. This spread throughout northern Europe, starting in about 700, and by 1200 had changed the genetics culture, and economy of what we think of as northern Europe. The Hansa bridged the mediterranean trade overland, and by sea, and the north sea then replaced the Aegean/mediterranean economy as the dominant economic force in Europe until the colonies were discovered, and like the alliance between Sparta(Germany), Athens (Britain) and Rome(America) the atlantic became the mediterranean of the ancient world. And the balance of power shifted from the Hansa to the west, while than Hansa continued to spread German genes, culture, and economy to the east. Each carrying with them the ancient aryan tradition of contractualism we think of as the tales of George Washington’s honesty here in America. A character more underrated in history than nearly any man but Bacon.

    13) When Jefferson put pen to paper he did not know that he almost succeeded in developing strictly constructed law from the first principle of the natural law of contractualism. Had he, we would have seen the birth of scientific government: natural, judge discovered, strictly constructed, operationally testable, common law. Had he done so the Enlightenment might have been completed. Not having done so we had to endure the French, Russian, German, and Cosmopolitan enlightenments, and like waves of disasters each caused catastrophic damage to the west. English empiricism was correct, but the theory of man as an oppressed potential aristocracy of everyone was false. French moralism was incorrect and merely an excuse to replace one set of rulers with another, creating the terrors, and ending France’s contribution to western civilization. The German reaction to Napolean destroyed the heart of Europe by unifying princedoms that preserved our martial and oath traditions. The cosmopolitan Enlightenment was terrified by the Darwinian an capitalist revolutions, and created the pseudosciences of Boazian anthropology, marxist economics and sociology, and freudian psychology, and Frankfurtian cultural critique – even Cantorian mathematical platonism. The Russian took the french and the german and the cosmopolitan (Jews) and created the horrors of bolshevism, trotskyism, and the soviets, and ended the Russian Enlightenment which prior, had been literary and orthodox, and made it pseudoscientific. This movement, threatened in europe moved to New York and was funded by Columbia University, resulting the adoption of these pseudosciences by the academy newly willing to sell them to new underclasses finally having access to education. Not knowing they were being taught the same deceitful resistance movement to aristocracy and truth using pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and fabricated history and cultural criticism that their ancestors had been taught as ‘religion’.

    14) At the beginning of the last century a gruop of thinkers understood that the world was being converted to a pseudoscientific religion of rebellion against the truth, to replace the prior era’s conversion to mysticism as a rebellion against the truth. These men unfortunately did not come to any consensus on how to solve the problem of the new mysticism masquerading as pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and mathematical platonism, Poincare raised the battle flag, then Mises in economics, Hayek in law, Popper in philosophy,

    WHAT MADE US THE WEST, SO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST?

    What made the west the west originated on the steppe, north and east of the black sea, where sometime after the great deluge, a group of people developed a purely empirical mind, absent the dreams and fantasies of the later ages. Throughout our history, a young man took an oath upon his maturity: “I shall not lie, or steal, or strike me dead.” This phrase in a thousand promises, a thousand oaths echoes through our history in every era.

    And this ‘testimony’ this ‘oath’ is the secret of the west: by the combination of oath, sacrifice (battle), truthful (empirical) testimony, jury of peers, an independent judiciary, the sacredness of that oath as the basis for natural, judge-discovered, common law, a people small in number, against much greater numbers, and much greater wealth will innovate, and adapt to change FASTER if not first, than all other civilizations known to man. We are not always first, but where we are not first we are fastest. Because of the oath. This is why we are the origin of more art and science than all civlization in history combined, despite our youth, and small numbers.

    Churches matter in every civilization. In any group of people. Rituals are required. Ceremonies, feasts, and celebrations. We must find some way to recreate the safety of the small tribe. To keep us one somehow. To invoke the pack response we call spiritualism (submission to the pack). To create bonds with those whom outside of church we may even compete with. But it matters little what occurs in those churches other than that we come together to submit to one another, develop and preserve kinship love for one another – despite our lack of kinship.

    Our church did some valuable things: (a) attempted to maintain some semblance of order as the empire collapsed (b) attempted to preserve knowledge as ignorance expanded (c) forbid cousin marriage (in an effort to break up the lands of the great families so that they could be purchased more cheaply by the church), (d) managed what little resistance to the expansion of islam (e), and created an educated and literate cult of administration over the territories despite teaching nonsense to people, failing to educate them, and leaving them in darkness for nearly a thousand years.

    But given that the church mythology was constructed from a combination of those same ancient myths, not the least of which was Mithraism of the soldiery, there is very little within the church’s teachings that did not exist prior to it. And there is much if not more bad done by the the church as good. And the pope’s current campaign in favor of the third world at the expense of the first, is just the most recent example of preserving the institution instead of reforming it.

    We no longer need governance by religion, only ritual, festival, ceremony and perhaps education. We do need governance by law. And the whole world is rebelling despite its incomprehension of cause, against governance by credit which favors a few at the expense of the many, no longer serves the family, tribe, and nation, and is no longer eugenic, but dysgenic on a scale we have never seen before in human history – a price future generations will pay for as much as the dark ages did, because as the marginal differences in knowledge and production are eradicated by global trade and communication, the favelas and slums will be unable to change, because there is no method of using incentives voluntarily organizing production of large numbers of underclasses with the productive capacity of any upper and middle class. The third world will no longer starve, but it will remain poor. There are many kinds of dark ages. And we are just as likely to enter one as exit the current stagnation.

    There is plenty in our history to worship, to celebrate, to feast over, to ritualize, and to ceremonialize. We can Love Jesus truthfully as a philosopher, or untruthfully as a prophet. We can love our western god as a wise father, rather than feign submission to the Jewish imitation of an Egyptian one. We can pray for wisdom to not only our gods and saints, but our scientists, philosophers, artists, craftsmen, warriors, and wise men. We can celebrate life rather than fear death. We can celebrate nature rather than heaven. We can revel in our defeats of the great darknesses of time, ignorance, poverty, disease and suffering. We can learn our great history of truth telling, and honor, the skills of parenting, the skills of life, the skills of civic duty – and our skills of war.

    Because that would be telling the truth to one another.

    And that’s what it means to be ‘western’.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 10:29:00 UTC

  • ***A significant cultural problem is we see the Rational and Scientific Movement

    ***A significant cultural problem is we see the Rational and Scientific Movements in the Greek and Anglo/German worlds as increases in physical science rather than INCREASES IN TRUTH TELLING***


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 06:15:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a v

    Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a viz the accomplishments of the ancient Greek civilization?”

    The Aegean vs The North Sea

    Reason vs Empiricism

    Slave-hold Manors vs Manorialism

    Athens/Sparta vs England/Germany

    Rome vs the United States

    Bronze vs steel

    Trireme vs warship

    In other words, there isnt any difference.

    Athens and sparta exahusted each other leaving rome like england and germany exhausted each other leaving america.

    The question is whether we spend another thousand years trying to restore our civilization, or we do it today.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 02:49:00 UTC

  • WESTERN TRUTH VS THE LIE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION (important piece) (synthesizing)

    WESTERN TRUTH VS THE LIE OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

    (important piece) (synthesizing) (readable)

    —“Constructionism involves the creation of a product to show learning. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, as well as tables, chairs and atoms are socially constructed. Kant, Garns, and Marx were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of the power of ideas to inform the material realities of people’s lives.”—

    1) To act successfully one must act correspondingly (truth).

    2) We discover correspondence: Personally, Socially, Contractually, Legally, Scientifically, Aesthetically.

    3) We can VALUE those discoveries more, or less, as they assist or impede our group evolutionary strategy.

    4) We can construct norms (including myths, and falsehoods) to convey those values(truth or falsehood) we attach to our discoveries.

    5) But we will pay the cost of any values that we attach to discoveries,

    Race, sexuality, gender, chairs, tables, and atoms may or may not be socially discovered. They are absolutely socially valued.

    But they correspond to reality.

    Because reality does not care about our values.

    And those that value falsely pay the cost, and those that value truthfully, reap the reward.

    Truth determines velocity of everything in a culture. Not only the economy, and therefore our wealth, but the velocity of our evolution, and even our ability to survive in competition with other societies.

    The best way to harm a people is to teach them to value a falsehood. You poison the mind, which poisons other minds. You leave the body alive, but kill the civilization.

    The only reason social construction is available is because a new technology for information distribution has become available, and the discovery of a means of correcting the falsehood faster than it spreads is impossible.

    Whether it be the oral tradition and travel in prehistory, writing and pulpit and roads in the ancient world, or printing and shipping in the modern, or media and propaganda in the present, the cost of deception is always higher than the cost of falsehood.

    Ergo we must develop institutions that correct falsehoods over time, and bear the intertemporal cost of the damage done by those falsehoods.

    Thankfully the west has the most responsive technology for defeating lies and deceits and propaganda: natural, judge-discovered, common law, with universal standing and universal application. The first successful suit creates the prohibition against falsehoods (frauds).

    We merely must defend the informational commons by requiring a warranty of due diligence against informational harm, as we do with every other kind of harm.

    What prevented us from institutionalizing the requirement for truthful speech in the commons was a failure to understand how to test for truthfulness.

    Now that we have this test, we can enforce an involuntary warranty of due diligence against any speech placed into the commons.

    And while it may take some skill to test, just as grammar and meaning take some skill to test, and while it may take some greater explanation to employ these tests, they are not altogether that difficult if we restore grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and merely add operational language (e-prime) to that list.

    If we can teach mathematics which is not intuitive, we can teach grammar, logic, rhetoric, and operational language, which is. These are the two languages with which we describe the world: the mathematical for the inanimate non-sentient and physical, and the operational for the animate, sentient, and intellectual.

    The tests of due diligence for the warranty of truthfulness are:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity and non-conflation)

    2 – internal consistency (logical and non-contradictory)

    3 – external consistency (external correspondence)

    4 – operational consistency ( existential possibility)

    5 – moral consistency ( voluntary possibility )

    6 – scope consistency (limits, full accounting, and parsimony)

    If we test any utterance against these six criteria, then it is almost impossible to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit, without intentionally engaging in deceit.

    And just as reason in the ancient world’s greek civilization raised man out of ignorance, and British science in the modern world rescued us from mysticism, poverty and disease, truthfulness in the present world will have as great an effect on mankind – both disruptively, and beneficially.

    We are the men of the west. Truth is both our most powerful weapon in defeat of the dark forces of time, ignorance, and deceit, and our most powerful technology of Transcendence.

    With truth we shall become the gods we seek.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 02:36:00 UTC

  • To restore liberty to its origins as social science, I must falsify the competin

    To restore liberty to its origins as social science, I must falsify the competing fallacies. The Jewish model always fails. Our model wins.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 13:38:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766992876710473728

  • ***Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. An

    ***Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict.***

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 05:06:00 UTC

  • THE NEW RIGHT: ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM (text version) (important) (positive

    THE NEW RIGHT: ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM

    (text version) (important) (positive positioning)

    [It’s what we do. Own it.]

    Let me stay on message: As a philosopher, I manufacture intellectual weaponry in the war against lies. And I strive to speak truthfully about the causes of the decline of western civilization, and how to repair them permanently. An effort that requires I surface and expose many of the competing enlightenment fallacies, liars, ad lies, that we, from each cultural tradition, hold dear. And this falsification, I admit, I perform prosecutorially, because I believe this is a war not just for western civilization, but for the vast benefits that western civilization has delivered to mankind – often over most of mankind’s passionate objections.

    But make no mistake that I remain an Aristocratic Egalitarian, a Classical Liberal, and therefore a Libertarian, an ‘Operationalist’ or ‘strict constructionist’ and a universal Nationalist. Where Aristocratic Egalitarian means the natural aristocracy struggles to prevent rule by anyone other than the natural, common, judge-discovered law. Classical Liberal Dissenter means the use of houses of government to construct a market for exchanges in pursuit of mutually beneficial competitive commons, and that we need not agree for groups to construct a commons, only fail to find lawful reason to prevent it. Libertarian means rule of law, using natural, judge-discovered, common law, and voluntary association, disassociation, voluntary cooperation, non-cooperation, via voluntary exchange. Operationalist means that all contract, regulation, legislation, and judge discovered law, must be written in strictly constructed, operational language, operationally articulated from first principles of non-imposition of costs. Universal Nationalist means that I acknowledge that the traditions, institutions, laws, norms, family structures, and policies, required by different tribal groups differ to the extent that we are all better off, happier, and in less conflict, if our governments create commons for the needs of our tribes, rather than to attempt to justify a common good that can only, in the end, seek to make everyone equally unsatisfied.

    At some point in the past, scale was of such military importance, and the investment necessary to raise people out of illiteracy and poverty, that the benefits of large states were greater than the disadvantages of them. But in the current era, where men with small arms, and a small number of nuclear weapons makes conquest of neighboring states all but impossible, and the cost of corruption in large governments, and the dissatisfaction of increasingly different peoples, whose desires have been let loose by adoption of consumer capitalism, and who struggle to achieve them are constrained by large social and political orders, designed to assist in the transition to modernity, not produce local excellences for local differences.

    Let a thousand nations with a thousand variations bloom. We are not equal. And our attempts to obtain equality merely convert our potential market compatibility into certain political conflict.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-19 04:55:00 UTC