Theme: Class

  • THE CLASS DIVISIONS OF ACADEMIC LABOR —“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more aca

    THE CLASS DIVISIONS OF ACADEMIC LABOR

    —“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more academic publications that these universities’ economics departments. Two things i don’t like in this trend. 1) Academia persuaded university authorities that to business PhD and MBA math-economics is indispensable. Applied programs people hate this “rigorous” nonsense 2) Too many graduates from mainstream go to teach in business schools.”— Arteom Korotchenya

    Procedural Application (private business and public govt) vs Application(repeatability) vs Basic Research(discovery).

    Three different things. Very few basic research papers of merit in any given year. Many, many applications tested each year, each expanding or reducing empirical content and thereby increasing or decreasing candidacy in law.

    All organizations, intellectual included, operate by class structures, roughly segmented by every ten points of IQ +/- 1/2 St.Dev. And it is the cooperation between these classes that produces the difference between imagination, hypothesis, theory, and law. Those at the bottom test theories tested by application to data and hypothesized by basic research.

    Together we take a restructuring of human understanding, through various tests, until habituated by use, and assumed metaphysically as a natural property of existence.

    So think of the hierarchy as a production cycle, and work within your class, and don’t worry about what other classes do. They CAN only work with the conceptual tools that we give them. And very few of us struggle amidst ridiculous odds to find some innovation that can work its way through that production cycle and end up in our unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality and how we can act to benefit from it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 05:11:00 UTC

  • DOESN”T EVERYONE TRY TO LIE CHEAT AND STEAL? Is libertarianism merely an attempt

    DOESN”T EVERYONE TRY TO LIE CHEAT AND STEAL?

    Is libertarianism merely an attempt by the middle class to obtain status and power parity with the judicial-military upper class, without paying the (dear) costs to the relationship to their customers and market that truth, judgment, policing, and warfare entail?

    Isn’t Jewish libertinism an attempt not only to escape those costs, but the costs of producing the commons AS WELL?

    Isn’t it necessary for commissions (dividends) from the market produced by the judicial-military imposition of order, just compensation for the high cost to their lives, livelihoods, relationships and families?

    Isn’t feminism and socialism just an attempt to circumvent the exchange of sex, care, and servitude for the results of the production of order, the production of goods and services, and the production of generations by the family?

    Aristocracy (martial/judicial – limits )

    Priestly (public intellectual – advocacy)

    Burgher (organization of production distribution and trade)

    Labor (production of goods and services)

    Family (production of generations)

    Underclass (those who cannot contribute but just cost)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 05:24:00 UTC

  • “Think of the Alt-right as the anti-SJW class. They intentionally adopted the le

    –“Think of the Alt-right as the anti-SJW class. They intentionally adopted the left’s tactics and are using them in retaliation. It’s not an accident. They do it on purpose. The most frightening for the left, is that the alt-right is better at it than they are.”

    —-Baron VonBlakington


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 12:09:00 UTC

  • I NEED HELP WITH THIS TODAY PLEASE (Can you all please help me flesh this out a

    I NEED HELP WITH THIS TODAY PLEASE

    (Can you all please help me flesh this out a bit? The table at the bottom?)

    THE EMERGING NEW RIGHT MOVEMENT

    ———————————————————————–

    CENTRAL ARGUMENTS

    ———————————-

    1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe.

    2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits.

    Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations.

    But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense).

    This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society.

    So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm.

    3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare..

    That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically.

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT?

    It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west.

    We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit.

    We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force.

    The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers).

    And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization….

    … or we will break it all to pieces.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    THE CLASSES

    ——————–

    ARISTOCRATIC RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy)

    Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism,

    (left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.)

    UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis)

    (the slowly converting anglo libertarians)

    Stefan Molyneux

    Tom Woods

    (left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers)

    MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis)

    (Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx)

    Ramsey Paul

    LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right)

    Christopher Cantwell

    (Left Equivalent social justice warriors)

    WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers)

    The inequalitarians

    The racists

    The Fashy Militants

    (left equivalent = anarchists)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 07:06:00 UTC

  • 1) The old republican party:evangelicals 2) The democratic party:anarchists (vio

    1) The old republican party:evangelicals
    2) The democratic party:anarchists (violence)
    3) The new republican party:disenfranchised males


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:46:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768323451178344448

  • BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR I get accused of bourgeoise values all the tim

    BOURGEOISE? NO – LOGISTICS OF WAR

    I get accused of bourgeoise values all the time, and I always think it’s childish, or ignorant. Generals conduct strategy and that means logistics. The last mile, for today, may depend on the character of men, but all the miles behind them, and all the yesterdays and tomorrows depend upon the logistics: production and supply lines.

    A dangerous, happy, well-fed soldiery capable of defeating an enemy is equipped and supported by a happy, produdtive, well fed, population competitively defeating in economics and intellectual means their competitors, just as the soldiers their competitors.

    I tend to think of ‘last-mile-ers’ as children: well-intentioned, passionate, but ignorant and naive.

    My own values are classical, intellectual, and perhaps a bit effete. I do not seek to win the great wars by my values. Nor by the elation of the throng. But by cool headed plans and execution of them, with discipline over many years.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:11:00 UTC

  • I SEE NO REASON TO TOLERATE BURGHER (BOURGEOISE) INTERFERENCE IN POLITICAL ORDER

    I SEE NO REASON TO TOLERATE BURGHER (BOURGEOISE) INTERFERENCE IN POLITICAL ORDERS

    Let’s compare Soros’ activism, with PPPP’s activism against Gawker.

    The courts can be, if we repair the constitution, a method by which the wealthy can police what the politicians choose not to. This is a good. We have juridical defense in these cases.

    But why can we not sue Soros for corruption by circumventing the courts, where we have juridical defense?

    The moment we let the state determine law rahter than terms of contract we surrender to state corruption, and the corruptibility of the state.

    So far, in the west, we have, at least until the past few generations, been able to preserve the rule of law as sacred natural order beyond which no man may transgress.

    This is our defense. Not politicians. They are corrupt to the last – because they must be.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:03:00 UTC

  • 1) The old republican party:evangelicals 2) The democratic party:anarchists (vio

    1) The old republican party:evangelicals

    2) The democratic party:anarchists (violence)

    3) The new republican party:disenfranchised males


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 01:46:00 UTC

  • 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