Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • MASTERCARD AND BITCOIN Hierarchy of business is Amex->Visa->MC->Check-Cashing bu

    MASTERCARD AND BITCOIN

    Hierarchy of business is Amex->Visa->MC->Check-Cashing businesses. With MC having all the ‘low rent’ customers, and check cashing services having the … lowest.

    Now, why not build a MC ‘wallet’ and charge simple transaction costs for BTC’s – just for the convenience of processing the transactions?

    Because they assume that it would eat into their business. But if you thought like a check cashing company you’d understand that people evolve through the credit cycle. And that today’s payday loan and check cashing customer is tomorrow’s credit customer. in fact, this is the optimum business model for them.

    BTC transactions are zero risk for the vendor. It’s merely a transaction processing cost. That transaction processing can still be a profitable ADDITION to the existing business (i’d carry a MC product if it handled BTC). And by and large, people will buy btc with credit.

    I’d like to see people paid in BTC at the low wage end, so that the burden of the financial system is lessened for them. At present it’s an absurd burden – and it’s a trap for them as well, that they cannot easily get out of.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-19 11:32:00 UTC

  • RENT SEEKING AND JAPAN (now, I’m all in favor of rent seeking in an extended fam

    RENT SEEKING AND JAPAN

    (now, I’m all in favor of rent seeking in an extended family – that’s a choice. but I”m not in favor of rents on my family by competing families.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 08:45:00 UTC

  • CASE FOR LANDED ARISTOCRACY. An easy case to make

    http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/english-aristocracyA CASE FOR LANDED ARISTOCRACY.

    An easy case to make.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 16:33:00 UTC

  • THE FOUR LIBERTARIAN FRAMEWORKS (in order) (political particularism) (natural ar

    THE FOUR LIBERTARIAN FRAMEWORKS

    (in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound)

    1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism.

    2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism.

    3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism

    4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism.

    BAGGAGE: METHODOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

    We all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological.

    One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy.

    In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage.

    METHOD VS CONTENT

    1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments.

    2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism.

    3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments

    3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members.

    THE GOAL OF PROPAGATION

    Ratio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that.

    Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail.

    The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists.

    ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM: RELIGIO-MORAL NARRATIVES + RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS.

    The problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost.

    Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite.

    The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others.

    Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay.

    That is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill.

    As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms.

    Liberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us.

    But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists.

    The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom.

    Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 08:29:00 UTC

  • THE REVOLT AGAINST THE MASSES –“The neo-Malthusianism that emerged from the 196

    THE REVOLT AGAINST THE MASSES

    –“The neo-Malthusianism that emerged from the 1960s did not aim to control the breeding habits of the lower classes, as its eugenicist precursors had done, but to mock and restrain the buying habits of the middle class.”–

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Revolt-Against-Masses-Liberalism/dp/1594036985/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-02 20:54:00 UTC

  • FAREWELL TO ALMS – PROSPERITY FOR ALL REQUIRES THE SUPPRESSION OF THE BREEDING O

    http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton-ebook/dp/B001EQ4OLA/ref=la_B001I9OM4W_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393721299&sr=1-2A FAREWELL TO ALMS – PROSPERITY FOR ALL REQUIRES THE SUPPRESSION OF THE BREEDING OF THE UNDERCLASSES.

    As the germans keep demonstrating, the quality of your human capital determines your quality of life. Period. End. Of. Story.

    We are not equal. And increasingly, the bottom is dead weight on mankind, and the planet.

    Deal with it.

    Progressivism is suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 19:58:00 UTC

  • SOCIAL STATUS IS AS HERITABLE AS ANY BIOLOGICAL TRAIT (because our social status

    SOCIAL STATUS IS AS HERITABLE AS ANY BIOLOGICAL TRAIT

    (because our social status is a reflection of our biological properties.)

    —“…overall social mobility rates are much lower than those typically estimated by sociologists or economists. The intergenerational correlation in all the societies for which we construct surname estimates — medieval England, modern England, the United States, India, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Chile, and even egalitarian Sweden — is between 0.7 and 0.9, much higher than conventionally estimated. Social status is inherited as strongly as any biological trait, such as height.” — Gregory Clark, _The Son Also Rises_

    SORRY LIB’S IT’S ALL GENES

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 19:41:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF SUPERIORITY “….the Nietzschean argument [is] that the act of dem

    THE VIRTUE OF SUPERIORITY

    “….the Nietzschean argument [is] that the act of demanding recognition and achieving self-worth may be inherently aristocratic and inegalitarian insofar as this demand is driven by a high emotional desire to be recognized as a superior rather than as an equal. “

    (The fear of being left behind.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 13:28:00 UTC

  • Which Situation Is More Likely To Lead To Progressive Outcomes: A Republican Party That Continues To Support Extreme Candidates & Positions, Or One That Is More Mainstream And Thus Successful, But Also Open To Compromise?

    In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

    We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

    As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

    So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

    1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

    2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

    3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

    All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

    1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

    2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

    So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

    Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

    So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

    If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

    So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise

  • Which Situation Is More Likely To Lead To Progressive Outcomes: A Republican Party That Continues To Support Extreme Candidates & Positions, Or One That Is More Mainstream And Thus Successful, But Also Open To Compromise?

    In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

    We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

    As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

    So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

    1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

    2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

    3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

    All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

    1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

    2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

    So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

    Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

    So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

    If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

    So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise