Theme: Coercion

  • OUR LAW – THE ONLY LAW WE NEED. Natural Law is our ‘Bible’. The law beyond which

    OUR LAW – THE ONLY LAW WE NEED.

    Natural Law is our ‘Bible’. The law beyond which no man may tread. The law beyond which our violence is no longer bound by reciprocity.

    Natural Law is the answer to the lies of the lies of the mystics and the abrahamists and all their descendants: the jews, the christians, the muslims, the marxists, socialists, postmodernists, progressives, feminists: the people who lie, cheat, and steal.

    These people lie. They must. There is only one law, and the universe is written in it: the laws of the universe, the laws of nature: natural law, the laws of testimony, and the laws of sentience.

    There is only one means of transcendence: the mastery of the laws of the universe, the laws of nature: natural law, the laws of testimony:truthfulness, the laws of sentience.

    To deny these laws is to deny man transcendence.

    To deny man transcendence is a crime against all men who have come before us, and all men who have yet to be.

    And, until we know that we are not first, and not alone in this universe, it is a crime against the universe, and the gods that may or may not be.

    We are unbound by all constraints other than Natural Law, and, we must, if we are to transcend, rid our lives, our nations, this earth, and the universe, of those who would violate that law.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Law of Nature: Natural Law


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 11:29:00 UTC

  • MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT 1) You don’t argue with ‘liberal

    MAKE PARASITISM UNPROFITABLE THROUGH PUNISHMENT

    1) You don’t argue with ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’, socialists, and feminists.

    2) You prosecute them. You point out that they’re liars, parasites, thieves.

    3) Then you beat them, deprive them of property, enslave them if you must, and kill them if necessary.

    When parasitism is unprofitable it will stop.

    As long as parasitism is profitable it will continue.

    So:

    Hit, hurt, beat, deprive, enslave, kill. We are men. We defend capital. We defend capital against all enemies familial, domestic, and foreign.

    Every man militia, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a hangman.

    There is only one source of truth, prosperity, sovereignty, and the conditions of liberty and freedom and subsidy:

    The reciprocal insurance of natural law by ENOUGH men willing and able, to make alternatives too costly to pursue.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 11:05:00 UTC

  • A MILITIA IS THE ANSWER. THE MILITIA IS THE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY —“But how is

    A MILITIA IS THE ANSWER. THE MILITIA IS THE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY

    —“But how is sovereignty produced? What are the necessary substrates (material) and predicaments (relations and incentives) for the emergence and sustainable continuation of sovereignty?”—Simon Ström‎

    A condition of sovereignty, is produced by the *incentives* to produce sovereignty, which consist of a large number of men, in a militia, none of which produce or possess sufficient wealth to coerce others into the coercion of others; living in an environment where there are no capital assets of sufficient value with which to make possible sufficient wealth to coerce others into coercing others. Sovereignty is produced by a significant percentage of men, who deny power to any man or men, for any reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 10:44:00 UTC

  • “Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental su

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”—

    Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’.

    Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed.

    Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice.

    The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law.

    I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time.

    And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation.

    Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult.

    I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural.

    What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information.

    Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance.

    Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization.

    So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved.

    It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality.

    And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do.

    Which is what we have done.

    IN CLOSING

    So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for.

    I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 09:11:00 UTC

  • Violence is the only voice that cannot be silenced

    Violence is the only voice that cannot be silenced.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 06:33:00 UTC

  • The Steppe Way of War is Superior

    The steppe way of war practiced by our earliest ancestors, and practiced by muslims today, is superior to the interregnum method of war, relying upon a concentration of forces. That means: RAIDS. Conduct of many small raids costs little but creates great uncertainty and costs the host thousansd of times as much in defense. In our past, we could retreat via horse, retreat to our forests, and the muslims could retreat to the deserts, or today retreat into slums and favelas. The value of armies is looting. The value of raiders is in imposing costs. One can, as has ISIS, graduate from raiding to looting, to decimating. But this destroys capital, and ensures your eventual defeat if you attempt to hold an economy and profit from it.

  • The Steppe Way of War is Superior

    The steppe way of war practiced by our earliest ancestors, and practiced by muslims today, is superior to the interregnum method of war, relying upon a concentration of forces. That means: RAIDS. Conduct of many small raids costs little but creates great uncertainty and costs the host thousansd of times as much in defense. In our past, we could retreat via horse, retreat to our forests, and the muslims could retreat to the deserts, or today retreat into slums and favelas. The value of armies is looting. The value of raiders is in imposing costs. One can, as has ISIS, graduate from raiding to looting, to decimating. But this destroys capital, and ensures your eventual defeat if you attempt to hold an economy and profit from it.

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • The Information Content of Violence

    by Eli Harman It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum. Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off. But this is not correct. In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum. And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.” And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence. (In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.) Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes. No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict. Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.