RT @MartianHoplite: Rome and Baghdad have never recovered. The liberal western cities never will. The provinces are our only hope. https://…
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 13:54:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775694117942755328
https://twitter.com/MartianHoplite/status/775370399563517956/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=775694117942755328Retweeted Eli Harman (@MartianHoplite):
Rome and Baghdad have never recovered. The liberal western cities never will. The provinces are our only hope. https://t.co/va2Yj2KAew
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 09:55:00 UTC
TO ALL ON “THE OLD VS NEW MOLYNEUX”
Stephan ( and all of us ) are moving to the right for the simple reason that the libertarian assertion that the nature of man is identical to the libertarian personality and our moral bias merely yearning to be free, is as false as is the progressive assertion that the nature of humans is altruistic (maternal).
Like almost all in social science, it turns out that despite a century and a half of pseudoscience, the evidence is in: that man is rational and chooses between moral or immoral because of the incentives at the time. The conservatives were right. Man is merely rational/
So conservatives work to limit incentives to the productive, and prohibit the unproductive. Immigration was just the last straw. But for the past sixty years the central issue has been whether the individual(progressive and libertine) or family (conservative) should be the central object of policy. And the jury is in: while law must be designed for the individual actor, policy must be designed for longer time preference: the family, tribe, and nation.
When the industrial revolution hit us, the great wealth that was created, inspired us to the falsehood that we had transcended our limits and the limits of nature. But we had only moved the window of possibility to cover larger populations. That does not mean that there are no limits to production and consumption.
THE CONSERVATIVE (ARISTOCRATIC) MODEL: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING
– A market for goods and services (the Market)
– A market for reproduction (Marriage)
– A market for enfranchisement (Defense and Emergency)
– A market for commons (one house of government per class conducting exchanges)
– A market for polities (competing small states and voluntary exit)
In other words, there are no free rides – especially on the cost of creating the norms and institutions that we call property rights that can exist only when insured by reciprocal defense. The market was not natural in any sense – the evidence is that the market was constructed by the suppression of violence. Accelerated by the suppression of fraud. And now requires the suppression of falsehood, so that we can suppress the government itself: conspiracy.
Sorry, but the world is moving right. For good reason. Anything else is suicidal to family, tribe, nation, and race. The cosmopolitan era has ended. Its pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-moralism, and conflationary argument is over. Libertinism ended along with neoconservatism and socialism. The experiment failed. We are unequal. We are competitors. We compete through cooperating because it is the least-bad form of competition that produces the most beneficial externalities. And only markets in everything make a condition of liberty possible.
Hayek was right. Liberty is the condition produced by the rigid identification and enforcement of natural, judge discovered, common law that evolves to prevent and resolve conflict and retaliation spirals so that we may maintain the disproportionate value of cooperating on production, despite the constant incentive to engage in murder, violence, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy, rent seeking, monopoly seeking, statism, conversion-religion-disinformation, displacement-immigration, colonialism-conquest and war.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
PS: MORAL BIASES
Moral overweigthing: Masculinism (islam)
Moral balance: conservative bias (paterna/eugenicl)
Moral bias: libertarian (brother/partner/ally)
Moral blindness: progressive (maternal)
Moral antagonist: Socialist, feminist, postmodernist, Libertine, Neocon – the weaponization of maternalism under democracy. (judaism)
Just how it is. Conservatives are right.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 06:28:00 UTC
Chauvanism is in waxing worldwide.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 20:15:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773978085041512448
Reply addressees: @crim_thought @unusr1 @ChateauEmissary
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773957985554927616
IN REPLY TO:
@crim_thought
@unusr1 @ChateauEmissary @curtdoolittle 1488, stormfront lurkers,fash the nation viewers etc… before 2015 that’s what I mean by Nazis.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773957985554927616
The future is retrenchment because meritocracy serves only the west.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 18:36:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773953106749034500
Reply addressees: @Anti_Gnostic @Mangan150 @ChateauEmissary @lewrockwell @ThomasEWoods
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476
Change the movement or die. I’ve been on that message for three years.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 18:32:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773952220798808068
Reply addressees: @Anti_Gnostic @Mangan150 @ChateauEmissary @lewrockwell @ThomasEWoods
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476
(a) failure of RP. (b) trilateral loss of hope (c) conservative shift.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 18:32:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773952111428136960
Reply addressees: @Anti_Gnostic @Mangan150 @ChateauEmissary @lewrockwell @ThomasEWoods
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476
I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian universalism masquerading as democratic consumer capitalism, advanced under east coast puritanism, jeffersonian conservatism, jewish neoconservatism, jewish libertarianis, jewish socialism. And that we are returning to ‘what works for my people’ world wide. The jews are doing fine by way of white armies. 🙂 Just as whites have done fine by way of underclass armies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 07:22:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Td-7bl9jp8THE ANSWER TO ARAB VIOLENCE – IN ALL IT’S UNPLEASANT TRUTH
HOW DO YOU REDUCE CONFLICT IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD?
1) City States (markets for cooperation)
2) Forced Reformation
3) Segregation
PROBLEMS
1) Evolutionary Bias (Genetic) favoring clannishness (yes)
2) Reproductive practices that exacerbate clannishness and lower intelligence. (cousin marriage)
3) A religion (Islam) that exacerbates the genetic bias, lower intelligence, by persisting ignorance, persisting tolerance for emotionalism and ignorance. Resulting in the inability to produce an intellectual class.
4) The dependence for masculine status on destructive rather than constructive status signals. Resulting in the inability to form high trust organizations required for the production of complex institutions, norms, services, and products.
5) Resulting inability to form a middle class, managerial class, executive class.
6) Flight of the professional class.
THE RESULT?
Persistent intellectual primitivism, organizational primitivism, technological primitivism, and biological primitivism.
THE CAUSAL PROBLEM IS NOT *JUST* BORDERS
The problem that faces the Muslim world (as well as the south American, and the sub-Saharan African) is that unlike civilizations above 40 degrees north latitude, it has been nearly impossible for warm climates to limit the reproduction and conduct aggressive domestication of the underclasses.
The Islamic world is ruled by methods necessary for ruling peoples with sub-90 median intelligence, exaggerated aggression and impulsivity, and the consequential illiteracy, ignorance, unavailability of positive male status-signals, familism and tribalism. The Muslims could never form a professional bureaucracy, never form any kind of complex production, and never produce complex thought outside of the Persian consolidation of the empire’s literature, and never form complex multi-part tools or their manufacture.
AEI REMAINS A HAVEN FOR IDEOLOGICAL PURITANISM
We have had enough pseudoscience between Hobbes and Adorno. There is no philosophical substitute for the underlying cause of western history, and it’s excellence: the systematic use of the market for dispute resolution: Truth, Testimony, Jury, Natural Common Judge-Discovered Law; the combination of family manorialism, local Manorialism, regional-manorialism (Monarchy), and civilizational manorialism: the domestication of mankind by the systematic suppression of the underclasses through the use of markets for (a) Market for consumption and production, (b) market for reproduction, (c) market for enfranchisement (military service), (d) market for the production of commons (class-based houses of government), (e) and the market for rule (monarchy).
THE WEST SUCCEEDED FASTER THAN THE REST, NOT FIRST
1) because market institutions calculate optimums faster than discretionary institutions.
2) because markets and aggressive use of rule of law (hanging) cull the lower classes sufficiently to eliminate the great damage of the underclasses.
Why is that so important?Because under the voluntary organization of production (markets), (a) the people that organize social order, commons order, production order, and family order, must possess sufficient capital to cause the voluntary organization of production (b) the productivity that is created by the voluntary organization of production must supply them with that sufficient capital, and (c) the underclasses are more damaging to trust (velocity), organization, productivity, invention, than the most talented are beneficial to trust, organization, productivity, and invention. In other words, the underclasses create greater drag than the middle, upper middle, and upper classes can organize for productive ends.
WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT
The difference between the old libertarian and old conservative puritans? That we no longer hold out either (a) the belief that all men were oppressed and desire liberty in creating a utopian aristocracy of everyone – but instead that most men were forcibly domesticated by limiting reproduction and aggressive hanging of 1 in 100 people per year, and those that need further domestication resent it. (b) That majoritarian democracy was predicated on the assumption that men were oppressed and yearning to be free, rather than parasitic and yearning for rents. And that because we no longer hold hope for (a) and (b) that we seek return to the eugenic market order that allowed western man to drag humanity out of ignorance, poverty, mysticism, and disease in both the ancient greco-roman, and the modern anglo-german.
“Markets in everything” It is the New Right that seeks markets in everything. It’s the old right that destroyed them through utopian optimism in the fight against the recidivism of the dysgenic left.
Time To Speak The Truth at AEI
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-07 01:55:00 UTC
This is an exceptionally good series because you bring into focus the shared challenge throughout each generation: their ongoing attempt to solve the problem of modernity: morality at our new industrial scale, (just as the great transformation in the 5th century bc was created by the scale of our cities and the markets they created between them.
Most of these men are demonized by one politically evangelical side or the other despite their various attempts to solve the same problem. It’s especially helpful that you touch on the … exaggerated focus of each of these thinkers, as ‘the one way’ to solve the problem. “If we just got everyone to believe this…” is a pretty obvious attempt to replace christianity with a new value system equally homogenous.
What isn’t obvious is that each proposes (like monotheistic religion before them) a MONOPOLY solution to the problem rather than tailoring the social order to the abilities of each class – given that the challenge of modernity is the increasing value provided by our ability to learn, rather than our ability to labor or escape labor.
I think this is the question that we beg but are collectively afraid to answer because it will eliminate the necessary democratic illusion of equality, that replaced the necessary monopoly illusion of monotheism.
The one persona I feel you are missing is perhaps Thorstein Veblen. Your addition of Ruskin’s aesthetics is … delightful – I wouldn’t have thought to add him. You’ve elegantly illustrated that these are all collectively moral men attempting to preserve monotheistic cultural homogeneity in new institutional form.
But now that you illustrated the similarities in ambition, it might be just as informative and helpful to illustrate the dissimilarities advocated by the outliers: Marx/Keynes/Rawls(lower/left classes) on one end, Locke/Smith/Hayek(middle/libertarian class) in the center, and Nietzche/Darwin/Spencer on the other(upper/right classes).
It might be interesting to compare the moral approach you’ve taken, with the three competing class propositions that would illustrate the conflict between classes more clearly.
My position is that we are always just choosing between dysgenic, compromise, and eugenic reproduction. And that the rest of our pontification regardless of position is all justification of those priors.
Anyway. I’m just offering thoughts as a way of appreciating your work.
Thank you.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 06:14:00 UTC