Theme: Deception

  • THEY, AND WE SPECIALIZE… SCORPIONS ALL Women specialize in gossip and wishful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_FrogWOMEN, THEY, AND WE SPECIALIZE… SCORPIONS ALL

    Women specialize in gossip and wishful thinking. If they did not they would abandon their stupid, ugly, ill-behaved children, and destined for outcast status, in the wood, rather than lie to themselves daily that they’re intelligent, cute, misunderstood, and destined for success.

    “They” industrialized gossip and lying to entrap others in wishful thinking. If they did not, they would have been exterminated long ago.

    We specialize in truth telling, finance, law, engineering, science. If we did not we would not have dragged ourselves and man out of ignorance, poverty, and disease.

    Do you think that Women, “They”, or We, have a choice in our specializations? Or do we follow the whispers of our genes?

    I do not hate the scorpion for stinging the frog. I understand that the frog is a fool for expecting the scorpion to act other than his nature.

    But we have committed a greater folly than the foolhardiness of the frog: we have committed the sins of arrogance and laziness.

    We assumed that we could use and domesticate the scorpion and that we were strong enough corral, contain, and armor ourselves against it.

    We were wrong.

    There is no end to the suppression of parasitism. Innovation does not constrain itself tot he good. We must be ever vigilant against parasitism by the persistent application of natural law, in manners, ethics, morals, law, institutions, and war.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 06:45:00 UTC

  • DID THE MARXIST/SOCIALIST-LIBERTARIAN-NEOCONS GIVE US THE INCENTIVE TO FINALLY O

    DID THE MARXIST/SOCIALIST-LIBERTARIAN-NEOCONS GIVE US THE INCENTIVE TO FINALLY OVERCOME OUR HUMILITY?

    From one perspective, the Marxist-Socialists and the Ashkenazi Pseudoscientific Enlightenment combined with protestant feminists (less attractive women), catholics (the lower classes), blacks (the underclasses) created a successful series of revolts against the productive classes (military, legal, financial, entrepreneurial, agrarian), by co-opting media(selling consumer goods to all of their constituents), education (indoctrinating generations into the false narrative), and academy(selling false narratives to new constituents in exchange for economic rewards) in a successful attempt to overthrow our aryan(eugenic) experiment in formalizing contractualism (constitutional natural law) into a new civilization.

    From another, without this crisis would we have every discovered, written down, our reasons for excellence in the ancient and modern worlds?

    Have they not given us the excuse to finally formulate, articulate, document, and institutionalize our ancient traditions as a new world order – not just for ourselves, but for all mankind?

    If the liars can create three books of lies, then why cannot the truth-speakers create a book of truths?

    If lies can be spread by the sword, why cannot truths be spread by the contemporary weaponry?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 06:14:00 UTC

  • Today’s social ills are the intentional product of the marxist socialists and th

    Today’s social ills are the intentional product of the marxist socialists and their claim that a utopia is possible, rather than the evidence that natural law in fact has made extant relative utopias in every era.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 05:59:00 UTC

  • OUR CAUSE IS TO OVERTHROW AND PREVENT THE GREAT LIES FROM EVERY HARMING MANKIND

    OUR CAUSE IS TO OVERTHROW AND PREVENT THE GREAT LIES FROM EVERY HARMING MANKIND AGAIN

    (important piece)(read it and weep)

    I had a transformative conversation just out of college with an activist lesbian, and close friend of my girlfriend, who – upon my statement that I tried to be objective and neutral in matters of politics – responded by saying that neutrality is a luxury of those who can afford it.

    I think the consequences of that conversation were subtle, but cumulative – and that the only solution to fulfillment for all, is not a monopoly of commons -universalism – but a market for commons. And that such a market for norms requires territories in which to plant, maintain, and harvest that which we desire from them – while at the same time paying the full cost of their development and maintenance rather than supporting one’s preferred norms by parasitic survival on the norms of others.

    So while universal negative commons exist: the natural law of non-imposition of costs. Universal positive commons are impossible. because the commons advances the group evolutionary strategy, and within that strategy, the life experience, of the population.

    Furthermore, just as groups of all men and all women produce exaggerated behaviors, and their own externalities, groups that favor different compositions of wants(short) and interests(long) will produce their own exaggerated behaviors, and their own externalities. And so these people are either kept in check by their wants and interests, or they will, as western man has done, discover superior means of organizing, superior wants, and superior interests, and modify their norms accordingly.

    Ergo, the more ‘diverse'(heterogenous) a single society, the less knowledge is gained, the most redistribution possible, and the most parasitism performed. While the most homogeneous a single society the more knowledge is gained, the most redistribution possible and the least parasitism performed. Because we will fund our wants and interests through redistribution but we will not fund our competitors willingly.

    We developed truth telling, sovereignty, and high trust norms, traditions, and institutions out of self-interest. And we domesticated man as a consequence. Because he was drawn to our order out of his own interest in exchange for abandoning parasitism.And where he was not drawn to his order, we out-competed him into adapting it. And where he was incompetent at adaptation we imposed it upon him by colonialism, political coercion, or outright conquest.

    And this is where we failed. Because we are not liberating man from oppression. We are suppressing his native parasitism, and domesticating him no differently than we have domesticated plants, animals, and most of the earth’s land, sea, and air.

    And this domestication is not in the interests of those who cannot compete in the production of norms, traditions, goods and services, that further extend non-parasitism in concert with our ever-expanding innovations in production, technology, market, and political orders, and the corresponding means of parasitism we also evolve along with them.

    Just as the Jews had to invent a false promise of eternal salvation in heaven in order to rebel against our ancient greco-roman ancestors who had dragged man out of ignorance and poverty with truth and contract, the descendants of these same people, in their reaction to the enlightenment, had to invent a false criticism of the west, and a false promise of utopia on earth in order to create a rebellion against our Anglo-Germanic-Italian-French ancestors, who likewise had dragged man out of ignorance and poverty upon finally defeating the curse of mysticism that

    Man must be domesticated into prosperity. He must be domesticated into national(genetic interests), contractualism(productive voluntary exchange), productivity(non-parasitism), and eugenic reproduction(non-harm) through the organized use of violence to produce normative, traditional, and formal institutions of domestication. And we must not only domesticate ourselves, but all those who would return us to barbarism through genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional means.

    We have insufficiently domesticated man and attempted to rest on the laurels of our ancestors – living in the luxury they have made for us. We have perhaps worse, insufficiently domesticated women – whose parasitism is indirect, consumptive, political, normative, and reproductive, rather than conducted by theft and violence of men. And we must next domesticate ‘those who lie’ so that never again is mankind doomed to the lies of the people who lie – because they cannot compete in innovation, production and reproduction, and so must poison the well of competition in order to succeed.

    We must bear arms and defend man, and his future, from the animals that seek to restore the order of animals. And we must make new constitutions, with new laws that treat the informational commons upon which each of us relies, and our future relies, from another cataclysmic grand suite of lies.

    THE FIRST GREAT ERA OF LIES: SUPERNATURALISM VS REASON

    The First Truthful Civilization: Greco(rational)-Roman(legal)

    The First Great Lies: Mysticism: Abrahamism, Christianity, Mythology including Monotheism, supernaturalism, and a holy book of supernatural myth and law, and the promise of life after death in a paradise.

    THE SECOND GREAT ERA LIE OF LIES: PSEUDOSCIENCE VS SCIENCE

    The Second Truthful Civilization: English-Anglo-Saxon-Hanseatic-Lotharyngian)

    Pseudoscience: Boazian anthropology and mythology, Marxist economics and mythology, Freudian psychology and mythology, Cantorian Mathematical Metaphysics, Frankfurtian sociology and mythology, and a promise of a paradise on earth.

    We must never gain allow ourselves, or others, to subject mankind to dark ages caused by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and prevent our transformation into the gods we aspire to be.

    The end of history is not Democracy. The end of history is the Truthful Civilization, in which none of us prey upon one another, because none of us need to prey upon one another.

    Western greatness was achieved through the imposition of non-parasitism, and the demand for productivity in exchange for reproductive possibility.

    The problem facing the rest of the world, and a problem the Marxist-socialists have given them because we lacked either the understanding of our domestication of animal-man, or we lacked the courage to state it in the face of our Christian mask of compassion over the face of our Aryan Domesticating Universalism, and lose the self-congratulatory status signals we obtained from the illusion. (Albeit, such acknowledgment may have created in-group cognitive dissonance against our lower classes. )

    We must defeat the great lies, with the great truths that we lacked either the knowledge or the courage to admit to ourselves, and advocate to others: that we have since the time of the horse and wheel, dragged man out of ignorance, poverty, and disease by the simple act of governing conquered territories such that we could kill his predators, replace his rulers, and constrain the reproduction of his lower classes leaving only the good behind.

    Because the uncomfortable truth of man is that just as each of us can only produce so much excess production above that which we ourselves need, those who organized production in the legal, financial, entrepreneurial, managerial, clerical, and laboring classes cannot compensate for large numbers of the underclasses who parasitically exist by constant warfare against our norms, traditions, myths, institutions, nations, and genes. There is a very simple mathematics to this process in that we must alter the rational choice to engage in production by purchasing that incentive by rewards. But that means that the percentage of people that can be incentivized to engage in non-parasitic actions is determined by the productivity of the nation (group), and its institutions. And if relative competitive productivity of the group declines, then the productive classes that remain will no longer be able to incentivize increasing numbers of the underclasses to refrain from parasitism. Ergo: we must constantly cull the lower classes if we wish to maintain the prosperity that the productive classes seek, and that is necessary for creating the incentives that create the order, that produces the luxury under which we now live.

    So it is not just the ecology of the earth that is limited in the population it can support. It is the ability to produce incentives for a population necessary to maintain the status quo.

    We fight not just the red-queens of disease, competing tribes, the of the earth, the aging of the earth and sun, but we fight the red queen of productivity upon which the ability to organize society voluntarily using those incentives we call capitalism, depend.

    This is what the pseudoscientists wished to hide with their second great era of lies: darwin found the truth and this truth was too much for the parasitic peoples to bear since it meant their extermination.

    So we must rule out of self-defense. Not just for us. Not just for our ancestors. Not just for our descendants – but for all mankind. And until we know we are not alone in the universe, for all eternity. We may be little more than gods-in-making. A calculation that the universe makes in an attempt to save itself from the laws that govern its limits, just as our intelligence has allowed us to save ourselves from the laws that govern our limits.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 05:57:00 UTC

  • Sobre el chismorreo y el rechazo

    Post original de Vivek Upadhyay Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U. CHISMORREO El chismorreo es un medio libre de garantías y no correspondiente de mejorar el estatuí personal por medio del despliegue y la extrapolación de información seleccionada de la persona sobre la cual se chismea. Por medio del uso de declaraciones infladas, bromas, juicios impresionistas subidos de tono, etc., en un consenso compartido que con frecuencia posee un “sesgo de confirmación” a pesar de que los costos demostrables de este error, los chismosos buscan obtener algún estatus que no les corresponde y con frecuencia parasitario en relación al asunto sobre el cual se chismorrea, en parte para burlar los requerimientos altamente cognitivos de desarrollar críticas constructivas (en vez de críticas infladas y destructivas), lo cual implica valorar de manera vez los rumores de incentivos sujetos a haber dicho o hecho supuestamente imposición de costos hasta dar con la verdad o determinar si la verdad ha sido socavada. Los chismes también burlan la adecuada comparación de los antecedentes interpersonales que son transparentemente analizables, medibles, que tienen una fundamentación hecha con base a méritos, productivos, y que se les agrega valor con base a intentos (Esto comprende algunas pautas dentro de una línea de fondo que sirve para determinar si alguien es claramente una buena inversión para completar una tarde o una sucesión de tareas en relación con otros candidatos que puedan llevar a cabo la tarea designada). El chismorreo impone costos gratuitos (por lo menos) de dos maneras:

    1. Por medio de evitar conversaciones con sus interlocutores, por lo que contamina la información que se transmite a las personas con las que el chismoso se relaciona, dicha información cuando va a otros lugares  a otros lugares, se expande gradualmente fuera del alcance de sus interacciones y va disminuyendo la confianza interpersonal. Se forman interacciones sociales entre los interlocutores cuya velocidad económica interpersonal se hace susceptible.
    2. Por medio de reunir, avergonzar y eventualmente confrontar a la persona sobre la cual se chismea con una cantidad de informaciones exageradas y preguntas sesgadas a en vez de haber conseguido primero el contexto basado en incentivos sobre la persona de la cual se chismorreó y de la que aún no se sabe si esos chismes son ciertos.

    RECHAZO Rechazar es un comportamiento que impone un costo, que no logra dar una rendición de cuentas bien informada de por que una persona rechaza a alguien. Impone límites de conducta sobre el rechazado sobre los cuales éste debe operar para mantener relaciones interpersonales; estos límites no corresponden con los términos de la transacción sobre la cual el rechazado debe reforzar la interpretación cargada y no correspondiente de los eventos (aun cuando esté en consenso compartido uno con otro). Lo que alguien que rechaza administra es una prueba no explicada sin la garantía de que esa prueba valga la pena tomar: “Compórtate y habla como yo quiere o te privaré de afecto, instrucción, recursos, inversión u otras formas de capital”. No logra registrar los incentivos de cambios de comportamiento y discurso del que rechaza y por ello compromete las pruebas de realidad del rechazado a favor de sus medios intuitivos, de presionar al rechazado de apaciguar sus preferencias: Preferencias que son costosas de forma demostrable o intuitivas para el rechazado. Si alguien te rechaza, pregúntate el valor que ese alguien tiene en tu vida antes de considerar el contexto por el cual fuiste rechazado. ¿Provee quien me rechaza algo que no tenga un valor único que yo no pueda obtener en algún otro lado con un descuento (o precio comparable) entre ti y el interlocutor que no te rechaza? Confirmas que por medio de la conveniencia no intuitiva del rechazo ganas paz y  capital con el cual puedes amar y producir más para aquellos en los que confías, algo que no demuestran aquellos que te imponen esos costos al rechazarte. ¿Si? Entonces déjalos mientras compartes que estos nuevos hallazgos de valores deben continuamente incentivar el que no interactúes con ellos. Después de hacer claro esto, déjalos seguir adelante con sus proyectos. Déjalos sin ningún tipo de rencor. Asegúrate que si está en tus intereses volver a llegar a algún tipo de acuerdo con ellos, puedes hacerlo sin tener que imponer un ataque que imponga costos, es decir, una observación no basada en la crítica de las acciones, valores, creencias, virtudes o actitudes de alguien más. No inyectes costos gratuitos en tus intentos de restablecer conexiones en los cuales ambas partes pueden exclusivamente añadir valores a sus vidas, de acuerdo a los términos comunicativos y voluntarios que fueron fijados para hacer una transacción, de modo tal que eso no le imponga costos a tus amigos y familia, o elige simplemente no interactuar en una instancia particular.

  • Sobre el chismorreo y el rechazo

    Post original de Vivek Upadhyay Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U. CHISMORREO El chismorreo es un medio libre de garantías y no correspondiente de mejorar el estatuí personal por medio del despliegue y la extrapolación de información seleccionada de la persona sobre la cual se chismea. Por medio del uso de declaraciones infladas, bromas, juicios impresionistas subidos de tono, etc., en un consenso compartido que con frecuencia posee un “sesgo de confirmación” a pesar de que los costos demostrables de este error, los chismosos buscan obtener algún estatus que no les corresponde y con frecuencia parasitario en relación al asunto sobre el cual se chismorrea, en parte para burlar los requerimientos altamente cognitivos de desarrollar críticas constructivas (en vez de críticas infladas y destructivas), lo cual implica valorar de manera vez los rumores de incentivos sujetos a haber dicho o hecho supuestamente imposición de costos hasta dar con la verdad o determinar si la verdad ha sido socavada. Los chismes también burlan la adecuada comparación de los antecedentes interpersonales que son transparentemente analizables, medibles, que tienen una fundamentación hecha con base a méritos, productivos, y que se les agrega valor con base a intentos (Esto comprende algunas pautas dentro de una línea de fondo que sirve para determinar si alguien es claramente una buena inversión para completar una tarde o una sucesión de tareas en relación con otros candidatos que puedan llevar a cabo la tarea designada). El chismorreo impone costos gratuitos (por lo menos) de dos maneras:

    1. Por medio de evitar conversaciones con sus interlocutores, por lo que contamina la información que se transmite a las personas con las que el chismoso se relaciona, dicha información cuando va a otros lugares  a otros lugares, se expande gradualmente fuera del alcance de sus interacciones y va disminuyendo la confianza interpersonal. Se forman interacciones sociales entre los interlocutores cuya velocidad económica interpersonal se hace susceptible.
    2. Por medio de reunir, avergonzar y eventualmente confrontar a la persona sobre la cual se chismea con una cantidad de informaciones exageradas y preguntas sesgadas a en vez de haber conseguido primero el contexto basado en incentivos sobre la persona de la cual se chismorreó y de la que aún no se sabe si esos chismes son ciertos.

    RECHAZO Rechazar es un comportamiento que impone un costo, que no logra dar una rendición de cuentas bien informada de por que una persona rechaza a alguien. Impone límites de conducta sobre el rechazado sobre los cuales éste debe operar para mantener relaciones interpersonales; estos límites no corresponden con los términos de la transacción sobre la cual el rechazado debe reforzar la interpretación cargada y no correspondiente de los eventos (aun cuando esté en consenso compartido uno con otro). Lo que alguien que rechaza administra es una prueba no explicada sin la garantía de que esa prueba valga la pena tomar: “Compórtate y habla como yo quiere o te privaré de afecto, instrucción, recursos, inversión u otras formas de capital”. No logra registrar los incentivos de cambios de comportamiento y discurso del que rechaza y por ello compromete las pruebas de realidad del rechazado a favor de sus medios intuitivos, de presionar al rechazado de apaciguar sus preferencias: Preferencias que son costosas de forma demostrable o intuitivas para el rechazado. Si alguien te rechaza, pregúntate el valor que ese alguien tiene en tu vida antes de considerar el contexto por el cual fuiste rechazado. ¿Provee quien me rechaza algo que no tenga un valor único que yo no pueda obtener en algún otro lado con un descuento (o precio comparable) entre ti y el interlocutor que no te rechaza? Confirmas que por medio de la conveniencia no intuitiva del rechazo ganas paz y  capital con el cual puedes amar y producir más para aquellos en los que confías, algo que no demuestran aquellos que te imponen esos costos al rechazarte. ¿Si? Entonces déjalos mientras compartes que estos nuevos hallazgos de valores deben continuamente incentivar el que no interactúes con ellos. Después de hacer claro esto, déjalos seguir adelante con sus proyectos. Déjalos sin ningún tipo de rencor. Asegúrate que si está en tus intereses volver a llegar a algún tipo de acuerdo con ellos, puedes hacerlo sin tener que imponer un ataque que imponga costos, es decir, una observación no basada en la crítica de las acciones, valores, creencias, virtudes o actitudes de alguien más. No inyectes costos gratuitos en tus intentos de restablecer conexiones en los cuales ambas partes pueden exclusivamente añadir valores a sus vidas, de acuerdo a los términos comunicativos y voluntarios que fueron fijados para hacer una transacción, de modo tal que eso no le imponga costos a tus amigos y familia, o elige simplemente no interactuar en una instancia particular.

  • They specialise in lying you know. They have been specialising in it for all of

    They specialise in lying you know.

    They have been specialising in it for all of recorded history.

    We must add but a few paragraphs to a constitution to render them silent.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-08 08:44:00 UTC

  • PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF. Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is n

    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/992320.shtmlCHINESE PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF.

    Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is not a very Chinese thing to do) and truthful (which is also not a very Chinese thing to do), and state that while it is in the Chinese military INTEREST to claim the south china sea is it’s territory – because the south china sea is the strategic means of starving out the Chinese in case of war – the fact remains that many OTHER nations had PREVIOUS claims on this same territory and China STOLE IT FROM THEM.

    Now China could say (maybe) that it was a previous possession of some sort, but then by the same logic the USA could say that if the Chinese have such claims to previous state’s property then they ALSO have responsibilities for previous state DEBTS. And the Chinese owe Americans TRILLIONS of dollars now that were unpaid by the previous government.

    It is a very Chinese habit to lie. Lying is a part of the culture. Delay, deceit, and lying are the primary strategy of the Chinese when dealing with other peoples and often with themselves. Lying and deceit are raised to the status of ‘good manners’ by the art of ‘face’ (denial of reality).

    So please forgive us in the West – those of us who have built a high trust society because by and large we try to speak truthfully even when we are foolishly optimistic – if we do not take any Chinese words very seriously.

    The fact of the matter is that china used ‘aggression’ to capture territory of other neighboring nations that were too weak to resist, and by that aggression, has stolen that which was the property of others.

    So if we are not making moral arguments any longer we are only making arguments to strategic necessity, then given china’s murderous record against even its own people, we should not take a moral stance either, and we should prevent china from taking control of this territory which would make it possible for one of the world’s most dishonest and murderous people to extend their reach beyond their coast line.

    Right?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 12:47:00 UTC

  • If two-thirds of our brothers are pretty much useless for the purposes of the pr

    If two-thirds of our brothers are pretty much useless for the purposes of the production of goods and services, why must they suffer the deceit? To what use can we put them and pay them? What commons can they construct that are beautiful, rather than goods and services that are unnecessary?

    Do you see the opportunity?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 13:02:00 UTC

  • ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ANSWER: Well, if we call upon William of Ockham’s advice to c

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/cognitive-biases-ideology-control.htmlTHE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ANSWER:

    Well, if we call upon William of Ockham’s advice to criticize your psychological attribution it’s much more likely that you are engaging in selection bias, as well as rationalization, in order to justify the use of your methodology, and its measures, to produce what it is that you measure, rather than what OTHERS are measuring.

    In this case, they’re measuring the full portfolio of needs and you are not.

    So let’s look at why:

    Because your aggregates do not take into account the full cost of your recommendations: genetic, institutional, cultural capital is the most expensive investment we have made and you’re encouraging spending it in favor of increasing populations and increasing consumption despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that it doesn’t improve happiness.

    Because there are a lot of voters who intuit if they cannot fully articulate, that the cost to the family, to the civic order, to the culture, to the civilization, to history and to kin, is far higher than any incremental benefit that you can promise from increases in productivity and consumption.

    Because it has become obvious that the externalities produced by your policies have created an increasingly fragile social order that cannot survive shocks in a world in which we no longer have cultural, institutional, and technological advantages that allow our middle and upper classes and our militaries to provide asymmetric economic benefits to our working, clerical, and professional classes.

    Because it has become obvious that the business cycle theory is correct, and that each attempt we make to soften the correction merely extends this correction as well as all corrections that follow.

    Because it has become obvious that the American and European experiment have produced precisely the failure that the Chinese encountered in their post-warring-states period where the bureaucracy absorbed the professional class to a degree that the civilization increasingly stagnated.

    Because a lot of reasons.

    Now, you are resorting to what we call the rhetorical fallacy of “psychologism” which is the modern equivalent of the theological prohibition on sin, and nothing more.

    People act in their rational self-interest, but their rational self-interest beyond a certain limited scope, is to preserve their status, family, and culture in contrast to other families and cultures.

    The right (aristocratic) philosophy of the west is reducible to the Anglo-Saxon Bipartite Manorial mandate to produce great families as the central unit of policy, production, and reproduction.

    The left (underclass) philosophy of the counter-empirical-enlightenment, is reducible to the attempt to remove the eugenic advantage of good families and to raise ‘bad’ families to equal footing.

    Apparently, left-leaning economists do not study the consequences of Islamic expansion and slave trade on the civilization after 1100, and the decline of the near east and north Africa as a consequence.

    So it is that people correctly intuit that their “portfolio of capital” is no longer being benefitted by leftist expansion. It is one thing to provide reciprocal insurance to near kin with shared history, and another to consume genetic, institutional, cultural, and historical capital for the sake of increasing consumption that has no material impact and merely returns our cities into medieval ghettos, and modern favelas.

    When we just spent over thirteen hundred years trying to reverse those possibiliites where all other civilizations in human history have failed.

    That is why.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 11:48:00 UTC