The ethnically Dutch are definitely the ‘master tribe’ by any empirical measure. The ethnically north sea (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and North Germans) are an obvious distance behind. If for no other reason than there is greater territorial distance between them and the less evolved people (resistance to invasive genes), and the difficulty of surviving long winters ( selection ), and the combination of late marriage, voluntary mate selection, and near breeding (selection), culling (hanging, starvation, and war). The celts ( my mother’s relations, and that of most of Britons ) get to ride-along like the Franks, and the eastern Europeans. But its pretty simple really: Selective breeding over longer periods of time with less of the genes from the sunshine latitudes. Evolution progresses upward under lower population density and dysgenia spreads in high population density. This is fairly obvious but that there should be a balance in order to preserve the human condition is something that limits us, and we dislike it. Someone sent me a map the other day, that showed genders of western Europeans (r1b, r1a) to be about equally attractive on average(forests: cattle farmers), eastern European females on average to be more attractive than males (Polish Ukrainian Russian), and, along with the increase in black hair, southeastern europeans to be less attractive on average, and middle easterners (turks, iranians, Jews, and Arabs) to be much less attractive on average. This assessment does not include north Africans, black Africans, the caucasian people of India, or the east and southeast Asians. But if I look at it as a very simple question of (a) degree of sexual immaturity or maturity, (b) degree of sexual dimorphism, then these two axes reflect both differences in testosterone and estrogen, and differences in sexual maturity. – Southeast Asians have lower sexual maturity, lower sexual dimorphism that’s slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – East Asians have lower sexual maturity and lower sexual dimorphism, slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – Eastern and Southern Slavs have lower sexual maturity, (hence the jawline), and higher female dimorphism. Women slightly more desirable than men. – Germanic Whites have lower sexual maturity (prolonged adolescence) and higher sexual dimorphism. Men and women equally desirable. – The Iranian/jewish branch (vs the celt/germanpolish/ukrainian branch), and the arab and berber branches, have higher sexual maturity but level sexual dimorphism. (male emotionalism, females with strong male features). Men more desirable than women. – The black africans have very high and fast sexual maturity, superior strength and agility. and masculine slanted sexual dimorphism. High inequality of desirability between women and men. CAN TWO AXIS EXPLAIN ALMOST EVERYTHING? Lets illustrate using two well-understood extremes: female solipsism and male autism. Women tend toward the solipsistic and men the autistic. Men tend toward the spatio-physical(models and systems), and women to the verbal (individuals and experiences). Rates of maturity reduce time in childhood and adolescence for learning. Rates of maturity increase impulsivity. Search for novelty increases THE DATA We see this in the desirability of mates on dating and social sites from around the world, and we have such enormous amounts of data now from demonstrated preferences that these questions are no longer hypothetical, but now require refutation that will be difficult to determine. WHY DO WE SELECT FOR THESE TRAITS? Women select poorly by instinct, and men are not terribly selective at all. Women are attracted to that which they understand, men what visual signs of fertility that they can observe. Marriage and reduction of insurance by the tribe force men and women to mate on long-term survival grounds, rather than on our sexual impulses – which at least for women, do not assist us in collecting desirable traits in civilization. And men are not discriminate enough to select without marriage. Taller, more symmetrical, fairer, and all other signs of ‘health’ like hair, skin, head size. But we have to be able to survive our environments with those traits. Africa and high conflict areas need masculine traits, some ver hot areas smaller size, and the polar regions feminine traits are more beneficial, and survivable. It’s no secret any longer that there is a difference between how we perceive aspirational beauty (tall blondes) and reproductive frequency (petite brunettes). The petite brunettes have more offspring. And they appear to be far more loyal. And men are more willing to work for them. THE RESOURCE CURSE The discovery of fossil fuels for the purpose of creating electricity has been a quality of life improvement, but expanded dysgenia in cold climates to match that in warm climates. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Somewhere on planet earth.
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
The Subtle Cause Of Differences In Races And Tribes
The ethnically Dutch are definitely the ‘master tribe’ by any empirical measure. The ethnically north sea (Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and North Germans) are an obvious distance behind. If for no other reason than there is greater territorial distance between them and the less evolved people (resistance to invasive genes), and the difficulty of surviving long winters ( selection ), and the combination of late marriage, voluntary mate selection, and near breeding (selection), culling (hanging, starvation, and war). The celts ( my mother’s relations, and that of most of Britons ) get to ride-along like the Franks, and the eastern Europeans. But its pretty simple really: Selective breeding over longer periods of time with less of the genes from the sunshine latitudes. Evolution progresses upward under lower population density and dysgenia spreads in high population density. This is fairly obvious but that there should be a balance in order to preserve the human condition is something that limits us, and we dislike it. Someone sent me a map the other day, that showed genders of western Europeans (r1b, r1a) to be about equally attractive on average(forests: cattle farmers), eastern European females on average to be more attractive than males (Polish Ukrainian Russian), and, along with the increase in black hair, southeastern europeans to be less attractive on average, and middle easterners (turks, iranians, Jews, and Arabs) to be much less attractive on average. This assessment does not include north Africans, black Africans, the caucasian people of India, or the east and southeast Asians. But if I look at it as a very simple question of (a) degree of sexual immaturity or maturity, (b) degree of sexual dimorphism, then these two axes reflect both differences in testosterone and estrogen, and differences in sexual maturity. – Southeast Asians have lower sexual maturity, lower sexual dimorphism that’s slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – East Asians have lower sexual maturity and lower sexual dimorphism, slanted female. High inequality of desirability between women and men. – Eastern and Southern Slavs have lower sexual maturity, (hence the jawline), and higher female dimorphism. Women slightly more desirable than men. – Germanic Whites have lower sexual maturity (prolonged adolescence) and higher sexual dimorphism. Men and women equally desirable. – The Iranian/jewish branch (vs the celt/germanpolish/ukrainian branch), and the arab and berber branches, have higher sexual maturity but level sexual dimorphism. (male emotionalism, females with strong male features). Men more desirable than women. – The black africans have very high and fast sexual maturity, superior strength and agility. and masculine slanted sexual dimorphism. High inequality of desirability between women and men. CAN TWO AXIS EXPLAIN ALMOST EVERYTHING? Lets illustrate using two well-understood extremes: female solipsism and male autism. Women tend toward the solipsistic and men the autistic. Men tend toward the spatio-physical(models and systems), and women to the verbal (individuals and experiences). Rates of maturity reduce time in childhood and adolescence for learning. Rates of maturity increase impulsivity. Search for novelty increases THE DATA We see this in the desirability of mates on dating and social sites from around the world, and we have such enormous amounts of data now from demonstrated preferences that these questions are no longer hypothetical, but now require refutation that will be difficult to determine. WHY DO WE SELECT FOR THESE TRAITS? Women select poorly by instinct, and men are not terribly selective at all. Women are attracted to that which they understand, men what visual signs of fertility that they can observe. Marriage and reduction of insurance by the tribe force men and women to mate on long-term survival grounds, rather than on our sexual impulses – which at least for women, do not assist us in collecting desirable traits in civilization. And men are not discriminate enough to select without marriage. Taller, more symmetrical, fairer, and all other signs of ‘health’ like hair, skin, head size. But we have to be able to survive our environments with those traits. Africa and high conflict areas need masculine traits, some ver hot areas smaller size, and the polar regions feminine traits are more beneficial, and survivable. It’s no secret any longer that there is a difference between how we perceive aspirational beauty (tall blondes) and reproductive frequency (petite brunettes). The petite brunettes have more offspring. And they appear to be far more loyal. And men are more willing to work for them. THE RESOURCE CURSE The discovery of fossil fuels for the purpose of creating electricity has been a quality of life improvement, but expanded dysgenia in cold climates to match that in warm climates. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Somewhere on planet earth.
-
Q&A On Alt-Right Strategy
—“Hi Mr. Doolittle, From my (very limited) knowledge of your work, you seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights? From what I’ve seen, most of us favor an overall capitalistic economic structure with the caveat that economic activity should support the nation, both financially and morally (spiritually?), such as through the limiting of pornography and the banning of usury (actual usury, such as predatory lending terms, not merely interest on capital), and limiting the activity of foreign interests in domestic issues. I ask whether you think it’s a weakness that we don’t discuss this because even though there is a general consensus, I dislike having blind spots in my worldview.Lastly, have you read James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution and/or Sam Francis’ follow-up Leviathan and its enemies? If so, what were your thoughts on the theory presented re: the transformation of capitalist society to a managerial society?”— Great questions. I”m going to reframe the first one: –“You seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.”–I’ll restate this as I try to unify science, morality, law, and philosophy into a single discipline that merely requires we speak truthfully in matters of the commons, and I advocate the forcible restructuring of our institutions using the language of institutions: law. What you see in the alt right, despite the alt right’s embrace of science, is the perpetuation of moral language. The question is, if we evolved from supernatural to reason, to rationalism, to science, and in my work “complete scientific realism”, then why would people continue to argue in reasonable and rational terms, and partly scientific terms, when scientific and completely scientific are available? Well, there are four reasons: (a) moral language helps us rally and shame. (b) moral language helps us with catharsis, (c) moral language is intuitionistic even if unscientific, and (d) scientific l language is none of the above. So to simplify that, I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer. —“Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights?”— All rights are contractually exchanged, that’s the only way they can exist. Natural rights are those we generally require if we are to avoid conflict with one another, and foster cooperation and competition with one another. Otherwise they’re not contract rights or natural rights, but legislative rights enforced by an insurer of last resort. We do not contract for our rights. In our case the government is an insurer. And the government works to construct LEGISLATIVE rights, not NATURAL RIGHTS. SO in answer to your question, it’s not useful to discuss rights other than those we require. Instead, I’ve stated it differently: that our position can, and must be, that the only reason we do not use our wealth of personal violence, group violence, and organized violence, to construct legal rights in our interests alone at the expense of other’s desired natural rights, is if we all possess natural rights and natural rights alone. So I’ve tried to restore the reality of political philosophy to the state prior to the set of lies we created in order to justify adding women to the franchise, in an equivalent house, rather than in their own separate house of government: that the only reason to forgo our desire to rule in our own self interest, is if we rule by rule of law in one another’s equal interest. And if that is not the case, then we simply license parasitism and our own destruction. The first question of ethics and politics is ‘why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff’. It’s only after we’ve decided that we will cooperate that we enter the question of ethics (how not to disincentivize cooperation), or politics (how not to disincentivize the production of commons.) We value a MERITOCRATIC commons (political), economy (ethics), reproductive (family), structure that is against the interests of those who lack competitive reproductive desirability, competitive productive ability, and productive ability to contribute to the commons. That you phrase the question as moral, and I phrase it as economic is the problem with the alt-right that I am trying to solve by providing a rational and scientific language for the discussion, comparison, and contrast of all epistemic, ethical, political, and group evolutionary strategies. The weakness is that we will not come to terms with the fact that meritocracy and eugenics and our ability to produce wealth and commons are antithetical to democracy, and that without the restoration of the market for commons and a judicial monarchy (inherited), we cannot possess the liberty and meritocracy we desire. Eugenics is incompatible with democracy. The original settlers (my ancestors included) used different language but the American colonies were an experiment in eugenics. The disaster was the Louisiana purchase that requires vast immigration to populate the new territory so that it would not be seized (yet again) by the European powers. The new territory would have extended slavery, and this would have firmly put both taxation (on export goods) and the power of the federal government, in the hands of the agrarians and their international market, at the expense of the new industrialists and the domestic market. Had we retained the original colonies it is possible that we could have retained the eugenic experiment – even with the handicap of the Scotts-Irish in the south. Of course, I have read Burnham and I consider him one of my greater influences – he gave me the moral courage so to speak to abandon my cultural allegiances as a member of the puritan families, the anti-monarchy forces in the English civil wars, and the anti-monarchy movement in the American revolution. I consider all of these to be failures. You can see my entire reading list onPropertarianism.com/reading-list, and you can contact Ramsey because he maintains our library, and we have most of the work in digital format available for readers. Burnham’s observation is not unique, but he was trying to warn us about it. There are a couple of human tendencies that we should be aware of: 1) the models we use like analogies to animals, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now computational (information) change with every era, and we misapply properties of those models to man. Man is an organism that grows and is changed by his growth from conception to old age. We tend to try to hang on to a model and extend the use of that model in our minds to ever greater scope. But they’re just analogies, with information in both physics and social science the current state of our ability to represent the world. 2) tendency to thing obvious trends are special and novel. But if we look at all human organizations they go through the same cycles and Burnham was trying to tell us that. Like Hayek and popper, or perhaps even Simmel, he was trying to describe the problem of political order as an information and decidability problem. So just as monarchies fell because their families lacked sufficient population to produce sufficient technocrats to run things, and just as private companies had to give way to corporations with professional managers, the size and scale of the modern state requires institutions. Whether those institutions could have been provided by market services is a question of maturity. At first, no, but over time yes. He was critical because he did not have a solution. We have all be correct in criticizing socialism. What we haven’t been correct about is in criticizing capitalism and democracy. Yes, we can have a star trek society with an average IQ of 125 or higher. But the Arabs cannot with an average IQ of 85-90 at the best. Neither can the Brazilians with such an enormous underclass in relation to the productivity and quality of their institutions. I hope this gave you some ideas to work with. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&A On Alt-Right Strategy
—“Hi Mr. Doolittle, From my (very limited) knowledge of your work, you seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights? From what I’ve seen, most of us favor an overall capitalistic economic structure with the caveat that economic activity should support the nation, both financially and morally (spiritually?), such as through the limiting of pornography and the banning of usury (actual usury, such as predatory lending terms, not merely interest on capital), and limiting the activity of foreign interests in domestic issues. I ask whether you think it’s a weakness that we don’t discuss this because even though there is a general consensus, I dislike having blind spots in my worldview.Lastly, have you read James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution and/or Sam Francis’ follow-up Leviathan and its enemies? If so, what were your thoughts on the theory presented re: the transformation of capitalist society to a managerial society?”— Great questions. I”m going to reframe the first one: –“You seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.”–I’ll restate this as I try to unify science, morality, law, and philosophy into a single discipline that merely requires we speak truthfully in matters of the commons, and I advocate the forcible restructuring of our institutions using the language of institutions: law. What you see in the alt right, despite the alt right’s embrace of science, is the perpetuation of moral language. The question is, if we evolved from supernatural to reason, to rationalism, to science, and in my work “complete scientific realism”, then why would people continue to argue in reasonable and rational terms, and partly scientific terms, when scientific and completely scientific are available? Well, there are four reasons: (a) moral language helps us rally and shame. (b) moral language helps us with catharsis, (c) moral language is intuitionistic even if unscientific, and (d) scientific l language is none of the above. So to simplify that, I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer. —“Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights?”— All rights are contractually exchanged, that’s the only way they can exist. Natural rights are those we generally require if we are to avoid conflict with one another, and foster cooperation and competition with one another. Otherwise they’re not contract rights or natural rights, but legislative rights enforced by an insurer of last resort. We do not contract for our rights. In our case the government is an insurer. And the government works to construct LEGISLATIVE rights, not NATURAL RIGHTS. SO in answer to your question, it’s not useful to discuss rights other than those we require. Instead, I’ve stated it differently: that our position can, and must be, that the only reason we do not use our wealth of personal violence, group violence, and organized violence, to construct legal rights in our interests alone at the expense of other’s desired natural rights, is if we all possess natural rights and natural rights alone. So I’ve tried to restore the reality of political philosophy to the state prior to the set of lies we created in order to justify adding women to the franchise, in an equivalent house, rather than in their own separate house of government: that the only reason to forgo our desire to rule in our own self interest, is if we rule by rule of law in one another’s equal interest. And if that is not the case, then we simply license parasitism and our own destruction. The first question of ethics and politics is ‘why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff’. It’s only after we’ve decided that we will cooperate that we enter the question of ethics (how not to disincentivize cooperation), or politics (how not to disincentivize the production of commons.) We value a MERITOCRATIC commons (political), economy (ethics), reproductive (family), structure that is against the interests of those who lack competitive reproductive desirability, competitive productive ability, and productive ability to contribute to the commons. That you phrase the question as moral, and I phrase it as economic is the problem with the alt-right that I am trying to solve by providing a rational and scientific language for the discussion, comparison, and contrast of all epistemic, ethical, political, and group evolutionary strategies. The weakness is that we will not come to terms with the fact that meritocracy and eugenics and our ability to produce wealth and commons are antithetical to democracy, and that without the restoration of the market for commons and a judicial monarchy (inherited), we cannot possess the liberty and meritocracy we desire. Eugenics is incompatible with democracy. The original settlers (my ancestors included) used different language but the American colonies were an experiment in eugenics. The disaster was the Louisiana purchase that requires vast immigration to populate the new territory so that it would not be seized (yet again) by the European powers. The new territory would have extended slavery, and this would have firmly put both taxation (on export goods) and the power of the federal government, in the hands of the agrarians and their international market, at the expense of the new industrialists and the domestic market. Had we retained the original colonies it is possible that we could have retained the eugenic experiment – even with the handicap of the Scotts-Irish in the south. Of course, I have read Burnham and I consider him one of my greater influences – he gave me the moral courage so to speak to abandon my cultural allegiances as a member of the puritan families, the anti-monarchy forces in the English civil wars, and the anti-monarchy movement in the American revolution. I consider all of these to be failures. You can see my entire reading list onPropertarianism.com/reading-list, and you can contact Ramsey because he maintains our library, and we have most of the work in digital format available for readers. Burnham’s observation is not unique, but he was trying to warn us about it. There are a couple of human tendencies that we should be aware of: 1) the models we use like analogies to animals, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now computational (information) change with every era, and we misapply properties of those models to man. Man is an organism that grows and is changed by his growth from conception to old age. We tend to try to hang on to a model and extend the use of that model in our minds to ever greater scope. But they’re just analogies, with information in both physics and social science the current state of our ability to represent the world. 2) tendency to thing obvious trends are special and novel. But if we look at all human organizations they go through the same cycles and Burnham was trying to tell us that. Like Hayek and popper, or perhaps even Simmel, he was trying to describe the problem of political order as an information and decidability problem. So just as monarchies fell because their families lacked sufficient population to produce sufficient technocrats to run things, and just as private companies had to give way to corporations with professional managers, the size and scale of the modern state requires institutions. Whether those institutions could have been provided by market services is a question of maturity. At first, no, but over time yes. He was critical because he did not have a solution. We have all be correct in criticizing socialism. What we haven’t been correct about is in criticizing capitalism and democracy. Yes, we can have a star trek society with an average IQ of 125 or higher. But the Arabs cannot with an average IQ of 85-90 at the best. Neither can the Brazilians with such an enormous underclass in relation to the productivity and quality of their institutions. I hope this gave you some ideas to work with. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&a: Curt: Can We Shape Capitalism Or Is It Just Demographics?
—Do you think that national culture can shape capitalism to be an effective force without the downward shift of consumer choice tending toward mass culture, and government corruption? Or does it all come down to demographics?—It’s just demographics and redistribution. Better demographics, more homogenous demographics greater redistribution lower personal consumption for the purpose of signaling.
-
Q&a: Curt: Can We Shape Capitalism Or Is It Just Demographics?
—Do you think that national culture can shape capitalism to be an effective force without the downward shift of consumer choice tending toward mass culture, and government corruption? Or does it all come down to demographics?—It’s just demographics and redistribution. Better demographics, more homogenous demographics greater redistribution lower personal consumption for the purpose of signaling.
-
Nazis and Soros in Ukraine?
Q&A –What’s the story with nazis funded by Soros in Ukraine?— The story is, this: Which is more believable: that in a Country the size and population of Canada, whose people look across the border enviously at the prosperity of their extended family in Poland – people who speak approximately the same language, possess approximately the same religion and values – would revolt when their president rejected joining the EU because he was bought and paid for, like everyone else in the government, by the Russian government, in hopes of collapsing the military and civil order sufficiently that Russia could claim a humanitarian excuse for repossessing the territory and restoring the Russian empire by the reuniting of Ukraine, belorus, Prussia, and possibly Kazakhstan? What’s NOT rational about the red necks in Ukraine like any other country with a surplus of unemployed men, would not gladly take out their frustrations on a government so corrupt that it makes Venezuela look like holy see? OK. So apparently people in these circumstances, tasting the chance that they might exit unnecessary poverty and corruption are going to be swayed by Soros’s money? The USA was flying almost 10M in cash a week into Ukraine to give to people. But no one in a million years thought the president would flee, because no one in a million years thought that the people would fight that hard. Soros funds a lot of things. BTW: I know these guys that are supposedly ‘nazis’ and if you call them right wing nationalists that’s true. They want to crush corruption of the bolsheviks in Russia the same way the germans wanted to crush the bolshevik movement in Europe. There isn’t anything bad about crushing bolshevism, communism, Russian expansion at all. The only thing we can really (over centuries) criticize the nazis about is overconfidence and running out of money to use resettlement camps as labor and finally starvation camps. Fascism is a rational response to communism. It worked. National socialism was a rational response to communism and bolshevism and Trotskyism. Soros should be in prison like Putin put the oligarchs in prison. I have no idea why we don’t just seize everything he owns and prosecute everyone who works for him. The hard right in ukraine is just a patriotic nationalist movement. We should not confuse putin’s legitimate constraint of american power, with putin’s illegitimate attempt to restore the russian empire and the corruption endemic to the russian sphere of influence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Nazis and Soros in Ukraine?
Q&A –What’s the story with nazis funded by Soros in Ukraine?— The story is, this: Which is more believable: that in a Country the size and population of Canada, whose people look across the border enviously at the prosperity of their extended family in Poland – people who speak approximately the same language, possess approximately the same religion and values – would revolt when their president rejected joining the EU because he was bought and paid for, like everyone else in the government, by the Russian government, in hopes of collapsing the military and civil order sufficiently that Russia could claim a humanitarian excuse for repossessing the territory and restoring the Russian empire by the reuniting of Ukraine, belorus, Prussia, and possibly Kazakhstan? What’s NOT rational about the red necks in Ukraine like any other country with a surplus of unemployed men, would not gladly take out their frustrations on a government so corrupt that it makes Venezuela look like holy see? OK. So apparently people in these circumstances, tasting the chance that they might exit unnecessary poverty and corruption are going to be swayed by Soros’s money? The USA was flying almost 10M in cash a week into Ukraine to give to people. But no one in a million years thought the president would flee, because no one in a million years thought that the people would fight that hard. Soros funds a lot of things. BTW: I know these guys that are supposedly ‘nazis’ and if you call them right wing nationalists that’s true. They want to crush corruption of the bolsheviks in Russia the same way the germans wanted to crush the bolshevik movement in Europe. There isn’t anything bad about crushing bolshevism, communism, Russian expansion at all. The only thing we can really (over centuries) criticize the nazis about is overconfidence and running out of money to use resettlement camps as labor and finally starvation camps. Fascism is a rational response to communism. It worked. National socialism was a rational response to communism and bolshevism and Trotskyism. Soros should be in prison like Putin put the oligarchs in prison. I have no idea why we don’t just seize everything he owns and prosecute everyone who works for him. The hard right in ukraine is just a patriotic nationalist movement. We should not confuse putin’s legitimate constraint of american power, with putin’s illegitimate attempt to restore the russian empire and the corruption endemic to the russian sphere of influence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Analysis Of The Strategies Of The Ukrainian And Russian Peoples And A Prediction Of The Future.
—Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?— 1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now. 2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation. 2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians. 4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty. 5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity. 6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region. The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern. Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian. WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA? Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter. Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t. Without access to water russia cannot be a great power. WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER? They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it. Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable. So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status. So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law. She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites. Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow. IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle. THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS. (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to) BACK TO UKRAINE. A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration. So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP. Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.
-
Analysis Of The Strategies Of The Ukrainian And Russian Peoples And A Prediction Of The Future.
—Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?— 1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now. 2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation. 2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians. 4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty. 5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity. 6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region. The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern. Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian. WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA? Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter. Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t. Without access to water russia cannot be a great power. WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER? They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it. Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable. So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status. So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law. She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites. Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow. IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle. THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS. (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to) BACK TO UKRAINE. A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration. So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP. Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.