Australia: The most privileged white people, wallow in the resource-curse and like Canada,produce virtue-signaling as their primary export.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 23:43:00 UTC
Australia: The most privileged white people, wallow in the resource-curse and like Canada,produce virtue-signaling as their primary export.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 23:43:00 UTC
Anglo,French,German,Jewish Enlightenments. Jewish was the last (marx,boaz,freud,cantor,trotsky,mises,frankfurt,strauss).
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 19:48:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747879272879104006
Reply addressees: @FriedrichHayek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747862214107791360
IN REPLY TO:
@FriedrichHayek
@curtdoolittle what is the “Ashenkazi” role?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747862214107791360
BRITISH ADVOCACY OF ENLARGEMENT WAS STRATEGIC. OPEN BORDERS WERE FOLLY
—The UK campaigned for enlargement of the EU. Before enlargement, ask for by the UK, there was no issue with open borders.—@ghg @William Thayer Sr
(RE: Enlargement)
The US/UK partnership is still the only meaningful military of the west – and the USA(Air/Sea/Oil), and UK(Credit Markets) have a worldwide perspective on protecting western interests.
In the “Enlargement” the Anglo hope was to increase market size and collective security. Open borders became a problem only when the strategic expansion, market expansion, and monetary expansion, was not accompanied by mobility limits.
There is no need for the conflation of family commons, local commons, national commons, civilizational commons. In fact, that is that’s the problem.
We could certainly use expansion to bring capital to people (good), but not people to capital (bad). Why? Because the family, local, and national commons are consumed rapidly by the migration of people. Whereas the movement of capital to people preserves if not expands the family, local, national commons, but EXPORTS it from where it is, to where it is needed.
The difference in the economic performance of states is almost entirely the product of the behavior of its people and the institutions produced by those people.
Open borders is a very bad idea. Look at the damage it has done to Americans. Americans who will have their own ‘exits’ in rebellion against the (catastrophic) error of universalism.
Do you want to know the painful science behind our success? The dirty secret of the 21st century? The west was the most eugenically suppressive civilization in history both because of our climate, farming techniques, manorialism, delayed marriage, aggressive hanging of half of a percent of the population by year, and constant culling of the underclasses by tribal, civil, and aristocratic warfare. Those regions of Europe that adopted bipartite manorialism as early as the 700s are today still the most prosperous. We can predict economic productivity by the Hanjal Line: where it was enforced. Holland objectively has the best genes because they’ve spent the longest eliminating the bad ones.
Without similar processes, the fate of Europe under third world invasion, will be the fate of India having failed at controlling reproduction, the fate of Islam from immigration and inbreeding with African slaves, the fate of Greece, southern Italy and southern Spain, and the fate of south America because of asymmetric reproduction of the classes.
That’s the painful truth of it.
And British moral dandyism is just post-empire status signaling evolving into a fetish. One can shame another by demonstrating British ‘high minded moral perfectionism’, as little more than the magician’s ‘prestige’ is used to hide his slight of hand.
Both British false-moralism and the magician’s prestige are signals that are meant to obscure that the Briton does nothing to protect the accumulated western commons from consumption, and the magician does everything to believe he is performing magic, rather than a parlor trick that takes advantage of human cognitive biases.
Nations, like good families, matter.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-25 11:11:00 UTC
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/LETS CORRECT HISTORY A BIT
(I will get hate mail over this rather grand deflowering)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/
Some of us have to clean up history a bit:
(1) There is nothing strange about a popular political movement generating crackpots, and the state not shutting down the crackpots. I mean, world academia is full of them. We don’t even have to get to bloggers, and newsletters and their progenitors.
(2) Naziism was an aesthetic movement in the same way that socialism was a pseudoscientific movement, or the movements of religiosity of prior eras. All movements create nonsense mythos. Nazis were not unique.
(3) Hitler’s mistake was purely military. And had nothing to do with his attempt to ‘cleanse’ the population of cosmopolitan, bolshvik, and socialist activism. Germany’s enlightenment, thanks ot the failures of Kant and his followers, was incomplete and just reaching maturity under Wagner, Nietzsche and their contemporaries. The Ashkenazi enlightenment (Jewish enlightenment) arrived just as the German was peaking, but beause it was commercial where the german was cultural and aesthetic, was able to take advantage of new technologies and far lower cost of distribution of propaganda. The cosmopolitan (socialist) vision was not compatible with the german (hierarchical duty), and to some degree, this “Clash of Civilizations” turned out to be a war over the soul (Germany) of Europe. The two battling cultures (german heartland agrarian, and borderland diasporic Jewish) fought with their historical methods: germans with war and jews with propaganda. The bolshevik-cum-Stalinist Russians took advantage of this weakness, in hopes of not only seizing the borderlands, as they had the land east of the Urals, but possibly the german heartland as well. Had not the Americans intervened and de facto conquered and colonized Europe, that clash between agrarian hierarchy and cosmopolitan socialism would have been settled with that war. Hitler’s war was a civil war between the Jewish/Slavic borderlands previously held by Russia/Poland/Lithuania and their borderland enlightenment, and the ancient germanic martial civilization, and their heartland enlightenment and the bolshevik-stalinist fantasies of russia to escape third tier status among the great powers. The rest of us were just players until Hitler moved west – easily baited by the Russians into entrapping himself with Poland. His error was that he did not understand the stakes, any more than the Americans did. And in both world wars, Americans most likely fought ont he wrong side. It was germany that was trying to protect the west, as she had for millennia against invasion from the east.
(4) Had Hitler attacked Bolshevism, and had he not exhausted his resources so that the ‘ex-patriation’ camps did not become slave-labor and finally death camps, he would have accomplished the same ends by militarily, politically, and morally defensible means that we today would still find substantive. The British invented the idea of using camps as processing centers, the Nazi’s adopted it, and the Russians industrialized it. And the Chinese merely circumvented it by direct, outright killing opponents wherever they could find them – setting china back into destitution from which western influence by example, finally extracted them.
(5) The postwar propaganda campaign was probably appropriate, if not necessary, for the era in which so much cost was born by citizens, but has been overplayed since the early sixties – so much so that we are at risk at present (I monitor the scholarship) of reversing the historical narrative.
History will look at these events very differently in a century than we do now and the above narrative is more likely to be the one that survives and endures.
It’s my job to tell people unpleasant truths about their moral fantasies. I don’t particularly like the fact that my people have largely been wrong about everything they have done since the grand accident of the Louisianna Purchase.
But truth is merciless to all of us.
There is just as much pseudoscience if not more among Jewish intellectuals than there was ever imagined by the Nazis. And the difference is that no one took nazi propaganda seriously other than the semi literate, but the entire western intellectual and political system embraced jewish pseudoscience enthisiastically simply becuase it was better written ‘crackpot’ pseudoscience.
Boazian antropology = anti-Darwinian pseuoscience.
Freudian psychology = anti-Nietzschean pseudoscience.
Marxism / Socialism = anti-Economic pseudoscience.
Leninism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder.
Trotskyism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder
The Frankfurt School = anti-Spencerian sociological pseudoscience
Postmodernism = resorting to lying and repetition by propaganda having failed with pseudoscience.
Neo-Conservatism = Leo Strauss and his followers, attempting to use the german kantian technique of pseudo-rationalism to load, frame, and overload, and thereby decieve.
Let us assess the damage done by:
The Anglo struggle for its enlightenment: worldwide expansion. (an empirical one)
The French struggle for its enlightenment (the massacres of the French revolution, and the tyranny of napoleon), ( a romantic one) and its replacement of the existing nobility with a new bureaucratic one.
The Russian struggle for its enlightenment (a literary one)and its truncation by Bolsheviks.
The German struggle for its enlightenment (a philosophical one) and failure to transition to the empirical.
The second german struggle for its enlightenment (an aesthetic one)
The Jewish struggle for its enlightenment (a pseudoscientific one)
How many of these enlightenments were stopped dead by the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment?
How many more murders and how much more suffering was caused by the success of the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment, it’s conquest of Russia, it’s failed conquest of Germany, it’s failed conquest of China, it’s existing hinderance of Indian political development, and the saturation of the formerly great academies of the west with pseudoscience?
So let us not revel in self-compliment and congratulate ourselves on our moral standing when we are greater fools than those few who found purchase in such nonsense. You cannot compare the ineffectual propaganda of the Nazi fringe in support of anti-bolshevism and anti-cosmopolitanism in a fight over control of the borderlands with the extremely effective propaganda of the Jewish pseudosciences, and the 100m dead, and billiions idoctrinated into falsehoods because of them.
Look at the crisis the resistance to the enlightenment is causing in the Islamic world. They’ve been fighting it since they started suppressing knowledge and expanding Islam to the masses in the thirteenth century.
Civil wars, and border wars, and clashes of civilizations are bloody things. The fact that some of us fight more with armies(germans), some of us fight more with economics (anglos), some of us fight more with fabricated religions and pseudoscience (jews), some of us fight with reproduction and raiding (Islam), some of us fight with parasitism (gypsies), is just a matter of the resources and populations at our disposal.
Nothing more. We are all in competition. Cooperation is merely useful or it is not. Thankfully it is usually more useful than not.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 16:25:00 UTC
Want to reiterate. That as far as I can tell white people discovered truth for environmental reasons. The were superior at warfare for the same reasons. And white people were more successful at eugenic reproduction because of environment warfare and truth.
In this sense we are just less bad as a group than most others. Primarily because we have eliminated more of our bad folk.
An achievement we have rapidly reversed.
As far as I know no race or tribe is prohibited from transcendence. If every group practiced eugenic reproduction for a few centuries they would progress as well.
Why? Be cause the best of us cannot compensate for the worst of us.
This is fairly obvious.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-20 12:42:00 UTC
Notes Andrew Fraser – “The Wasp Question”
Britan, Canada, America, Austrailia, New Zeland.
Anglo saxons from kinship to contractualism upon movement to england.
The cult of the constitution constitutes the american identity.
The contractual empirical people.
The First Federal Republic (the initial)
The Second Bourgeoise Republic (equality)
The Third Managerial Republic (fraternity)
The Fourth TransNational Republic (diversity)
CURT SAYS
The struggle against the aristocracy.
The struggle against aristocracy is reducible,
to the struggle against meritocracy,
and the struggle against meritocracy is reducible,
to the struggle against eugenics,
and the struggle against eugenics is reducible,
to the struggle against evolution.
Transcendence.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 16:37:00 UTC
(Important piece)
The British on their isle and colonies, and the Jews in their ghettos and borderlands had the same incentives: protected from the east by the Teutons they could embrace the commercial and universal as ultimately decideable good rather than territory and nation as ultimately decideable good, and abandon inter temporality that is necessary for the retention of independence.
Disraeli transformed the emergent empire from Aryan territorial to Jewish commercial.
But the British made this change out of ignorance and greed – not knowing what consequence would arise from their overconfidence.
We see Spencer as his era’s Burke.
And the attempted restoration of the west and rescue from the commercial curse in the German rise.
Had not Germanic Americans misunderstood this conflict, Europa would have been saved.
We are always wrong you know.
The Anglos like the Jews are always wrong.
Always.
Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 05:33:00 UTC
(Important piece) The British on their isle and colonies, and the Jews in their ghettos and borderlands had the same incentives: protected from the east by the Teutons they could embrace the commercial and universal as ultimately decideable good rather than territory and nation as ultimately decideable good, and abandon inter temporality that is necessary for the retention of independence. Disraeli transformed the emergent empire from Aryan territorial to Jewish commercial.