Optimistic – (Anglos – activist utopianism)
Hopeful – (India – persistent tolerance)
Optimistic – (Germans – constant diligence)
Cautious (japan – patience work and opportunity.)
Closed (france – ignore and delay)
Fearful (China – Deceive and delay)
Pessimistic (Russia – deception and aggression) h/t: Kahirunnisia and Gavin.
Static (islam – deceive and undermine at all costs)
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-24 21:17:00 UTC
[I]f you adopt paternalism: that your kin are an extended family, and that you will work with other extended families to cooperate non-parasitically with all other extended families, and that we produce nations not states, then you get this wonderful ability for us to religion, culture, race, class and caste. We struggle with a certain problem: that while small nations are better for the development of community and mutual insurance, large states are materially valuable for the conduct of war and less so for trade bargaining. But once we have nuclear weapons it is very hard to violate borders without committing suicide. So there appears to be no reason for large states other than aggressive warfare. And yes, some territory is objectively better than other territory. And some genes are objectively better than other genes. And we start from different levels of development. But states are as much a barrier to development as they are to improvement precisely because of scale. Scale increases the ability to engage in corruption. With scale we find anonymity. With anonymity we have informational asymmetry. With informational asymmetry we have opportunity for corruption (privatization of commons). So you know, I’m a CLASSIST, in that i recognize the problem of carrying a large and counterproductive underclass, but I am not a RACIST in that I want all groups to transcend the animal, become fully human, and evolve into what we imagine as gods. And its possible. We had it right. Unfortunately we blew it. And now we have to fix it.
[I]f you adopt paternalism: that your kin are an extended family, and that you will work with other extended families to cooperate non-parasitically with all other extended families, and that we produce nations not states, then you get this wonderful ability for us to religion, culture, race, class and caste. We struggle with a certain problem: that while small nations are better for the development of community and mutual insurance, large states are materially valuable for the conduct of war and less so for trade bargaining. But once we have nuclear weapons it is very hard to violate borders without committing suicide. So there appears to be no reason for large states other than aggressive warfare. And yes, some territory is objectively better than other territory. And some genes are objectively better than other genes. And we start from different levels of development. But states are as much a barrier to development as they are to improvement precisely because of scale. Scale increases the ability to engage in corruption. With scale we find anonymity. With anonymity we have informational asymmetry. With informational asymmetry we have opportunity for corruption (privatization of commons). So you know, I’m a CLASSIST, in that i recognize the problem of carrying a large and counterproductive underclass, but I am not a RACIST in that I want all groups to transcend the animal, become fully human, and evolve into what we imagine as gods. And its possible. We had it right. Unfortunately we blew it. And now we have to fix it.
(important piece)(I will write more on this later. But it will explain my emphasis on operationalism and strict construction) [B]efore about 1830, when the British Empire adopted commercial universalism, Britain was a member of germanic, north sea, hanseatic, civilization. We tend to compare our British ancestors to Today’s Britons who are heavily catholicized and franglicized, and certainly members of socialist cults of hyper signaling through quests for artificial moralism. But the majority of anglo immigrants arrive before the civil war, and the majority of german immigrants before the second world war. And the majority of white americans trace their history to germanic origins. Our warriors in our wars – all of them – are largely germanic. Our Teutons (warrior caste) have been our great leaders. Our founders had far more in common with their german counterparts in pre-unification Germany, than they did with middle class and commercial victorian Britons. They may have spoken English. They may have learned French. They may have ridiculed the ‘backwardness’ of the Germans. But for all intents and purposes they were Germanic, Protestant, Hanseatic, North Sea peoples with germanic aspirations and germanic values. And because of its libertarian political structure, Hanseatic Civilization (of the north sea peoples) does not receive historical treatment that the statist era the destroyed it under napoleon, and with napoleon set the destruction of western civilization in motion. The american states had more in common with the german principalities than they did with their British ancestors. Our indoctrination into the ‘frame’ of war-making-nation-states obscures too much information from us. There is some truth that in the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds, there was an acknowledge conspiracy between today’s catholic(mediterranean trade) states that the germans be left alone so that they defended the frontier from the barbarians of the east. But we are a germanic people – a north sea people. Water ways determined evolution more so than land masses since it is waterways that provide routes for discounted conduct of trade. The american civil war – over control of the continent with slavery as the excuse – and Lincoln’s destruction of the germanic states, and their conversion to Napoleonic centrality, was the second great tragedy of Europe. And the attempt to unify Europe under a federal government the third great tragedy. We can now only struggle to overthrow the failed Enlightenment projects, and return to polycentrism which was the competitive cause of western political, military, and commercial innovation. Scale increases the promise of mutual insurance in exchange for the stagnation and systemic parasitism that results from all organizational certainty. Only change and conflict strengthen (see Taleb), and certainty increases fragility. So we can also state that libertarian sentiments of our anglo saxon ancestors were artificially protected just as the libertarian sentiments of our Icelandic and american ancestors. And that it is only our Scandinavian(middle ages) and Prussian(enlightenment) ancestors that held europe’s indo-european warrior traditions as central cultural values. (This is an uncomfortable truth that libertarians will have difficulty swallowing.) America is a Germanic Country, Conquered by French Nation-statism, Invaded by The Second Great Jewish Lie of Pseudoscience, The Great Deceit of Postmodernism that followed, and saved only by the challenge of overcoming the nearly but not fully, strictly constructed Anglo Saxon Common Law. Hence my radically analytic pursuit of Truth, and Strict Construction (operationalism) so that it is possible to reform our ancient germanic polycentric government so that it cannot be changed by political means, can may only evolve methods of voluntary cooperation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
(important piece)(I will write more on this later. But it will explain my emphasis on operationalism and strict construction) [B]efore about 1830, when the British Empire adopted commercial universalism, Britain was a member of germanic, north sea, hanseatic, civilization. We tend to compare our British ancestors to Today’s Britons who are heavily catholicized and franglicized, and certainly members of socialist cults of hyper signaling through quests for artificial moralism. But the majority of anglo immigrants arrive before the civil war, and the majority of german immigrants before the second world war. And the majority of white americans trace their history to germanic origins. Our warriors in our wars – all of them – are largely germanic. Our Teutons (warrior caste) have been our great leaders. Our founders had far more in common with their german counterparts in pre-unification Germany, than they did with middle class and commercial victorian Britons. They may have spoken English. They may have learned French. They may have ridiculed the ‘backwardness’ of the Germans. But for all intents and purposes they were Germanic, Protestant, Hanseatic, North Sea peoples with germanic aspirations and germanic values. And because of its libertarian political structure, Hanseatic Civilization (of the north sea peoples) does not receive historical treatment that the statist era the destroyed it under napoleon, and with napoleon set the destruction of western civilization in motion. The american states had more in common with the german principalities than they did with their British ancestors. Our indoctrination into the ‘frame’ of war-making-nation-states obscures too much information from us. There is some truth that in the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds, there was an acknowledge conspiracy between today’s catholic(mediterranean trade) states that the germans be left alone so that they defended the frontier from the barbarians of the east. But we are a germanic people – a north sea people. Water ways determined evolution more so than land masses since it is waterways that provide routes for discounted conduct of trade. The american civil war – over control of the continent with slavery as the excuse – and Lincoln’s destruction of the germanic states, and their conversion to Napoleonic centrality, was the second great tragedy of Europe. And the attempt to unify Europe under a federal government the third great tragedy. We can now only struggle to overthrow the failed Enlightenment projects, and return to polycentrism which was the competitive cause of western political, military, and commercial innovation. Scale increases the promise of mutual insurance in exchange for the stagnation and systemic parasitism that results from all organizational certainty. Only change and conflict strengthen (see Taleb), and certainty increases fragility. So we can also state that libertarian sentiments of our anglo saxon ancestors were artificially protected just as the libertarian sentiments of our Icelandic and american ancestors. And that it is only our Scandinavian(middle ages) and Prussian(enlightenment) ancestors that held europe’s indo-european warrior traditions as central cultural values. (This is an uncomfortable truth that libertarians will have difficulty swallowing.) America is a Germanic Country, Conquered by French Nation-statism, Invaded by The Second Great Jewish Lie of Pseudoscience, The Great Deceit of Postmodernism that followed, and saved only by the challenge of overcoming the nearly but not fully, strictly constructed Anglo Saxon Common Law. Hence my radically analytic pursuit of Truth, and Strict Construction (operationalism) so that it is possible to reform our ancient germanic polycentric government so that it cannot be changed by political means, can may only evolve methods of voluntary cooperation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—
[C]hris, (all) Great Question Chris. We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests. The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it. Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government. And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me. Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all. The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience. These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say). I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution. Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there. But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science. (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. ) I hope this helps. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—
[C]hris, (all) Great Question Chris. We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests. The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it. Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government. And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me. Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all. The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience. These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say). I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution. Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there. But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science. (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. ) I hope this helps. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
Q&A: “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ALT RIGHT AUTHORS?”
—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—
Chris, (all)
Great Question Chris.
We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests.
The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it.
Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government.
And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me.
Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all.
The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience.
These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say).
I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution.
Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there.
But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science.
(As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpeting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-ooperational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. )
I hope this helps.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 05:07:00 UTC
AMERICA IS A GERMAN NOT ANGLO COUNTRY
(important piece)
(I will write more on this later. But it will explain my emphasis on operationalism and strict construction)
Before about 1830, when the British Empire adopted commercial universalism, Britain was a member of germanic, north sea, hanseatic, civilization.
We tend to compare our British ancestors to Today’s Britons who are heavily catholicized and franglicized, and certainly members of socialist cults of hyper signaling through quests for artificial moralism.
But the majority of anglo immigrants arrive before the civil war, and the majority of german immigrants before the second world war. And the majority of white americans trace their history to germanic origins.
Our warriors in our wars – all of them – are largely germanic. Our Teutons (warrior caste) have been our great leaders.
Our founders had far more in common with their german counterparts in pre-unification Germany, than they did with middle class and commercial victorian Britons. They may have spoken English. They may have learned French. They may have ridiculed the ‘backwardness’ of the Germans. But for all intents and purposes they were Germanic, Protestant, Hanseatic, North Sea peoples with germanic aspirations and germanic values. And because of its libertarian political structure, Hanseatic Civilization (of the north sea peoples) does not receive historical treatment that the statist era the destroyed it under napoleon, and with napoleon set the destruction of western civilization in motion.
The american states had more in common with the german principalities than they did with their British ancestors.
Our indoctrination into the ‘frame’ of war-making-nation-states obscures too much information from us. There is some truth that in the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds, there was an acknowledge conspiracy between today’s catholic(mediterranean trade) states that the germans be left alone so that they defended the frontier from the barbarians of the east. But we are a germanic people – a north sea people. Water ways determined evolution more so than land masses since it is waterways that provide routes for discounted conduct of trade.
The american civil war – over control of the continent with slavery as the excuse – and Lincoln’s destruction of the germanic states, and their conversion to Napoleonic centrality, was the second great tragedy of Europe. And the attempt to unify Europe under a federal governmnet the third great tragedy.
We can now only struggle to overthrow the failed Enlightenment projects, and return to polycentrism which was the competitive cause of western political, military, and commercial innovation.
Scale increases the promise of mutual insurance in exchange for the stagnation and systemic parasitism that results from all organizational certainty. Only change and conflict strengthen (see Taleb), and certainty increases fragility.
So we can also state that libertarian sentiments of our anglo saxon ancestors were artificially protected just as the libertarian sentiments of our Icelandic and american ancestors. And that it is only our Scandinavian(middle ages) and Prussian(enlightenment) ancestors that held europe’s indo-european warrior traditions as central cultural values. (This is an uncomfortable truth that libertarians will have difficulty swallowing.)
America is a Germanic Country, Conquered by French Nation-statism, Invaded by The Second Great Jewish Lie of Pseudoscience, The Great Deciet of Postmodernism that followed, and saved only by the challenge of overcoming the nearly but not fully, strictly constructed Anglo Saxon Common Law. Hence my radically analytic pursuit of Truth, and Strict Construction (operationalism) so that it is possible to reform our ancient germanic polycentric government so that it cannot be changed by political means, can may only evolve methods of voluntary cooperation.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 04:50:00 UTC
PATERNALISM AND CLASSISM BUT NOT RACISM
If you adopt paternalism: that your kin are an extended family, and that you will work with other extended families to cooperate non-parasitically with all other extended families, and that we produce nations not states, then you get this wonderful ability for us to religion, culture, race, class and caste.
We struggle with a certain problem: that while small nations are better for the development of community and mutual insurance, large states are materially valuable for the conduct of war and less so for trade bargaining. But once we have nuclear weapons it is very hard to violate borders without committing suicide. So there appears to be no reason for large states other than aggressive warfare.
And yes, some territory is objectively better than other territory. And some genes are objectively better than other genes. And we start from different levels of development.
But states are as much a barrier to development as they are to improvement precisely because of scale. Scale increases the ability to engage in corruption. With scale we find anonymity. With anonymity we have informational asymmetry. With informational asymmetry we have opportunity for corruption (privatization of commons).
So you know, I’m a CLASSIST, in that i recognize the problem of carrying a large and counterproductive underclass, but I am not a RACIST in that I want all groups to transcend the animal, become fully human, and evolve into what we imagine as gods.
And its possible. We had it right. Unfortunately we blew it. And now we have to fix it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-22 04:17:00 UTC