http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.htmlUnder democracy, diversity is ‘a bad’.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 13:57:00 UTC
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
The Four Libertarian Frameworks
(in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound) 1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism.2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism.3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism.BAGGAGE: METHODOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL [W]e all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological. One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy. In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage. METHOD VS CONTENT 1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments. 2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism. 3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments 3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members. THE GOAL OF PROPAGATION [R]atio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that. Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail. The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists. ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM: RELIGIO-MORAL NARRATIVES + RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS. [T]he problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost. Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite. The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others. Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay. That is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill. As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms. [L]iberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us. But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists. The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom. Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
The Four Libertarian Frameworks
(in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound) 1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism.2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism.3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism.BAGGAGE: METHODOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL [W]e all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological. One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy. In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage. METHOD VS CONTENT 1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments. 2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism. 3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments 3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members. THE GOAL OF PROPAGATION [R]atio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that. Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail. The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists. ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM: RELIGIO-MORAL NARRATIVES + RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS. [T]he problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost. Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite. The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others. Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay. That is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill. As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms. [L]iberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us. But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists. The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom. Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
ORIGINAL SINS I guess that I just don’t understand the anglo fascination with fl
ORIGINAL SINS
I guess that I just don’t understand the anglo fascination with flowery universalism, any more than I do the german fascination with authority or the jewish with pseudoscience, hindu fascination with the ‘benevolent natural order of things’, or the asian assumption that man is an evil creature and that truth is better left unsaid.
In every culture – we all have our own original intellectual sins.
I’ve spent a little time trying to imagine the world without indo europeans. And the Japanese are the best we have been able to do otherwise.
You now, it’s all well and good that one culture or another invents something first. Its another to say what they do with their inventions.
As far as I can tell it’s the latter that matters.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:07:00 UTC
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans The intra-family system of o
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
The intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules:
0) Private property
1) Voluntary Exchange
2) Symmetry and Warranty*
3) Prohibition on Externality*
4) Requirement for Value Added*
5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding.
6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains
These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution.
Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws):
7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law)
8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.)
9) The right of exclusion (ostracization).
These last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft).
High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts
These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.
As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market
Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.
As Such,
1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts,
2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts
3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts.
As Such, A Common Law System Can Function
Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible.
Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability
As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts.
Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE.
1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.
2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable
3) Measurements render relations commensurable
4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.
5) Money renders goods and services commensurable
6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 18:23:00 UTC
-
AN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN CALL TO ARMS Rothbard is using the urban ghetto as a
AN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN CALL TO ARMS
Rothbard is using the urban ghetto as a model (Jewish religious) and Locke the genetically homogenous island as a model (English and Anglo-Empirical). A third model consists of tribes constantly competing for land and thus constantly at war over resources -the spears you mention: (German and Continental) model.
A fourth model is told to us by science: a consanguineous inbred band without distinction by the roles that we must evolve along with our means of production, and the rules necessary to facilitate that production.
None of these models addresses mans nature. All of them together, do tell us something:
The natural state of man is to adapt his family (reproductive organization), his rules of cooperation (property rights, norms, rituals and myths) to the continuous changes in the structure of production made possible by his technical advancements.
There exists no natural state of man, only natural properties of man. Arguments in favor of a state of man are bound to fail because they are based upon false assumptions.
The problem for any cooperative group remains constant: creating incentives both in favor of production and against free riding and parasitism. Since expansion of production in a division of knowledge and labor increases the opportunity for free riding and parasitism because of increasing anonymity of the participants the structure of production.
Rothbard, like Cantor, Freud and Marx, is but the author another pseudoscience and our failure to grasp it as such a measure of our seducability by cheap introspective empty verbalisms rather than expensive scientific investigations.
And I am going to drag libertarian philosophy out of the empty verbalism of ghetto pseudoscience and into the ratio scientific era – kicking and screaming if necessary. But then, given the enormous investments pseudoscientists have made in their pseudoscience I suspect that they will cling to their empty verbal pseudoscience as desperately as fortune tellers, astrologers, psychologists, marxists, and mathematical platonists.
–Leave no pseudoscientist standing. Liberty is too precious to trust to empty verbalism–
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-25 08:22:00 UTC
-
Its not uncommon in politically incorrect circles to argue that China’s IQ advan
Its not uncommon in politically incorrect circles to argue that China’s IQ advantage, and the evidence of Asian ‘pliability’ demonstrated from the moment of birth onward, is the result of the systematic and intentional extermination of troublemakers for thousands of years. We know that in northern Europe the use of manorialism allowed the middle class gene pool to almost entirely replace the proletarian gene pool, and that the plague exacerbated it a bit. So that almost all northern europeans by the early 1600’s were decedents of the middle class. And we’re pretty sure that Northern European, Ashkenazi and Chinese IQ’s were at relative parity in 1850. But that we’re getting ‘dumber’ genetically even if ratio-scientific eduction and the Flynn effect of universal exposure to universal rules has somewhat compensated for it. The net being that aside from their side track into Marxism, they’ve done a lot of good for themselves. But some truths are painful.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-24 05:46:00 UTC
-
LETTER TO THE BBC – TODAY – IN RESPONSE TO “REQUEST FOR COMMENTS FROM KIEV” (int
LETTER TO THE BBC – TODAY – IN RESPONSE TO “REQUEST FOR COMMENTS FROM KIEV”
(interesting insight) (class and diversity)
–“I live in downtown Kiev. I have for a year and a half. And it might be interesting to relate how I have been affected, at least intellectually, by the protests.
I think we could help both western journalists and the populace they serve (as well as various State departments) if they would understand one of the vast differences between Ukrainian (and Russian for that matter) cultures and our own.
Somewhat like the Nordic countries, but very UNLIKE the germanic and anglo countries, Ukrainians do not really consider themselves as participants in a class war. While status signals are about all we seem to seek to collect in the west, here in Ukraine, status signals are something you collect personally, but not on behalf of a class.
The near destruction of class warfare was perhaps the only benefit of the soviet system. It worked. Whereas, in the west, we are still trying, to create the ‘Aristocracy of Everybody’ that was the unstated promise of the enlightenment in its Anglo, Anglo-American, German and French versions.
The Ukrainian society is, despite its fracture along geographic lines, language lines, religious lines, and political lines, NOT fractured along class lines.
And without this constant class and status warfare by everyone, people don’t demonize each other. They aren’t frustrated with each other. And even as a low-trust society, they don’t necessarily mistrust each other. Instead, they think and act as an extended family.
As such there just isn’t all that pent up anger and frustration that we have in anglo countries – since it’s IMPOSSIBLE to create an aristocracy of everybody – many people become frustrated at the conflict between the promise of upper middle class life, and the reality that western countries form normal distributions. That just doesn’t happen here.
Ukraine is tribally heterogeneous, but not necessarily culturally heterogeneous. Certainly less different than Quebecois and Anglo Anglos in Canada. Even in Canada the conflict is more over the class differences between the French who were predominantly from the continental lower classes, and the english who were not. In america the conflict is increasingly between married protestants with two incomes that can maintain middle class status, and everyone else.
The Ukrainian people reserve their anger and frustration for the corrupt government and do not display it toward one another. In fact, they are extremely civil and loving (despite absurd levels of alcohol consumption and zero prohibition on fist-to-cuffs). They have a nobility and pride that we have lost in our constant great game of class warfare.
The uncomfortable truth we westerners (particularly in the Anglosphere) must learn to deal with is that homogenous small societies demonstrate tolerance for greater redistribution and intolerance for class warfare. And that diverse, large societies resist redistribution and encourage class and culture warfare. In small homogenous polities, the government is a vehicle for cooperation. In large heterogeneous polities the government is a vehicle for class and cultural competition.
I am not sure we should be so proud of ourselves in the Anglo world. Ukrainians formed a militia in 90 days out of hand-made armor, surplus military gear, motorcycle and hockey gear, baseball bats, pipes, and a few weapons that they stole from the police and military.
That little militia did more for their freedom than democracy ever had.
I think that’s what I learned from watching Ukrainians revolt.”–
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-23 08:32:00 UTC