http://www.vdare.com/posts/russia-and-ukraine-the-global-winds-are-blowing-in-favor-of-conservative-nationalism
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-21 20:30:00 UTC
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TRUTH: European Peoples and Dysgenia
http://www.vdare.com/node/33432FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TRUTH:
European Peoples and Dysgenia.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-17 07:07:00 UTC
-
The “gullible high trust white people” meme has legs. Why is it that we just lov
The “gullible high trust white people” meme has legs.
Why is it that we just love pseudoscience?
Platonism is forgivable. And its curable. But gullibility? Why are white people so gullible?
If I figure it out (and I will) there is something very valuable in there somewhere.
I know its partly genetic. I know its partly institutional.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-16 06:49:00 UTC
-
Mises and Rothbard were half wrong. For their inspiration they looked to the ghe
Mises and Rothbard were half wrong. For their inspiration they looked to the ghetto: the anarchic state within a state – just as did all jewish intellectuals from that part of the world. The jewish enlightenment not the anglo or continental was where they looked for inspiration. The problem is, you’d need the monarchical state to reconstruct the ghetto. That’s the Crusoe economics: the island is the ghetto, and the ocean is its walls.
For a study of economics it’s adequate. Rothbard doomed our movement though, by looking to ghetto ethics. Effectively rothbard says “we will both give up violence but we will not give up deception.”
It has not occurred to Libertarians, of any stripe, that it’s praxeologically impossible to form a polity with enough trust in one another, and therefore low enough transaction costs, that they will reduce their demand for a third party (the state) and thus grant one another liberty.
It’s impossible because it’s irrational. Non logical.
This is why libertarianism failed. Rothbard does not so much advocate liberty as justify immorality.
There is no peaceful solution to liberty. The source of liberty (property rights), was the exchange of those rights between those men willing to use organized violence to obtain those rights – including the prohibition on violence, deception and free riding. The wealth that resulted from the prohibition on violence, deception and free riding produced status signals that were desirable for others to imitate. Over time, westerners evolved to adopt the prohibition on violence, deception and free riding,
Rothbardian ethics are parasitic because they do not enforce a requirement that individuals produce what they transfer – rothbardian ethics permit and justify parasitism. The NAP is insufficient because it does not prohibit parasitism. Without a prohibition on parasitism, humans will not reduce demand for a state to limit parasitism.
VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE NOT A VICE
**If you will not fight for property rights, you have not earned them in exchange from those who do fight for them. You’re just another beggar trying to get them at a discount. Just another free rider on the backs of others. Just another parasite.**
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-16 04:18:00 UTC
-
Does Voluntary Segregation Answer Parasitism?
To the extent that Rothbard has made statements supporting voluntary segregation, it seems there’s no conflict between the two of you. His city state might be a little more tolerant or bazaar ethics than yours, but beyond that, I don’t get the conflict. Perhaps you’re not here addressing his acceptance of voluntary segregation and are instead addressing the ethics he claimed were universal. Is that it? — Roman,
Partly. 1) Yes, it’s an argument against universalism. But more importantly, it’s argument against whether ANYONE, in practice, would make the rational choice to live in a world of very high transaction costs (unethical and immoral), instead of a world of very low transaction costs but very high costs (prohibition on all parasitism). So, I’m saying that a ghetto can exist as an offshoot of more advanced polities (most surviving hunter gatherers were outcasts from their civilizations for example.) But you cannot build a civilization out of a ghetto. It’s not historically evident that it’s possible. And it’s not praxeologically rational that you could. 2) Yes, we can make a claim that a group’s reproductive strategy, in order to be competitive, requires that they engage in parasitism.(That’s rothbard’s strategy.) We can claim that another group in order to suit its reproductive strategy, would suppress ALL parasitism. We can, as with the extended and inbred family, preserve familial parasitism as a form of insurance, and actively advocate external parasitism. 3) It is extremely hard to demonstrate why anyone would live in the ghetto who had a choice to live in the palace. BUT i am not sure what the difference is between a prison system and a ghetto other than the victorian and progress era illusion of reform. 4) I pair voluntary segregation with the right of ostracization. I think ‘voluntary segregation’ on its own is another attempt to justify rothbardian parasitism (ghetto ethics). NET NET Since any group of people will rationally choose to reduce transaction costs via a monopoly government even if it is high cost to them. The only POSSIBLE outcome of rothbardian ethics is not a voluntary society, it’s a voluntary ghetto. A ghetto that is also the refuge of those we reject through ostracization. And within that ghetto a certain set of skills will develop and certain individuals will benefit from parasitic competition against other parasitic peoples. It should become clear at this point where rothbard got his ethics from. Habituated, adapted, cultural memory of the ghetto. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic.
-
Does Voluntary Segregation Answer Parasitism?
To the extent that Rothbard has made statements supporting voluntary segregation, it seems there’s no conflict between the two of you. His city state might be a little more tolerant or bazaar ethics than yours, but beyond that, I don’t get the conflict. Perhaps you’re not here addressing his acceptance of voluntary segregation and are instead addressing the ethics he claimed were universal. Is that it? — Roman,
Partly. 1) Yes, it’s an argument against universalism. But more importantly, it’s argument against whether ANYONE, in practice, would make the rational choice to live in a world of very high transaction costs (unethical and immoral), instead of a world of very low transaction costs but very high costs (prohibition on all parasitism). So, I’m saying that a ghetto can exist as an offshoot of more advanced polities (most surviving hunter gatherers were outcasts from their civilizations for example.) But you cannot build a civilization out of a ghetto. It’s not historically evident that it’s possible. And it’s not praxeologically rational that you could. 2) Yes, we can make a claim that a group’s reproductive strategy, in order to be competitive, requires that they engage in parasitism.(That’s rothbard’s strategy.) We can claim that another group in order to suit its reproductive strategy, would suppress ALL parasitism. We can, as with the extended and inbred family, preserve familial parasitism as a form of insurance, and actively advocate external parasitism. 3) It is extremely hard to demonstrate why anyone would live in the ghetto who had a choice to live in the palace. BUT i am not sure what the difference is between a prison system and a ghetto other than the victorian and progress era illusion of reform. 4) I pair voluntary segregation with the right of ostracization. I think ‘voluntary segregation’ on its own is another attempt to justify rothbardian parasitism (ghetto ethics). NET NET Since any group of people will rationally choose to reduce transaction costs via a monopoly government even if it is high cost to them. The only POSSIBLE outcome of rothbardian ethics is not a voluntary society, it’s a voluntary ghetto. A ghetto that is also the refuge of those we reject through ostracization. And within that ghetto a certain set of skills will develop and certain individuals will benefit from parasitic competition against other parasitic peoples. It should become clear at this point where rothbard got his ethics from. Habituated, adapted, cultural memory of the ghetto. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic.
-
Strange thought. But can I use ethical realism to break the conflict between whi
Strange thought. But can I use ethical realism to break the conflict between whites and jews? Because that’s a pretty amazingly competitive polity. If we can take away the ability to violate high trust norms, can we unite the whites and the jews – as we almost did prior to the wars?
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 06:18:00 UTC
-
WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE STUPID? Trust. Trust is actually in our genes. For a homoge
WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE STUPID?
Trust.
Trust is actually in our genes.
For a homogenous population that’s a good thing.
In a diverse population, it’s genetically maladaptive.
White people are willing to fall head over heels for every pseudoscientific nonsense that any one throws at them. Peter and Paul, Augustine, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the whole lot of academic postmodernists.
We have the high trust society because we are both less impulsive and more willing to trust than any other genetic group on earth. We even used to be smarter than the rest of them. But no longer.
Stupid white people. Unfortunately, I love my people. Even if they are stupid. Gullible, trusting, victims of every empty verbalistic pseudoscience anyone comes up with.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-15 06:00:00 UTC
-
The Struggle To Extend In-Group Trust To Outgroup Members
The ongoing struggle to extend in-group trust to out-group members. Or, the ongoing struggle to extend the cooperation demonstrated between consanguineous relations, to beyond those relations, such that it is possible for us to evolve a division of knowledge and labor, in which there is as little risk of misappropriation of our efforts in the market, as there is within the consanguineous family. While inside the family free riding is a form of mutual insurance, manageable by threat of deprivation and ostracization, the fact remains that one’s genetic kin prosper even at the cost of unequal distribution of gains and losses. But outside the kin, the same free riding, and unequal distribution of gains and losses, is neither of benefit to kin, nor controllable by ostracization and deprivation. There is always another group to prey upon if one is mobile enough. And it takes but a minority of predators engaging in immoral activity to render all external trust intolerable, and thereby undermine the people’s economy, polity, and competitive survival. Simple property If it was hard to create the institution of simple-private-property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of violence and theft. Low trust private property If it was hard to create the institution of low-trust private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud and blackmail. High trust warrantied private property It was hard to create the institution of high-trust, warrantied, private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud by omission, negligence, and externalization. High Trust Political Institutions It was hard to create the formal institutions of high political trust american classical liberalism in an attempt to suppress corruption in government, all forms of free riding. “Perfect-Trust” Informal and Formal Institutions So, the why would it not be even more difficult to create formal and informal institutions such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of deception by obscurantism, mysticism and loading? Because cooperation across reproductive strategies is impossible without trust that operates independently of our differences in property rights.
-
The Struggle To Extend In-Group Trust To Outgroup Members
The ongoing struggle to extend in-group trust to out-group members. Or, the ongoing struggle to extend the cooperation demonstrated between consanguineous relations, to beyond those relations, such that it is possible for us to evolve a division of knowledge and labor, in which there is as little risk of misappropriation of our efforts in the market, as there is within the consanguineous family. While inside the family free riding is a form of mutual insurance, manageable by threat of deprivation and ostracization, the fact remains that one’s genetic kin prosper even at the cost of unequal distribution of gains and losses. But outside the kin, the same free riding, and unequal distribution of gains and losses, is neither of benefit to kin, nor controllable by ostracization and deprivation. There is always another group to prey upon if one is mobile enough. And it takes but a minority of predators engaging in immoral activity to render all external trust intolerable, and thereby undermine the people’s economy, polity, and competitive survival. Simple property If it was hard to create the institution of simple-private-property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of violence and theft. Low trust private property If it was hard to create the institution of low-trust private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud and blackmail. High trust warrantied private property It was hard to create the institution of high-trust, warrantied, private property such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of fraud by omission, negligence, and externalization. High Trust Political Institutions It was hard to create the formal institutions of high political trust american classical liberalism in an attempt to suppress corruption in government, all forms of free riding. “Perfect-Trust” Informal and Formal Institutions So, the why would it not be even more difficult to create formal and informal institutions such that we could prosecute and suppress the crimes of deception by obscurantism, mysticism and loading? Because cooperation across reproductive strategies is impossible without trust that operates independently of our differences in property rights.