Theme: Governance

  • Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS? —“Curt… Can you help

    Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS?

    —“Curt… Can you help me find the correct term which describes a nationalist state that allows freedom as long as you don’t “go against the nation (the foundation of the nation and the heritage)”.—

    Well, you do it with a set of rules (limits) and you give that a name. In the main, you’re describing a nationalist state which exercises the right of exclusion (which is required by natural law) to prohibit non-kin (non nationals) and the contractual (constitutional) provision that one may not export costs of association and trade onto other citizens’s common property:culture.

    We have no name that I know of for such a thing other than Nationalism, and nationalism fits. But it is not constrained enough. So we must add the limitation of protectionism. But we must clarify protectionism not of trade but of culture. So I would say Culturally Protectionist Nationalism.

    This conveys free trade allowing competition for goods and services, but not competition for culture, just as we do not allow competition for property rights, law, and government.

    The Chinese do this aggressively. So do the Muslims. And presently the Russians have started.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 03:34:00 UTC

  • “Moscow has used everything from shady energy deals, to webs of shell companies,

    —“Moscow has used everything from shady energy deals, to webs of shell companies, to hot money in the City of London, to the financing of extremist political parties in Europe. Its success in doing so raises the economic cost of conflict, reduces resolve to resist Moscow, and gives Russia a ready-made lobby in Western capitals. The Kremlin has effectively weaponized globalization.

    Rather than an Iron Curtain with armies facing off across the Fulda Gap, the main fault line of the current conflict is between a Western zone of transparency and a Moscow-dominated sphere of corruption. Any containment policy, therefore, needs first and foremost to limit Russia’s sphere of corruption and extend the Western zone of transparency.

    “The front lines of containment are the non-Russian states in the potential path of Russian expansion. Seen in this light, a divided Ukraine occupies the same role in today’s containment strategy as a divided Germany did in yesterday’s,” Motyl wrote in Foreign Affairs. “Ukraine should therefore be the recipient of similar financial, political, and military assistance.””—–


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 16:41:00 UTC

  • “Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is essentially a crime syndicate masquerading a

    —“Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia is essentially a crime syndicate masquerading as a state.”— The Atlantic

    Not sure I buy that.

    —“The Kremlin has effectively weaponized globalization.”—

    Interesting…..


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 16:40:00 UTC

  • MEN VS WOMEN: THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY – INVENTING NEW GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT FEM

    MEN VS WOMEN: THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY – INVENTING NEW GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT FEMALE PARASITISM, JUST AS WE INVENTED GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT MALE PARASITISM

    I agree with giving women property rights – it’s logically Impossible not to.

    I am also ok with giving women a House, just as we gave the middle class a House and should have given the proletarians a House. Because Houses are necessary for the concentration competing interests such that they conduct mutually beneficial exchanges.

    The conduct of exchanges allows us cooperate on means even if we share alternative ends, rather than fall prey to majority tyranny of the underclasses of which women who are single represent the minority.

    Majority rule makes possible the selection of priorities for limited resources, but it does not make possible the cooperation on conflicting priorities which require no monopoly of resources/

    We are not equal because we are competitors. If we are competitors, then we can ONLY compete via a market of voluntary exchanges and NOT through majority rule.

    My criticism is not that women should be or can be different from how they are, but that democracy is a tragic institution by which the worst possible ambitions of our majority underclasses can be brought to suicidal fruition.

    We invented government to reduce male predation by violence. We must now invent new government to reduce female predation through parasitism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 08:48:00 UTC

  • TURNING THE PACIFISM OF THE “DISENFRANCHISED” MOVEMENT INTO AGGRESSIVE WARFARE W

    TURNING THE PACIFISM OF THE “DISENFRANCHISED” MOVEMENT INTO AGGRESSIVE WARFARE

    Well I learned something from the debate with the new nietzscheans over the past few days. But what it has taught me is that I must take down the ‘individual disenfranchised male is superior” movement and transform it from a pacifist obscurantist justification justification of, and admission of defeat, to a rebellion that uses masculine violence to institute change. It is one thing to abandon self sacrifice for women, and quite another to abandon yourself and your people to conquest.

    So. Great. (sarcasm) I get to make more ‘friends’ by demonstrating the fallacy of their false heroism as mask for their admission of beta standing, just so that I can deprive them of the opportunity to engage in another ‘libertarian’ equivalent of seasteading (defeat), or another socialist equivalent of the commune (defeat).

    But, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.

    One does not chat one’s self up by casting failure as heroic (that’s jewish and christian ethics for you).

    One does not chat one’s self up by chuffed-up confidence-building over beer or the digital equivalent (internet) with those who agree with you.

    Instead, One makes a plan in which he has confidence and he executes it with discipline, absent emotion, and in particular, absent of fear: (McVeigh,Kaczynski,Breivik, millions of communists, and thousands of radicalized muslim men).

    Christianity taught us to extirpate hatred from our hearts and minds. Military training taught us to extirpate impulse from our hearts and minds – and to hold formation, and execute in formation. Science taught us to extirpate imagination from our hearts and minds.

    Modernity does not require we work in great numbers, or that we even work in formation. The muslims conquered weakened Byzantium and Persia by quick strikes and retreat into the desert. The same way that muslims conquer today by quick raids and retreat into the cities, slums, suburbs and deserts.

    Our western way of war is terribly expensive, because it relies upon technology, planning, and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers through concentration of force, maneuver, and supply lines.

    But we face not military enemies who may conquer us by our FAMILIAR means, but religious enemies who have already conquered and occupied our territory: the alliance of the neo-puritans, feminists, socialists, postmodernists, into the Academy, state, media complex under the banner of democratic secular socialist humanism – but which is no more than profiteering by members of the academy, state and media, by privatizing in to their own corporation, the civilization we have built.

    Just as they force elderly from their homes through taxation and reduce us all to renters of our territory who are cast out when we can no longer perform, they seek to cast our tribe, culture, and race and transferring our nations into rental property – a process which they are currently succeeding with.

    We have been conquered. We are being exterminated. Cowards retreat. The rest of us go to war. And If you do not fight then you are by definition not worthy of survival. There is no heroism in going your own way. There is merely death and defeat of you and your people – evidence of your inferiority.

    You were born with a wealth of violence and through the shaming of women taught not to master it, not to love and care for it, not to build and improve it – so that they could conquer you and defeat you.

    Violence is a virtue. Excellence in violence may be the highest virtue. That is because violence is the determinant of all orders of mankind, and the orders of mankind determine a group’s survival.

    The hundreds of generations of men who came before you fought for your standing, only to have one or two generations abandon it for the pleasure of our women.

    Kill, fight, or perish.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 05:15:00 UTC

  • A HIERARCHY OF DEFINITIONS: ARISTOCRACY Rule by Aristocracy : rule by natural ar

    A HIERARCHY OF DEFINITIONS: ARISTOCRACY

    Rule by Aristocracy : rule by natural aristocracy: the best able to *rule*.

    –“The concept evolved in Ancient Greece, whereby a council of leading citizens was commonly empowered. Aristocracy was contrasted with direct democracy, in which a council of male citizens was appointed as the “senate” of a city state or other political unit.”—

    HIERARCHY

    (1) AMBITION: Hero, or Heroic man, a man who seeks to demonstrate his excellences through competition, in exchange for status for having contributed to the strength of the polity. (ambition)

    (2) DEVELOPMENT: Aristocrat : An ‘Aesthete’ (judge of and creator of excellence) in all things: aesthetics, truth, ethics, politics, and war. An individual who advocates aristocracy – includes all men of all classes who desire both rule by the best able to rule: by those who by virtue of talent and aesthetic choice are best able to rule, and persist the aesthetic excellences; and who desire to best imitate those who they desire to rule.

    (3) DEMONSTRATION: Nobility: Natural Aristocracy (the bourgeoise or managerial class that makes liberty possible, and who retains excellence, ability and power across generations)

    (4) ACHIEVEMENT: Superior or Great Man, or Virtuous Man: a man who succeeds in demonstrating his excellences through competition, and whose achievements survive in the record of history.

    (5) TRANSCENDENT: Transcendent man: an ambition to evolve to the next step in our journey to become our concept of gods.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 04:43:00 UTC

  • When Is External Aggression Warranted?

    [W]AR

    External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism. In other words, it tis always moral and warranted to export high trust against the will of lower trust peoples. The problem is, it can almost never be done without colonizing and ruling them, and bearing the expense of doing it. Most often it is cheaper and easier to punish them severely so that you raise the cost of their low trust behavior until they adopt high trust out of practical convenience.

  • When Is External Aggression Warranted?

    [W]AR

    External aggression is warranted when a lower trust polity causes harm to a higher trust polity, and the result of aggression will be an increase in the level of non-parasitism. In other words, it tis always moral and warranted to export high trust against the will of lower trust peoples. The problem is, it can almost never be done without colonizing and ruling them, and bearing the expense of doing it. Most often it is cheaper and easier to punish them severely so that you raise the cost of their low trust behavior until they adopt high trust out of practical convenience.

  • Another Thought on Republics: Indecision.

    [A] republic, or an oligarchy by any other name, even one ruled by law, is a notoriously indecisive form of organization. I do not see a better division of labor than the one we discovered by accident. A republic is an excellent means of producing commons. A monarchy an excellent means of conducting war. And a democracy an excellent means of fooling the people into suicide. The Optimum that I know of: 1) Monarch, Military, and Militia for the defense of people, territory, routes, and trade. 2) Independent Judiciary for the resolution of conflicts, Rule of law, Property en Toto. 3) An independent treasury for the provision of credit (issuance and repurchase of shares) 4) Houses for the Production of Commons with members drawn by lot. 5) Families for the production of generations under voluntary selection of mates. 6) Men and Women forming Militia and emergency services. 7) Private provision of public goods. We had it about right. If we had given women and the proletarians houses and maintained land and property requirements we would have created a market for commons, instead of the fallacy of majority rule (mob rule).

  • Another Thought on Republics: Indecision.

    [A] republic, or an oligarchy by any other name, even one ruled by law, is a notoriously indecisive form of organization. I do not see a better division of labor than the one we discovered by accident. A republic is an excellent means of producing commons. A monarchy an excellent means of conducting war. And a democracy an excellent means of fooling the people into suicide. The Optimum that I know of: 1) Monarch, Military, and Militia for the defense of people, territory, routes, and trade. 2) Independent Judiciary for the resolution of conflicts, Rule of law, Property en Toto. 3) An independent treasury for the provision of credit (issuance and repurchase of shares) 4) Houses for the Production of Commons with members drawn by lot. 5) Families for the production of generations under voluntary selection of mates. 6) Men and Women forming Militia and emergency services. 7) Private provision of public goods. We had it about right. If we had given women and the proletarians houses and maintained land and property requirements we would have created a market for commons, instead of the fallacy of majority rule (mob rule).