[T]he combination of “Anglo-Saxon” economics (accepting the dynamism of open markets) and of “Anglo-Saxon” politics (governments as seriously responsible–British version–or accountable–Washington version–to their voters) is doubly subversive to the French elite’s entire modus operandi. The “Anglo-Saxons” provide an identity to define oneself against and, in the case of the US, a counterpoint to seek to surpass. (One cannot really say “rival” because the US fails to feel threatened by European unity–indeed, actively promotes it; which is, if anything, even more infuriating.) –Michael Philip
Theme: Governance
-
The Anglo-Saxon Subversion of French Elites
-
How Far Are You Willing To Go?
[H]OW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO? To protect your family? To protect your tribe? To protect your civilization? To protect mankind?
What are you willing to do? Talk is cheap. Gossip is ineffective. The only solution is to raise the cost of the status quo until it is intolerable.Source: (5) Curt Doolittle
-
Q&A: Aristocracy vs Republic? It’s Criticism vs Justification.
—“I’m a bit ignorant on this. What makes an aristocracy different from a republic. With leaders or rulers representing a population.”—
[G]reat question. Thanks for asking it. Because you gave me the nudge I needed to write a first draft of aristocratic government that circumvents problems in libertarian thought.
I have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, propertyright/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation. OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people. REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (London, July 16, 2015) -
Q&A: Aristocracy vs Republic? It’s Criticism vs Justification.
—“I’m a bit ignorant on this. What makes an aristocracy different from a republic. With leaders or rulers representing a population.”—
[G]reat question. Thanks for asking it. Because you gave me the nudge I needed to write a first draft of aristocratic government that circumvents problems in libertarian thought.
I have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, propertyright/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation. OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people. REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (London, July 16, 2015) -
Universalism: The Love of Man
[S]orry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.
I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes. There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference. A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher. ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION. Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict. I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia. But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites. Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone. Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Universalism: The Love of Man
[S]orry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.
I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes. There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference. A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher. ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION. Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict. I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia. But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites. Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone. Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Eli Apologizes for American Yankees
[I] want to formally apologize to the world for the part America has played in pushing women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights, egalitarianism, democracy, and all the other hallmarks of progressivism. We didn’t kill enough Yankees. That’s a mistake I hope we can someday rectify. But in the meantime, I’m deeply and sincerely sorry. We’ve done as much harm to the world with this crap as the French, the Russians, the English, or the Jews. — Eli Harmon
-
Eli Apologizes for American Yankees
[I] want to formally apologize to the world for the part America has played in pushing women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights, egalitarianism, democracy, and all the other hallmarks of progressivism. We didn’t kill enough Yankees. That’s a mistake I hope we can someday rectify. But in the meantime, I’m deeply and sincerely sorry. We’ve done as much harm to the world with this crap as the French, the Russians, the English, or the Jews. — Eli Harmon
-
The Problem Isn’t Democracy Per Se, But the Combination of Democracy and Women
COOPERATION MATTERS. Not just cooperation between members of the PRODUCTIVE economy, but between members of the REPRODUCTIVE economy: men and women. We have to cooperate. Not parasite. OTHER WISE COOPERATION IS NOT PREFERABLE TO PREDATION. And under predation, men will win.
—“Democracy has brought us both the death of Socrates and the election of Hitler. It doesn’t get much better than that!”—
[W]omen. Not “us”. Women. Not democracy per se. But women in democracy. The decline of the west was caused by the enfranchsement of women into the democratic process. Prior to their enfranchisement it certainly appears that the one family (man) one vote system functioned when there were houses for each class.
Since then, within one generation, women moved through democracy to devolve the west. And since then they have been “useful idiots” for communists, socialists, postmodernists, and feminists.
In the medieval era through the classical liberal era, we were evolving a market for the production of commons by the negotiated construction of trades between the classes, and our fascination with reason and equality led us to the fantasy of reasoned optimum decision making (monopoly rule), rather than merely constructing trades between classes.
I think this is the right analysis.
For high trust westerners, a market for commons is an extremely valuable competitive advantage.
But introduction of women into the polity allowed them to express their reproductive strategy – which the entire history of property rights evolved to suppress: parasitism.
I love women. But they are as cognitively blind to politics as men are cognitively blind to interpersonal relations.
Curt
[W]omen are widely distributed to the conservative and progressive ends just as men are. Women skew left just as men skew right. So when I say ‘women’ I mean the obvious: that the distsribution of women under democracy causesleft-skewed results.
It is natural for a solipsistic female (or male) to interject with ‘not everyone…” but this statement in itself is evidence of the solipsistic (empathic) bias – because even the question itself would not occur to an alpha male, only to a feminized male. Of course not every womAn is identical, but as a block womEn vote their biases. It’s interesting that men casually and without question label one another alpha’s, betas, gammas and deltas, and rank women on an attractiveness scale of 1-10. Our differences are obvious, and our differences meaningful. It’s equally interesting that women don’t hierarchically categorize people as commonly as we do. Men are very often deniers of IQ and women deniers of the 1-10 scale. We can go through dozens of such differences all of which are manifestations of female generalizatino and male specialization.
While the original feminist movement was constructed by puritans, (Quakers) the consequential problem was caused by disproportionately by catholics with rhetoric provided by jews and then unmarried women and single mothers. Rothbard blames the Puritans and Conservatives blame the jews, and an empiricist like myself blames the combination of reproductive strategies of Jews(Undesirable people) and Feminists (undesirable women), and the signaling value to Neo-Puritans (un-productive people).
Women are more circumstantially driven than men are. Which is really interesting to me. It’s because they’re more solipsistic and less autistic. And they have to be. Women need to care for these obnoxious creatures we call children, and men need to suppress emotions to fight and hunt. But this bias has profound consequences.
There are good men and bad men.
Good women and bad women.
Good christians and bad christians.
Good jews and bad jews.But in general, distributions are what they are. And stereotypes are largely true.
( I grew up in the town where Susan B Anthony, one of the first women’s suffrage leaders lived and was tried. )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._AnthonyCurt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine -
The Problem Isn’t Democracy Per Se, But the Combination of Democracy and Women
COOPERATION MATTERS. Not just cooperation between members of the PRODUCTIVE economy, but between members of the REPRODUCTIVE economy: men and women. We have to cooperate. Not parasite. OTHER WISE COOPERATION IS NOT PREFERABLE TO PREDATION. And under predation, men will win.
—“Democracy has brought us both the death of Socrates and the election of Hitler. It doesn’t get much better than that!”—
[W]omen. Not “us”. Women. Not democracy per se. But women in democracy. The decline of the west was caused by the enfranchsement of women into the democratic process. Prior to their enfranchisement it certainly appears that the one family (man) one vote system functioned when there were houses for each class.
Since then, within one generation, women moved through democracy to devolve the west. And since then they have been “useful idiots” for communists, socialists, postmodernists, and feminists.
In the medieval era through the classical liberal era, we were evolving a market for the production of commons by the negotiated construction of trades between the classes, and our fascination with reason and equality led us to the fantasy of reasoned optimum decision making (monopoly rule), rather than merely constructing trades between classes.
I think this is the right analysis.
For high trust westerners, a market for commons is an extremely valuable competitive advantage.
But introduction of women into the polity allowed them to express their reproductive strategy – which the entire history of property rights evolved to suppress: parasitism.
I love women. But they are as cognitively blind to politics as men are cognitively blind to interpersonal relations.
Curt
[W]omen are widely distributed to the conservative and progressive ends just as men are. Women skew left just as men skew right. So when I say ‘women’ I mean the obvious: that the distsribution of women under democracy causesleft-skewed results.
It is natural for a solipsistic female (or male) to interject with ‘not everyone…” but this statement in itself is evidence of the solipsistic (empathic) bias – because even the question itself would not occur to an alpha male, only to a feminized male. Of course not every womAn is identical, but as a block womEn vote their biases. It’s interesting that men casually and without question label one another alpha’s, betas, gammas and deltas, and rank women on an attractiveness scale of 1-10. Our differences are obvious, and our differences meaningful. It’s equally interesting that women don’t hierarchically categorize people as commonly as we do. Men are very often deniers of IQ and women deniers of the 1-10 scale. We can go through dozens of such differences all of which are manifestations of female generalizatino and male specialization.
While the original feminist movement was constructed by puritans, (Quakers) the consequential problem was caused by disproportionately by catholics with rhetoric provided by jews and then unmarried women and single mothers. Rothbard blames the Puritans and Conservatives blame the jews, and an empiricist like myself blames the combination of reproductive strategies of Jews(Undesirable people) and Feminists (undesirable women), and the signaling value to Neo-Puritans (un-productive people).
Women are more circumstantially driven than men are. Which is really interesting to me. It’s because they’re more solipsistic and less autistic. And they have to be. Women need to care for these obnoxious creatures we call children, and men need to suppress emotions to fight and hunt. But this bias has profound consequences.
There are good men and bad men.
Good women and bad women.
Good christians and bad christians.
Good jews and bad jews.But in general, distributions are what they are. And stereotypes are largely true.
( I grew up in the town where Susan B Anthony, one of the first women’s suffrage leaders lived and was tried. )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._AnthonyCurt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine