http://www.newmarksdoor.com/mainblog/2013/06/the-case-of-the-missing-white-voters-revisited.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewmarksDoor+(Newmark’s+Door)THE PRICE OF IGNORING THE LIBERTARIAN MIDDLE.
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-25 13:56:00 UTC
YOU CAN’T GET AROUND IT.
Equalitarianism requires Totalitarianism.
And women prefer both. They vote as blocks to demonstrate that they prefer both. Always. While some men prefer them, most women prefer them. And between some men and most women, the totalitarians have a slight majority in our republican democracy.
Without women’s votes, women would have property rights equal to men, but not political privileges to vote for totalitarianism, and against the family.
Men may have made western civilization over 5000 years, but women will either convert it to middle eastern, and eastern tyranny, or make us vulnerable to biological conquest by middle eastern tyranny, in less two centuries.
It’s counter intuitive, but paternalism was made possible by the technology and fighting for property: over land and the domestication of animals, was the innovation that allowed the west to escape its matriarchal poverty, by forcing the creation of private and familial property.
Matriarchy is equalitarianism in poverty. And equalitarianism is tyranny. Paternalism is private property and meritocracy. The difference is equality of outcome in maternal poverty or equality of opportunity in paternal prosperity.
(Still working on this argument a bit.)
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-24 09:54:00 UTC
ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM [A]ll generals try to fight the last war. And it seems like all our libertarian intellectuals try to fight central control: socialism. Which is … fighting the last war. A war that we won, by the way, at least against the statist intellectuals. The strategic, political and economic war was won by conservatives. Not by us. Conservatives speak in moral, not analytical language. NAMES MATTER They are shortcuts for ideas and socialism is a dead idea. It has been replaced by postmodernism – an attack on our system of liberty that is correctly termed egalitarian aristocracy. Rothbard and Mises dont matter in the debate between Postmodernism and Egalitarian Aristocracy. Rothbard is wrong on ethics and Mises on Praxeology. Because they ignore the necessity of high trust in making liberty possible. THE CURRENT BATTLE IS AGAINST THE IRRATIONAL [P]ostmodernism – the equivalent of a state religion for empires – is predicated on the same degree of falsehood as was Marx and the labor theory of value. Postmodernism is ideological as was socialism. But instead of trying to argue that socialism is moral and scientific – which we disproved – it borrows from Abrahamic and Zoroastrian theology, which uses the strategy of chanting desirable but patent falsehoods. Whereas conservatives suffer because the form of conservatism is arational, even if its content is beneficial. Postmodern content, like continental philosophy, is irrational and its content economically destructive. But it is wrapped in pseudo rational language that attempts to obscure its deception through emotional and moral loading as well as linguistic complexity. If something cannot be described as human actions, whereupon each action is subject to the test of the rational actor and rational incentives, then it is either incomplete, false, or deception. Postmodernism is deception Libertarians must fight intellectual battles and conservatives, who vastly outnumber us, must fight moral and political battles. But we cannot perform our part of the division of labor if we fight the wrong battle. And socialism is a dead horse. Our ideological battle is postmodernism, post-post, and all the derivative attempts to restore the communal, static, equalitarian, dysgenic poverty of the pre-aristocratic societies. The silly distractions provided by Heritage, Cato, Mises, FEI rely on the failed assumption that liberty is a universal desire. When the data demonstrates that universally, women vote less diversely than men and favor totalitarian equality that is natural to their breeding strategy. And incrementally all democratic societies must incrementally adopt totalitarian equalitarianism under the female vote. [T]he battle is not socialism. The answer is not anarchy. The only solution we have is property rights and the guarantee of violence if deprived of them. The only security against the necessity and expense if violence is to undermine the postmodern ideology and feminism. It does not matter if other groups seek redistributive or communal ends if we employ a political system that allows them to operate as a class, and us to operate as a class. In that political system we can negotiate exchanges with that class. We must understand that this creates a market for trading that is not structurally different from the market for goods and services. Dictatorship gives the majority communalists the advantage, and the free market gives us the advantage. Since it is illogical to ask either side to suffer the advantage if the other, the only compromise position is to create institutions that facilitate cooperation between classes with disparate interests. Hoppe has provided a means of reducing or eliminating state bureaucracy and its attendant monopoly. But the question of how we cooperate with those who have polarized interests had not been solved. Curt Doolittle, Kiev
(Following up on Salman Rushdie’s argument that Islam is a weaponized and militarized religion) Serious Stuff – The New Republic [T]he author reiterates the point that Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian political movement. I’ve been saying this for years. And it’s true. It may be structured as a religion, the way marxism was a religion structured as a science, but it’s a political movement. We had to defeat the east repeatedly in our history. The greeks held the east at bay, and the romans conquered it to keep it at bay. We arguably lost to christianity until the Germans freed us from it. We could have lost to marxism and communism, but we spent the west coming to a stalemate. We have lost our will to keep islam at bay. Partly because Heroic Aristocracy is alien to the majority. Totalitarianism is man’s preferred state. We should observe the actions of those who say otherwise. Because man demonstrates an interest in the fruits of the market. But he does everything possible to avoid participating in it. And women in particular seem to love it to their own detriment. For some reason, women seem to confused: their desire for collective opinion is in fact, a desire for totalitarianism. They are the same. It’s genetic. Women just havent been responsible members of the political universe long enough to incorporate that reality into their oral history. Women have taken the country left. Period. End of story. 🙂 (how much trouble will that get me in?)
The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.
The Economist: Don’t Flaunt It*That’s what a Republic is. A Natural Rotation Of Oligarchs.* [E]very country has an oligarchy. Oligarchies are NECESSARY and they are unavoidable. The question is which composition of people do you want to be governed by: (a) soldiers, (b) priests or (c) commerce? Why that list of three? Because there are only three forms of coercion avalable for humans to use in building organizations: (a) violence, (b) ostracization from opportunity and (c) exchange – or, technically, remuneration. If, as we have seen, people DEMONSTRATE that they UNIVERSALLY prefer to live under conditions of wealth, and only ONE of these three coercive sets CREATES wealth, then it is only logical, that china DUPLICATES the rise of the West’s aristocracy – which is the SOURCE of western prosperity – by having government run by people who udnerstaand commerce. And in particular, who understand nationalism as a commercial strategy. THEY DO IT RIGHT. WE DO IT WRONG NOW. Our leaders are priests of egalitarianism – who assume business will succeed and that they can simply plunder business at will. They are Not aristocrats responsible for the economic welfare of their citizens. China is doing it RIGHT. They’re doing it RIGHT by imitating the rise of the WEST. The rise that we were programmed by the left to believe was evil, colonial, oppressive, masculine. When in fact, we dragged all of humanity out of pervasive ignorance and poverty with our aristocratic christian ethics, technology, and culture. FLAUNT IT. FLAUNT IT EVERY DAY. AND CHEER THOSE WHO FLAUNT IT.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57589534-71/woz-this-is-not-my-america/STEVE WOZNIAK AGREES
“This is not my America”
That’s right Steve. That’s why I left.
Let’s see.
1) The IRS can take over your entire life by fiat if you make paper profits that you will never see, but you can walk into the country and become a dead weight on the rest of us without penalty.
2) If you are a white male you are assumed to be a defacto white collar criminal, prone to violence, a nascent sexual predator, and you resist the assumption that the purpose of your life is to be a source of funds for vampire females. 🙂
3) The government can invade your privacy without limit or recourse – they can storm your house and kill you and your pets at will. They can sieze your home and your bank accounts without juridical defense.
Anything can be justified as the ‘common good’. Thats why the ‘common good’ is never a reason allow the state to do anything. All rights are property rights, and only property rights can be rights. Therefore without property rights you have no rights. – period.
The common good is just a license for tyranny.
There is no common good.
Because there is no ‘We’ in “Diversity’.
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-17 04:13:00 UTC
ITS POSTMODERNISM, NOT SOCIALISM
All generals try to fight the last war. And it seems like all our libertarian intellectuals try to fight central control: socialism. Which is … fighting the last war.
A war that we won, by the way, at least against the statist intellectuals. The strategic, political and economic war was won by conservatives. Not by us. Conservatives speak in moral, not analytical language.
NAMES MATTER
They are shortcuts for ideas and socialism is a dead idea. It has been replaced by postmodernism – an attack on our system of liberty that is correctly termed egalitarian aristocracy.
Rothbard and Mises dont matter in the debate between Postmodernism and Egalitarian Aristocracy. Rothbard is wrong on ethics and Mises on Praxeology. Because they ignore the necessity of high trust in making liberty possible.
THE CURRENT BATTLE IS AGAINST THE IRRATIONAL
Postmodernism – the equivalent of a state religion for empires – is predicated on the same degree of falsehood as was Marx and the labor theory of value. Postmodernism is ideological as was socialism. But instead of trying to argue that socialism is moral and scientific – which we disproved – it borrows from Abrahamic and Zoroastrian theology, which uses the strategy of chanting desirable but patent falsehoods.
Whereas conservatives suffer because the form of conservatism is arational, even if its content is beneficial. Postmodern content, like continental philosophy, is irrational and its content economically destructive. But it is wrapped in pseudo rational language that attempts to obscure its deception through emotional and moral loading as well as linguistic complexity.
If something cannot be described as human actions, whereupon each action is subject to the test of the rational actor and rational incentives, then it is either incomplete, false, or deception.
Postmodernism is deception
Libertarians must fight intellectual battles and conservatives, who vastly outnumber us, must fight moral and political battles.
But we cannot perform our part of the division of labor if we fight the wrong battle.
And socialism is a dead horse. Our ideological battle is postmodernism, post-post, and all the derivative attempts to restore the communal, static, equalitarian, dysgenic poverty of the pre-aristocratic societies.
The silly distractions provided by Heritage, Cato, Mises, FEI rely on the failed assumption that liberty is a universal desire. When the data demonstrates that universally, women vote less diversely than men and favor totalitarian equality that is natural to their breeding strategy. And incrementally all democratic societies must incrementally adopt totalitarian equalitarianism under the female vote.
The battle is not socialism. The answer is not anarchy. The only solution we have is property rights and the guarantee of violence if deprived of them.
The only security against the necessity and expense if violence is to undermine the postmodern ideology and feminism.
It does not matter if other groups seek redistributive or communal ends if we employ a political system that allows them to operate as a class, and us to operate as a class.
In that political system we can negotiate exchanges with that class. We must understand that this creates a market for trading that is not structurally different from the market for goods and services. Dictatorship gives the majority communalists the advantage, and the free market gives us the advantage. Since it is illogical to ask either side to suffer the advantage if the other, the only compromise position is to create institutions that facilitate cooperation between classes with disparate interests.
Hoppe has provided a means of reducing or eliminating state bureaucracy and its attendant monopoly.
But the question of how we cooperate with those who have polarized interests had not been solved.
Curt Doolittle, Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-16 08:13:00 UTC
http://www.abolishirsnow.com/?c=816063acee64f86b98e372d11138c365ABOLISH THE IRS
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-05 07:44:00 UTC
THE BORDERS OF NATIONS – AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY
“… the Leviathan equilibrium … is based on a darker but realistic assumption that, for most of history, borders have been determined by rulers who attempted to maximize their net rents, broadly defined, with little regard for the will of majorities.”
Enrico Spolaore;Alberto Alesina. The Size of Nations (Kindle Locations 134-135). Kindle Edition.
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-04 12:12:00 UTC