Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • POLITICAL SCIENCE ISN”T VERY COMPLICATED You can reduce a lot of political scien

    POLITICAL SCIENCE ISN”T VERY COMPLICATED

    You can reduce a lot of political science to the composition of the army:

    0) raiding bands (everywhere)

    1) militia volunteers(germanic),

    2) professional warriors with militia volunteers(western),

    3) standing semi-professional armies (china),

    4) slave armies (islam).

    The lower that number the higher the trust between members.

    The more members in that high trust order the more widespread the trust.

    Out of the “order of men” all civilization results.

    Out of the geography, all orders of men result.

    The Militia (trained) with Professional Warriors produces the highest trust. And enfranchisement limited to those in the militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 13:11:00 UTC

  • WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS? Let’s go thru the logic: AFAIK Marriage consists o

    WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS?

    Let’s go thru the logic:

    AFAIK Marriage consists of the following contractual properties.

    1) insurance by the community that they will not interfere in the corporation you have created for the production of offspring, in exchange for not forcing them to pay the cost of paying for your offspring by moral hazard.

    2) the right of killing, harming, or demanding restitution from those who interfere in that corporation and create the hazard for the members of the contract, and their offspring.

    3) a contract of exclusivity between a man and a woman for sex, affection, care-taking, children, economic cooperation (household cost sharing).

    4) Grant of general power of attorney to the spouse in all matters, of property, life, and death

    I have no problem with (meaning I don’t seen an argument against) prostitution, call girls, courtiers, or ‘paid’ mistresses (or studs). This poses no threat to the corporation that consists of the family, nor the contract between the community and the members of the corporation.

    I am not a fan of unpaid mistresses unless you can easily afford them and the offspring that they produce. Ergo, the difference between polygamy and ‘mistresses’ is arbitrary, other than polygamy means sharing the same household) and paid mistresses not. The question is whether one can create a marriage contract with more than one woman and I think the answer is no, but then we can certainly create ‘lover/mistress’ contracts outside the marriage (or instead of them). And I would prefer we do this rather than continue this nonsensical debate over the redefinition of marriage. We use different corporation structures (c, s, llc, partnerships, sole proprietorships) and there is no reason we cannot create marriages with similar decreasing requirements.

    Normatively we required you pay for your legitimate offspring but not your illegitimate. And you continue to pay for your legitimate and illegitimate offspring as a means of retaining the sex and affection of a woman. This provides the correct incentives to all. For a woman she dooms herself and her children to relative poverty, so she keeps men at bay and does not interfere in other marriages. But if she is willing she can gain offspring, sex, and gifts, from superior males. For a man, this means he can pay for sex without incurring responsibility for offspring, or sacrifice his family. Male sex is a need. Female sex is a want. Motherhood is exhausting, and servicing men is an option while servicing children is a necessity. This is the way we evolved.

    Moreover, a mistress that you pay for sex and affection is only logical for a man. A woman has access to child’s affection, and a man far less so. Men will kill each other over women and so that’s a different thing. Both a mans and a women’s status is harmed by male infidelity. Risk is increased for the economic unit that is the family.

    The french and italian (latin) models seem effective: a lot of extramarital sex in exchange for preservation of the family unit, with the presumption that there are high costs for either embarrassing the spouse and family, or interfering with that relationship. This is possible because of the retention of the intergenerational family (traditional family). Which provides insurance to one another. The traditional family, in turn, is possible because of lower geographic mobility (less big sorting going on), and the retention of older generations in low cost geographies out of the city, and younger generation employment in the high cost cities; the limited use of suburbs rather than family sized urban apartments, and suburban/rural ‘grandparents’ homes. (the germans do this the best it seems.)

    Conclusions:

    (a) marriage is irreplaceable as a means of long term economic cooperation. You will be more prosperous if married and poorer if unmarried.

    (b) a man must produce, in a short time, during his productive phase, sufficient reserves to carry him through late life. He can produce those reserves through investment in family that will care for him in the future, or in capital that will provide care for him in the future. For women, they are much more fungible in society and are lower cost in old age. men specialize and adapt poorly, women generalize and adapt highly.

    (c) children always ‘belong’ to a woman unless she is unfit. A man trades sex, affection, care, shared costs, and support in exchange for exclusivity. A woman for the same plus the care for her offspring.

    (d) If you interfere in the marriage you demonstrate willingness to take up the costs of the man or woman you seek to replace. In other words, you are liable for damages (which are empirically, quite substantial).

    (e) If a marriage dissolution is voluntary, then all exchange and all responsibility, and all corporate relations end. Period. Individuals may negotiate money for access etc if they choose. No child support, no spousal support.

    (f) Community property never exists and never can, and never should. End marital community property entirely. Make this a negotiating point in relationships.

    (g) Prenup contracts must be the most enforceable contracts of all contracts, without exception.

    (h) yes to paid sex and affection. yes to uninsured polygamy (non-marriage). yes to monogamous (insured) marriage. yes to ‘casual encounters’. No to interference in the corporation that insulates the community from the costs of your reproduction.

    IMHO these questions are largely irrelevant, because we all fool around quite a bit. The question is only what insurance we provide and what behaviors we demand in order to prevent fooling around producing costs that are imposed upon others.

    Empirically, and rationally, the latin model traditional family is superior to the germanic absolute nuclear family. or said differently, the absolute nuclear family is too fragile as a general rule for other than the genetic, cultural, and occupational elite.

    History has solved this problem for us by gradual empirical means. If you have a marriage and women who bear children you will survive. If you do not you will be conquered and defeated. If you wish to be conquered and defeated then you may not make that choice for others. And so we must revolt and separate so that those of us who do not wish to be conquered defeated, displaced, and removed from history, and the future, are not conquered, defeated, and displaced by the weak among us.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 12:32:00 UTC

  • THE UTILITY OF ‘RELIGION’ (ALL) I’ve tried to explain over the past few months,

    THE UTILITY OF ‘RELIGION’

    (ALL)

    I’ve tried to explain over the past few months, that ‘religion’ provides a set of personal, interpersonal, social, and political services necessary for cooperation to ‘scale’.

    I’ve tried to explain that we humans have invented a number of ‘technologies’ for providing those services. And I’ve listed those technologies to demonstrate that non-dishonest (non lies) technologies successfully provide these services.

    I’ve stated that for the personal discipline, original stoicism is best, and original buddhism second best.

    That for personal rituals shintoism (Ancestor ‘celebration’) is best. ( I reject the use of rituals for personal discipline because they enforce stasis rather than adaptation and invention)

    That for political mythology: history, hero, and ancestor ‘celebration’, and teachings on a regular (if not weekly) basis. (continuous reinforcement of heroic individuals and families and clans).

    That holidays, feasts, sports, theatre, music, (and lots of them) are necessary and must be participatory.

    That for ‘spiritual’ religion, nature (universe) celebration, that generates sacredness for earth and commons is necessary.

    None of these things require falsehoods. All of these things either work, or have worked.

    Abrahamism, whether supernatural, pseudo-rational, or pseudoscientific, is the great lie that must be cleansed from the human experience, if we are to transcend.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 10:04:00 UTC

  • Are You An Idiot?

    If you talk about ‘beliefs’ you’re an idiot. If you talk about convincing others, you’re only slightly less of an idiot. If you talk about power and institutions then at least you’re not an idiot. It’s all well and good to desire conditions under which we have the luxury to choose beliefs and we have the luxury to convince, but one must produce that conditional luxury. The only means of organizing a polity is by the application of power. There is only one means by which a minority can exercise power, and that is violence. With violence you can choose what beliefs people choose from, what choices are and are not available. The left does nothing but lie and propagandize and seize power incrementally and opportunistically. The right does nothing but hope and pray, and let others seize power incrementally and opportunistically. Why? Because the right will not lie, but is afraid to tell the truth. Why? Because the entire fantasy that the right has constructed since the enlightenment is complete nonsense. Man was not oppressed he was domesticated using violence, for the profit of those who domesticated him. Just like every other animal. And that our entire civilization is built upon the accumulated domestication of man for fun and profit over at least three and a half thousand years. That is the answer. So we will either continue to drag mankind out of his animal nature, violence, ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, and disease, or we will revert to the animals we see in the muslims. Our primary industry is rule. Rule or be ruled. Rule and transcend man. Or rule and be reduced once again to semitic barbarism. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE WHEN USED TO TRANSCEND MAN.

  • Are You An Idiot?

    If you talk about ‘beliefs’ you’re an idiot. If you talk about convincing others, you’re only slightly less of an idiot. If you talk about power and institutions then at least you’re not an idiot. It’s all well and good to desire conditions under which we have the luxury to choose beliefs and we have the luxury to convince, but one must produce that conditional luxury. The only means of organizing a polity is by the application of power. There is only one means by which a minority can exercise power, and that is violence. With violence you can choose what beliefs people choose from, what choices are and are not available. The left does nothing but lie and propagandize and seize power incrementally and opportunistically. The right does nothing but hope and pray, and let others seize power incrementally and opportunistically. Why? Because the right will not lie, but is afraid to tell the truth. Why? Because the entire fantasy that the right has constructed since the enlightenment is complete nonsense. Man was not oppressed he was domesticated using violence, for the profit of those who domesticated him. Just like every other animal. And that our entire civilization is built upon the accumulated domestication of man for fun and profit over at least three and a half thousand years. That is the answer. So we will either continue to drag mankind out of his animal nature, violence, ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, and disease, or we will revert to the animals we see in the muslims. Our primary industry is rule. Rule or be ruled. Rule and transcend man. Or rule and be reduced once again to semitic barbarism. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE WHEN USED TO TRANSCEND MAN.

  • Deflating Science

    DEFLATING “SCIENCE” (personal)(sketch) The Discipline of Science Consists of: 1) An aesthetic discipline – the search for status, power(influence), and profit through the acquisition of decidability (truth) and recipe (knowledge) and ‘stories’ (narratives), by observation, free association, and the elimination of ignorance thru deceit. 2) A technical discipline – the application and inventions of measures both physical, logical, and social(market) that reduce our possibility of engaging in ignorance thru deceit, leaving only truthful candidates for decidability, recipe and story. 3) A moral discipline – the means of describing and publishing our measurements, decidability, recipe, and stories by performing due diligence against: ignorance thru deceit, and publishing (speaking) the measurements, decidability, recipes, and ‘stories’ for testing by the market for measurements, decidability, recipes, and stories, consisting of others who share the aesthetic discipline of searching for status, power(influence) and profit through the acquisition of decidability(truth) reciepe(knowledge) and stories(narratives.) MAN IS THE MEASURE – THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY ( … ) THE EPISTEMIC METHOD There exists only one epistemological method for the discovery of recipes and theories: – Observation->perception, – Free association-> wayfinding, – Hypothesis->construction, – Theory->survival from criticism, – Law->survival in the market for criticism, – Habituation -> survival, – Metaphysical inclusion -> replication. Within this method we find special cases of the epistemological method: non-contradiction, apriorisms, simplicity – in the same way we discover special cases of prime numbers – and for the same reason: coincidence of simplicities amidst the chaos of possibilities. But we eventually run low on simplicities at any given level of precision, and must develop new logical and physical and moral instrumentation in order to obtain sufficient information to discover more simplicities at greater precision. All the while defending against our tendencies to engage in error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, pseudo-moralism, and deceit. THE DIMENSIONS OF TESTING To warranty our speech against the dark forces of error, bias, and deceit, we can test each existentially possible dimension – in which humans can act – against error, bias, and deceit. – Categorical Consistency – identity – Logical Consistency – internal correspondence – Empirical Consistency – external correspondence – Existential Consistency – operational correspondence – Moral Consistency – reciprocal correspondence – Scope Consistency – full accounting – dimensional correspondence. PARTIAL TESTING : THE SPECIAL CASE: APRIORISM 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). THE OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE 1) Stories (Theories): Theories describe an Opportunity Field. 2) Decidability (Instruments): Decidability describes objects, relations, values, and comparison operators. 3) Recipes (Operations or ‘transformations’): Recipes describe actionable knowledge that we can use to transform state. 4) Measurements (‘Facts’): Measurements describe (obviously) the operations and resulting measurements of objects, relations, and values. THIS COMPLETES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD This process constitutes the completion of the scientific method for the warranty of due diligence of one’s testimony in every domain of human inquiry without exception. Now, lets look at its uses… THE MEASURE 1) Meaning (Awareness) ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship 2) Preference ….True enough for me to feel good about. 3) Actionability ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. 4) Morality ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. 5) Rationality ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. 6) Decidability ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. 7) Truth ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. 8) Tautology ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. THE MARKETS There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. Personal Associative Cooperative Reproductive Productive Commons Polities DISCIPLINES: 0 – Sentience (cognitive science – limits of cognition) 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) 8 – Commerce, THE VALUE OF OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE Stories (Opportunities [search]) : Decidabilty (Choice / Persuade / Decide:) Recipies (Transformations): Measurements (facts): THE DEFLATION OF “THEORY/THEORIES” The Story of a theory can fail. The Decidability can fail. The Recipe can fail The Measurements can fail. Newton’s Story failed, but his Decidability, and Recipe, and Measurements survive. So while hypotheses fail, it is not necessarily true that theories fail, so much as we continuously improve the precision of those narratives, decidability, recipe and measurements. Why? Because the question itself frames the theory. In other words, if we are asking about gravity, newtons question, his decidability, his recipes, all survive and constitute the majority of calculations we perform to this day. Measurement provides a means of warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. And in fact, we can state that all logical methods constitute some means of measurement. Anything that is testable constitutes a measure. The question is only what dimensions of relations that we wish to measure, and the constancy of those relations.

  • Deflating Science

    DEFLATING “SCIENCE” (personal)(sketch) The Discipline of Science Consists of: 1) An aesthetic discipline – the search for status, power(influence), and profit through the acquisition of decidability (truth) and recipe (knowledge) and ‘stories’ (narratives), by observation, free association, and the elimination of ignorance thru deceit. 2) A technical discipline – the application and inventions of measures both physical, logical, and social(market) that reduce our possibility of engaging in ignorance thru deceit, leaving only truthful candidates for decidability, recipe and story. 3) A moral discipline – the means of describing and publishing our measurements, decidability, recipe, and stories by performing due diligence against: ignorance thru deceit, and publishing (speaking) the measurements, decidability, recipes, and ‘stories’ for testing by the market for measurements, decidability, recipes, and stories, consisting of others who share the aesthetic discipline of searching for status, power(influence) and profit through the acquisition of decidability(truth) reciepe(knowledge) and stories(narratives.) MAN IS THE MEASURE – THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY ( … ) THE EPISTEMIC METHOD There exists only one epistemological method for the discovery of recipes and theories: – Observation->perception, – Free association-> wayfinding, – Hypothesis->construction, – Theory->survival from criticism, – Law->survival in the market for criticism, – Habituation -> survival, – Metaphysical inclusion -> replication. Within this method we find special cases of the epistemological method: non-contradiction, apriorisms, simplicity – in the same way we discover special cases of prime numbers – and for the same reason: coincidence of simplicities amidst the chaos of possibilities. But we eventually run low on simplicities at any given level of precision, and must develop new logical and physical and moral instrumentation in order to obtain sufficient information to discover more simplicities at greater precision. All the while defending against our tendencies to engage in error, bias,wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, pseudo-moralism, and deceit. THE DIMENSIONS OF TESTING To warranty our speech against the dark forces of error, bias, and deceit, we can test each existentially possible dimension – in which humans can act – against error, bias, and deceit. – Categorical Consistency – identity – Logical Consistency – internal correspondence – Empirical Consistency – external correspondence – Existential Consistency – operational correspondence – Moral Consistency – reciprocal correspondence – Scope Consistency – full accounting – dimensional correspondence. PARTIAL TESTING : THE SPECIAL CASE: APRIORISM 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). THE OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE 1) Stories (Theories): Theories describe an Opportunity Field. 2) Decidability (Instruments): Decidability describes objects, relations, values, and comparison operators. 3) Recipes (Operations or ‘transformations’): Recipes describe actionable knowledge that we can use to transform state. 4) Measurements (‘Facts’): Measurements describe (obviously) the operations and resulting measurements of objects, relations, and values. THIS COMPLETES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD This process constitutes the completion of the scientific method for the warranty of due diligence of one’s testimony in every domain of human inquiry without exception. Now, lets look at its uses… THE MEASURE 1) Meaning (Awareness) ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship 2) Preference ….True enough for me to feel good about. 3) Actionability ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. 4) Morality ….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. 5) Rationality ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. 6) Decidability ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. 7) Truth ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. 8) Tautology ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. THE MARKETS There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. Personal Associative Cooperative Reproductive Productive Commons Polities DISCIPLINES: 0 – Sentience (cognitive science – limits of cognition) 1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech) 2 – Law (social/cooperative science) 3 – Economics (organizational science) 4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement ) 5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe) 6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials) 7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) 8 – Commerce, THE VALUE OF OUTPUTS OF THE DISCIPLINE OF SCIENCE Stories (Opportunities [search]) : Decidabilty (Choice / Persuade / Decide:) Recipies (Transformations): Measurements (facts): THE DEFLATION OF “THEORY/THEORIES” The Story of a theory can fail. The Decidability can fail. The Recipe can fail The Measurements can fail. Newton’s Story failed, but his Decidability, and Recipe, and Measurements survive. So while hypotheses fail, it is not necessarily true that theories fail, so much as we continuously improve the precision of those narratives, decidability, recipe and measurements. Why? Because the question itself frames the theory. In other words, if we are asking about gravity, newtons question, his decidability, his recipes, all survive and constitute the majority of calculations we perform to this day. Measurement provides a means of warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. And in fact, we can state that all logical methods constitute some means of measurement. Anything that is testable constitutes a measure. The question is only what dimensions of relations that we wish to measure, and the constancy of those relations.

  • Why Were Westerners Unsuccessful At Exporting Aryanism: Markets in Everything?

    WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see

  • Why Were Westerners Unsuccessful At Exporting Aryanism: Markets in Everything?

    WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see

  • The Militia Separates The West From The Rest

    by ‎Ryan Williams‎ The militia is the institution that is the causal source of the West’s success – that which separates us from the rest of the world.

    To be a Propertarian is to prosecute lies To prosecute, you must have the means to coerce To coerce you must have weapons To use weapons you must have skill To have skill you must practice To practice you must have discipline Leave the momentary pleasures behind, and go sharpen your tools. We have work to do. “Teach him he must deny himself,” said Lee. That was the general’s advice to a young mother who brought her infant to him after the War Between the States to receive his blessing.