Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE (important)(pervasive

    THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE

    (important)(pervasive Russian corruption and sympathizers in the bureaucracy)

    Entry into the western family of countries requires the elimination of Russian Kleptocracy (systemic corruption) that was endemic under Russian backed administrations. It does no good to give Ukraine money or access to Europe, if this corruption is not eradicated. (And this is why Russia is fighting so hard in Ukraine, because if Ukraine can, like Poland, evolve out of a low-trust, high-corruption, kleptocracy in the absence of Russian influence, then so can Russia and the Russian people. To prevent loss of control (Putin is now wealthier than bill gates), Putin and his ThinkTanks have used the press to convince Russians that they are not white (european) and that the west is engaged in suicide that the Russians must defend against, thus making them non-european. And therefore justifying totalitarianism (russian kelptocracy).

    UKRAINE’S COMING PURGE OF RUSSIAN SYMPATHIZERS

    Ukraine has just started a new organization, whose purpose is to cleanse the Ukrainian bureaucracy of corruption (russian-sympathzing kleptocrats, as well as corrupt Ukrainians). This new organizatino is structured as a new independent police force in a rigid hierarchy and entry into these positions requires that applications possess experience in business and industry and NOT IN GOVERNMENT. (yes you heard that right. what if we did that in the states?) The salaries for these jobs are high enough that graft and corruption are hard to accomplish.

    BIOMETRIC PASSPORTS

    So, in order to issue biometric passports they must first purge the ranks, show europeans that they can reliably issue passports, and demonstrate that the passports themselves and the equipment will not fall into Russian and Russian-sympathizing hands.

    Trust matters, everywhere and everywhere. Diversity destroys trust. You cannot invade ukraine with russians and create trust, any more than you can invade any other populace with a competitor and create trust.

    WHY RUSSIA HAS A MORAL ARGUMENT: WESTERN SUICIDAL MULTICULTURALISM

    The single argument that Russia has going for it is western suicidal stance on immigration. Russia promotes nationalism, as should the european countries. If not for this one problem in the west, Russia would have no argument to make. But as long as the west proceeds with its suicide through multiculturalism, equality and massive immigration, Russia will have a legitimate argument with which to separate Russian peoples from european peoples.

    The means by which we unite all circumpolar people is to re-nationalize liberalism and end the divide between west and eastern Europe.

    You might not like it but that’s just how it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 21:28:00 UTC

  • THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE (important)(pervasive

    THE REASON THE WEST IS HESITANT TO GRANT MONEY TO UKRAINE

    (important)(pervasive Russian corruption and sympathizers in the bureaucracy)

    Entry into the western family of countries requires the elimination of Russian Kleptocracy (systemic corruption) that was endemic under Russian backed administrations. It does no good to give Ukraine money or access to Europe, if this corruption is not eradicated. (And this is why Russia is fighting so hard in Ukraine, because if Ukraine can, like Poland, evolve out of a low-trust, high-corruption, kleptocracy in the absence of Russian influence, then so can Russia and the Russian people. To prevent loss of control (Putin is now wealthier than bill gates), Putin and his ThinkTanks have used the press to convince Russians that they are not white (european) and that the west is engaged in suicide that the Russians must defend against, thus making them non-european. And therefore justifying totalitarianism (russian kelptocracy).

    UKRAINE’S COMING PURGE OF RUSSIAN SYMPATHIZERS

    Ukraine has just started a new organization, whose purpose is to cleanse the Ukrainian bureaucracy of corruption (russian-sympathzing kleptocrats, as well as corrupt Ukrainians). This new organizatino is structured as a new independent police force in a rigid hierarchy and entry into these positions requires that applications possess experience in business and industry and NOT IN GOVERNMENT. (yes you heard that right. what if we did that in the states?) The salaries for these jobs are high enough that graft and corruption are hard to accomplish.

    BIOMETRIC PASSPORTS

    So, in order to issue biometric passports they must first purge the ranks, show europeans that they can reliably issue passports, and demonstrate that the passports themselves and the equipment will not fall into Russian and Russian-sympathizing hands.

    Trust matters, everywhere and everywhere. Diversity destroys trust. You cannot invade ukraine with russians and create trust, any more than you can invade any other populace with a competitor and create trust.

    WHY RUSSIA HAS A MORAL ARGUMENT: WESTERN SUICIDAL MULTICULTURALISM

    The single argument that Russia has going for it is western suicidal stance on immigration. Russia promotes nationalism, as should the european countries. If not for this one problem in the west, Russia would have no argument to make. But as long as the west proceeds with its suicide through multiculturalism, equality and massive immigration, Russia will have a legitimate argument with which to separate Russian peoples from european peoples.

    The means by which we unite all circumpolar people is to re-nationalize liberalism and end the divide between west and eastern Europe.

    You might not like it but that’s just how it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 09:58:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE TO GET SCHENGEN VISAS NEXT YEAR Apparently the delay is in getting and i

    UKRAINE TO GET SCHENGEN VISAS NEXT YEAR

    Apparently the delay is in getting and issuing biometric passports, because the EU will not tolerate people from the east, with Russian sympathies, to enter the EU, so Ukraine must guarantee that they have processes and procedures for issuing biometric passports to only Ukrainians.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 08:58:00 UTC

  • obamacare killed the recovery?

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-broke-job-market-in-america.html?m=1How obamacare killed the recovery?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-18 17:09:00 UTC

  • MUCH WORTH VIEWING ( I really appreciate Peter’s work in keeping the Austrian ap

    http://new.livestream.com/RethinkNY/reny2014/videos/62102827VERY MUCH WORTH VIEWING

    ( I really appreciate Peter’s work in keeping the Austrian approach alive given the absurdity of the Misesian-Rothbardian abuse of it – even if he remains a universalist. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 16:31:00 UTC

  • of government in currency. Under Propertarianism, government’s (insurer of last

    http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021001008101031118117078122024006056079005030120082092022112104009097075123124060121106033007109027006122102017066114107006090023002099028120107100103016118063082019110105095016126091122090116000&EXT=pdfRole of government in currency.

    Under Propertarianism, government’s (insurer of last resort) role is limited to weights and measures. This was, as I understand it, the value of early currency, at a time when weights and measures were suspect. Once most currencies were no longer suspect, and therefore, no profit was possible from selling a medium of exchange in and of itself, states attempted to profit from degrading the standard they had developed.

    We should not forget that aristocrats built markets as private enterprises, and that under those circumstances neither the market nor money is a commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 09:36:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/books/review/francis-fukuyamas-political-order-and-political-decay.html?_r=0

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 17:03:00 UTC

  • Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to bur

    Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to burn the book.

    To create an “impersonal order” one requires a military – since only impersonal militaries can compete, the military that survives produces impersonality. This means more successful militaries produce impersonality.

    But since we also require extremely limited rents, to provide the incentives to members for an impersonal military, and against a profiteering military which would eradicate impersonality , the militia which supplies its own small arms, is the only means by which an impersonal order can evolve. A small professional warrior class dependent upon a militia provides the balance between the functional necessity of impersonality (meritocracy) and the incentive against re-personalizing for the purpose of rent seeking.

    From the military one needs to produce judges. Societies that do not produce impersonal judges, are those that do not produce impersonal militaries.

    This is why so few states developed impersonality. And by consequence equality under the law and limited corruption.

    Now, a society that can evolve some set of affairs is different from one that can choose to intentionally implement a state of affairs.

    If a group of individuals can hold military power sufficient to construct a body of law defending private property; train a staff of lawyers and judges and sheriffs (police) to operate the courts.

    These individuals can be fully aware that they are constructing impersonality in their societies. And the heroic, status, and monetary incentives will provide all that is necessary as long as, like the army, their peers do as well.

    Truth and transparence are martial virtues and only martial cultures develop them.

    As far as I know, this is an iron law if social orders.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 09:43:00 UTC

  • NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY) Even though I’ve spent the past month

    NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY)

    Even though I’ve spent the past month almost entirely on the business, for the past few days I’ve been trying to write a restatement of Neo-Reaction (The Dark Enlightenment) in Propertarian language. There are a lot of introductory pieces on NeoReaction out there, but they’re all fairly weak. It’s much easier to write a “Neo Reaction for Dummies” with Propertarianism. But I am trying to cover all the subjects (there are not that many really), and turn their (Mostly Mencius’) ideas away from the poetic into the analytic.

    THREE CULTURAL AXIS

    1) Mencius picked up on Rothbard’s correct attribution of puritanism to the postmodern condition, but not that Rothbard tried to avoid admitting the cosmopolitan influence (the jews), or that the Cathedral constitutes a conspiracy between the three axis: (a) anglo secular restatement of christianity, (b) the jewish combination of socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-Conservatism,and (c) the continental influence of the germans and the french, as equally anti-enlightenment attempts to preserve authoritarian orders.

    THREE PERSUASIVE AXIS

    2) No one in the movement seems to have grasped either Johnson’s insight that there exist only three means of persuasion (force, payment, moral persuasion), or my insight, that social classes organize around specializations in these forms of persuasion – and that this is why neo-reaction has been articulated in three different forms, mirroring the three forms of the jewish attack on aristocracy: socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-conservatism. I think I can add value by explaining this relationship to the movement.

    REASON

    They (again, mostly Mencius) have correctly identified the failure of Reason, but they have not equally identified the solution to the problem of reason as Calculability (or, in my work, what I call Operationalism) nor the corresponding solution as one of simply speaking the truth. This I can understand because while I intuited the problem very early on, I was only able to solve it finally over the past year and a half. I think it took me twelve or fourteen years from initial intuition to full articulation.

    More to do.

    Interesting stuff.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-11 08:36:00 UTC

  • WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Man organizes. He forms or

    WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

    Man organizes. He forms organizations. Just as surely as he acts.

    One cannot, in pursuit of individualism, prohibit organization, nor the allocation of control of individual property rights to the organization, so that capital can be concentrated and applied for the group’s advantage. Since people will seek to form commons, and seek to form organizations to produce commons, and since property rights and rule of law must exist as a commons, and since humans seek monopoly advantage for their preferred organization, then the question is how to construct institutions that allow for the formation of organizations for the production and EXCHANGE OF commons, the production and exchange of which are unachievable without such institutions, because, while the market is an institutions just as property rights are an institution, markets produce consumables, not commons which we must prohibit from consumption. This is the difference in production between productive markets (the market) and commons markets (what we call ‘government’). As such the task is to produce commons markets (governments) which allow for the production and trade of commons which are non-consumable, yet prohibit monopoly control of that means of production. The consumer market allows us to produce consumable goods by the voluntary organization of production. A government market allows us to produce commons by the voluntary production of commons. FOr this system to function all that need be guaranteed is individual property rights. However, any commons created within the market for the production of commons must be prevented from privatization – just the opposite of that which is produced in the market for consumption. And no body of people unable to produce commons could survive in competition with those that do. So government is not a matter of preference. We must have government and we must produce commons, even if the only commons we produce is the rule of law and property rights. The principle challenge is converting from monopoly government and monopoly bureaucracy to monopoly property rights, and a government that facilitates the voluntary organization of production of commons just as we voluntarily organize to produce goods and services today.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-09 17:33:00 UTC