Theme: Reform

  • ONE OF PROPERTARIANISM’S CURES FOR IQ SHREDDING One of the cures for “IQ Shreddi

    ONE OF PROPERTARIANISM’S CURES FOR IQ SHREDDING

    One of the cures for “IQ Shredding” is to follow the postwar german example, of limiting housing in cities to those for families. So that the benefits of low cost of commons (density) are only available to those who produce generations. This is a very simple alternative.

    In other words, today, large organizations can use stock market capital, to bring young people to cities, profit from them, at the expense of IQ by way of reproductive rates.

    When, as whites and jews have shown us, the objective must always be to do the opposite: distribute reproduction upwards.

    Combined with one-child policy for the underclasses this will work by a means regularly unconscionable to libertines: redistribution of opportunity costs to those that pay the costs of intergenerational reproduction.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 08:55:00 UTC

  • Update.

    UPDATE. I have just finished editing the second draft of “Sovereignty: Reforming Libertarianism”. It’s 235 pages. I have a little work to do on the first page (introduction) that I will finish in the next day or two – I’m a little drained at the moment. Last summer I extracted this work from the “big book”, when I understood it was simply too big, wold distract from the work because of it, and as such required a separate treatment. For the vast majority of people who will conduct arguments in the space, and reposition sovereignty under natural law as a successor to classical liberalism and libertarianism, this book is ‘enough’. At present the big book (“Truth”) is still hovering at 900 pages and will clearly take me over 1000, for the simple reason that my sections on grammar are nearly 100 pages. This bigger book will be overwhelming. it is overwhelming to me. It is something that will be studied. Studied for years perhaps. It’s literally an encyclopedia of thought on every discipline. In publishing this shorter work first, I will run the risk of releasing something incomplete that may weaken the opportunity for the later work – because by its brevity it will not include the very technical aspects of my work, nor the rather vast series of essays on every subject.. But I feel it will fulfill the market need that we (all of us) have created until I can get the major work out the door (which is a crushing bit of work). And I do feel the ‘collective demand’ so to speak. Hopefully this shorter work will provide a stepping stone for you all to work with and at least in my most optimistic dreams, it will reduce the burden. I have not approached publishers yet. I have my own biases but I’m open to suggestions from the community. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Update.

    UPDATE. I have just finished editing the second draft of “Sovereignty: Reforming Libertarianism”. It’s 235 pages. I have a little work to do on the first page (introduction) that I will finish in the next day or two – I’m a little drained at the moment. Last summer I extracted this work from the “big book”, when I understood it was simply too big, wold distract from the work because of it, and as such required a separate treatment. For the vast majority of people who will conduct arguments in the space, and reposition sovereignty under natural law as a successor to classical liberalism and libertarianism, this book is ‘enough’. At present the big book (“Truth”) is still hovering at 900 pages and will clearly take me over 1000, for the simple reason that my sections on grammar are nearly 100 pages. This bigger book will be overwhelming. it is overwhelming to me. It is something that will be studied. Studied for years perhaps. It’s literally an encyclopedia of thought on every discipline. In publishing this shorter work first, I will run the risk of releasing something incomplete that may weaken the opportunity for the later work – because by its brevity it will not include the very technical aspects of my work, nor the rather vast series of essays on every subject.. But I feel it will fulfill the market need that we (all of us) have created until I can get the major work out the door (which is a crushing bit of work). And I do feel the ‘collective demand’ so to speak. Hopefully this shorter work will provide a stepping stone for you all to work with and at least in my most optimistic dreams, it will reduce the burden. I have not approached publishers yet. I have my own biases but I’m open to suggestions from the community. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.

  • UPDATE. I have just finished editing the second draft of “Sovereignty: Reforming

    UPDATE.

    I have just finished editing the second draft of “Sovereignty: Reforming Libertarianism”. It’s 235 pages. I have a little work to do on the first page (introduction) that I will finish in the next day or two – I’m a little drained at the moment.

    Last summer I extracted this work from the “big book”, when I understood it was simply too big, wold distract from the work because of it, and as such required a separate treatment.

    For the vast majority of people who will conduct arguments in the space, and reposition sovereignty under natural law as a successor to classical liberalism and libertarianism, this book is ‘enough’.

    At present the big book (“Truth”) is still hovering at 900 pages and will clearly take me over 1000, for the simple reason that my sections on grammar are nearly 100 pages.

    This bigger book will be overwhelming. it is overwhelming to me. It is something that will be studied. Studied for years perhaps. It’s literally an encyclopedia of thought on every discipline.

    In publishing this shorter work first, I will run the risk of releasing something incomplete that may weaken the opportunity for the later work – because by its brevity it will not include the very technical aspects of my work, nor the rather vast series of essays on every subject..

    But I feel it will fulfill the market need that we (all of us) have created until I can get the major work out the door (which is a crushing bit of work).

    And I do feel the ‘collective demand’ so to speak.

    Hopefully this shorter work will provide a stepping stone for you all to work with and at least in my most optimistic dreams, it will reduce the burden.

    I have not approached publishers yet. I have my own biases but I’m open to suggestions from the community.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 14:32:00 UTC

  • Yes, but then moral men need a plan. And it’s our job to give it to them. They f

    Yes, but then moral men need a plan. And it’s our job to give it to them. They feel moral license. They just don’t know what to demand, or how to win. Some of us know both.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 19:46:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001550321481605121

    Reply addressees: @GuerillaRight

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001480877409492992


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001480877409492992

  • The Hierarchy of Revolutionary Arguments

      Think of revolutionary arguments as a pyramid: – The theory (strategy) – The Incentives (science) of that strategy – The law (constitution) reflecting those incentives – The generational institutions (“government”) utilizing those incentives – The Intergenerational institutions (“education, religion”) retaining the strategy, incentives, law, and institutions). – The benefits for members (“rewards”) produced by those incentives, law, and institutions. – The motivations (“agitations”) that they produce by those what would obtain those benefits. – The Plan (“revolution”) that provides the opportunity for those whose motivations are sufficient to act – to do so. ||> Intellectuals > operators > citizens > agitators, revolutionaries: Arguments(solutions) for each. And let the weight of self interest drive the revolution – just like the enlightenment did and the eastern conquest of the western empire by levantine christianity did. I start at the top and work down. Most people start at the bottom and never make it past motivations. I expect others to take the ideas and communicate the benefits, inspire the motivations, and to organize the revolution according to plans that are fairly tactical. And I expect to pay a pretty high price for doing all of this work, and I”m ok with it. May 26, 2018 10:31am

  • The Hierarchy of Revolutionary Arguments

      Think of revolutionary arguments as a pyramid: – The theory (strategy) – The Incentives (science) of that strategy – The law (constitution) reflecting those incentives – The generational institutions (“government”) utilizing those incentives – The Intergenerational institutions (“education, religion”) retaining the strategy, incentives, law, and institutions). – The benefits for members (“rewards”) produced by those incentives, law, and institutions. – The motivations (“agitations”) that they produce by those what would obtain those benefits. – The Plan (“revolution”) that provides the opportunity for those whose motivations are sufficient to act – to do so. ||> Intellectuals > operators > citizens > agitators, revolutionaries: Arguments(solutions) for each. And let the weight of self interest drive the revolution – just like the enlightenment did and the eastern conquest of the western empire by levantine christianity did. I start at the top and work down. Most people start at the bottom and never make it past motivations. I expect others to take the ideas and communicate the benefits, inspire the motivations, and to organize the revolution according to plans that are fairly tactical. And I expect to pay a pretty high price for doing all of this work, and I”m ok with it. May 26, 2018 10:31am

  • THE HIERARCHY OF REVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS Think of revolutionary arguments as a p

    THE HIERARCHY OF REVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS

    Think of revolutionary arguments as a pyramid:

    – The theory (strategy)

    – The Incentives (science) of that strategy

    – The law (constitution) reflecting those incentives

    – The generational institutions (“government”) utilizing those incentives

    – The Intergenerational institutions (“education, religion”) retaining the strategy, incentives, law, and institutions).

    – The benefits for members (“rewards”) produced by those incentives, law, and institutions.

    – The motivations (“agitations”) that they produce by those what would obtain those benefits.

    – The Plan (“revolution”) that provides the opportunity for those whose motivations are sufficient to act – to do so.

    ||> Intellectuals > operators > citizens > agitators, revolutionaries: Arguments(solutions) for each. And let the weight of self interest drive the revolution – just like the enlightenment did and the eastern conquest of the western empire by levantine christianity did.

    I start at the top and work down. Most people start at the bottom and never make it past motivations.

    I expect others to take the ideas and communicate the benefits, inspire the motivations, and to organize the revolution according to plans that are fairly tactical.

    And I expect to pay a pretty high price for doing all of this work, and I”m ok with it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 10:31:00 UTC

  • Why Our Religions Lost – It’s Obvious..

    —Why did we lose?—Justus Bryce Because the left beat us to a pseudoscientific pseudorational religion faster than we reformed our existing religion. The church had more malincentives. It had built a bigger network of lies. It could not work its way out of those lies. Marxism/Feminism/Postmodernism is a secular religion that defeated supernatural religion. They abandoned the church, took over the academy, and replaced the church with the academy. And they did it with pseudoscience – the counter-enlightenment against Maxwell, Menger, Darwin, Pareto/Weber/Durkheim, Spencer, Nietzsche, Vagner and the Romantics. That’s why we lost. They out-invented us. How do we out invent them? Truth. Intolerant truth. Extremely intolerant truth. We have plenty to be thankful for that is true.
    May 24, 2018 9:08am
  • Why Our Religions Lost – It’s Obvious..

    —Why did we lose?—Justus Bryce Because the left beat us to a pseudoscientific pseudorational religion faster than we reformed our existing religion. The church had more malincentives. It had built a bigger network of lies. It could not work its way out of those lies. Marxism/Feminism/Postmodernism is a secular religion that defeated supernatural religion. They abandoned the church, took over the academy, and replaced the church with the academy. And they did it with pseudoscience – the counter-enlightenment against Maxwell, Menger, Darwin, Pareto/Weber/Durkheim, Spencer, Nietzsche, Vagner and the Romantics. That’s why we lost. They out-invented us. How do we out invent them? Truth. Intolerant truth. Extremely intolerant truth. We have plenty to be thankful for that is true.
    May 24, 2018 9:08am