Theme: Reform

  • @mises That’s not true. It’s possible to save MI and libertarianism. But need to

    @mises That’s not true. It’s possible to save MI and libertarianism. But need to bring donors AND repositioning at the same time. Who can?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:26:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775702240300531712

  • End Corporatism: Socialist, Libertine, Neocon and instead return to nationalism,

    End Corporatism: Socialist, Libertine, Neocon and instead return to nationalism, tribalism, familism for all.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:04:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775696554795630592

    Reply addressees: @ThomasEWoods @Wellerwilldo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774628242191941632


    IN REPLY TO:

    @ThomasEWoods

    .@Wellerwilldo This is what I mean. This is the alt right? We don’t need no thinkers because Marx was a thinker? Come on.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774628242191941632

  • (Sisyphean Tasks) I am writing this (long) piece to the Evonomics tribe in an at

    (Sisyphean Tasks)

    I am writing this (long) piece to the Evonomics tribe in an attempt to support their ends but correct their justifications and means.

    I won’t quite say I see pseudoscience in it, but I do see a failure to understand intellectual history, and a misdiagnosis of the problem of contemporary economics: decidability that can only be provided by the choice between eugenic, compromise, or dysgenic ends.

    While they make a few good criticisms of the financiers – the conversion from market for commons and rule of law to discretionary authoritarian rule by credit/fiat money.

    I’ve been working on it four about three hours? Maybe two and a half. And I”m tired. …. I feel like Sisyphus.

    Everyone wants to do the right thing but they can’t grasp that the only possible right thing is exchange under which no one gets the best they want, we all just get the best we can. (Nash Equilibrium).

    And why can’t they grasp it? They are overwhelmingly incapable of judging that their moral intuitions are ‘correct’ – but they aren’t.

    I have another piece that I haven’t finished on the problems with contemporary economics.

    And you know, I seem to have this limit – that at somewhere between 2500-3500 words I get tired of trying to make these points. But they are probably 4500-9000 word problems. lol.

    Most authors get to where they conceptually think in 750 work chunks. This corresponds to most people’s information assimilation limits (time which they can concentrate on an issue). I’m sort of getting there myself. I tend to think in those terms now. And I like to break arguments into those chunks. And I find that get frustrated if I have to write longer pieces.

    So I am breaking this one into smaller chunks. But I still have to finish before I lose interest in pushing the rock up the hill one more time.

    Sigh.

    Morality isn’t what you think it is. Sorry.

    We can calculate it but you can’t feel it. You’re just one data point. We can know what’s immoral. But choosing the moral is a matter of cooperation, not conviction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-11 06:42:00 UTC

  • Change the movement or die. I’ve been on that message for three years

    Change the movement or die. I’ve been on that message for three years.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 18:32:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773952220798808068

    Reply addressees: @Anti_Gnostic @Mangan150 @ChateauEmissary @lewrockwell @ThomasEWoods

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476


    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/773949007060201476

  • (Jon. I am pretty certain I understand what went wrong with the liberal traditio

    (Jon. I am pretty certain I understand what went wrong with the liberal tradition. And how to repair the damage done. but… )


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 05:24:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771941948345155584

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771669887274012672


    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/771669887274012672

  • Hard to reframe the pseudoscientific era. Haidt/Pinker share responsibility for

    Hard to reframe the pseudoscientific era. Haidt/Pinker share responsibility for initiating reformation.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 05:01:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771936250647412736

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness @NickLand7 @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771780755714301952


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    @NickLand7 @JonHaidt That’s because you’ve not been paying attention.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771780755714301952

  • MOVEMENTS BEGIN WITH WHACKOS AT THE MARGINS. Then move to the mainstream if they

    MOVEMENTS BEGIN WITH WHACKOS AT THE MARGINS.

    Then move to the mainstream if they are able to provide value to the mainstream sufficient to cause changes in preferneces and behavior.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-02 04:38:00 UTC

  • Well, we have a movement. And we can turn it into a revolution. Do not give into

    Well, we have a movement. And we can turn it into a revolution.

    Do not give into emotional temptation.

    ( Eli Harman William Butchman Steve Pender )


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 04:32:00 UTC

  • THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient”, a

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT

    The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient”, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless”. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities.

    MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC

    The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language.

    We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground.

    The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does.

    But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years.

    We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing’, the honest call it ‘domesticating’, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry’: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce.

    The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility.

    THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES

    The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership:

    CLASSES:

    NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class)

    – Propertarianism (That’s me)

    – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization)

    THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class)

    – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics)

    – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class

    – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture

    – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability.

    – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies

    THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class)

    – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there)

    – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there)

    – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful)

    – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really)

    REACTION (criticism) (middle class)

    – Moldbug

    – Ramzpaul

    ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness)

    – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites

    – Meme-Makers and Trolls

    THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working)

    – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 08:18:00 UTC

  • LAW, SCIENCE, OUR DEMANDS, AND REBELLION Well, we CAN’T teach law as science any

    LAW, SCIENCE, OUR DEMANDS, AND REBELLION

    Well, we CAN’T teach law as science any longer because of the conflation between regulation, legislation, and Natural Law, where regulation and legislation are not bound by Natural Law. We cease having law that is categorically, internally, externally, and morally consistent, and therefore we no longer possess rule of law, but rule of discretion: the need for subjective information not provided by the law.

    If we taught Natural Law, common, judge-discovered law, universal standing, universal application (rule of law), and that it was possible to create strictly constructed, categorically, internally, externally, morally, scope, consistent law, then we could teach law as social science not ‘an attempt at unbiased discretion’ while advancing some agenda or other.

    We CAN teach law as social science, and we can live under a scientific and contractual government (rule of law: nomocracy). But to do so will require as violent a revolution as all other anglo revolutions: to raise the cost of discretionary, and arbitrary rule, such that non-discretionary rule of law is preferable to constant rebellion.

    This is our mission really.

    1 – demand for rule of law: natural law, judge-discovered common law, universal standing, and universal applicability.

    2 – demand for multi-house, market government, under legal dissent rather than majority assent.

    3 – demand for the defense of the informational commons

    4 – demand for the restoration of the militia and the regiments.

    5 – demand for the circumvention of the financial system in the issuance of liquidity.

    And to issue these demands, then interrupt and destroy the economy and the abilty to rule until there is no alternative left but the restoration of moral and scientific government instead of corrupt, immoral, and discretionary government.

    Fire is our first technology of mass destruction

    And it is still our best.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 04:18:00 UTC