WHAT MADE THE WEST BETTER THAN THE REST?
The Universal, Reciprocal, Insurance, of Sovereignty To All Who Will Take the Oath.
“I will fight for your sovereignty if you will fight for mine.”
Brothers in arms first.
Family Second.
Nation Third.
That’s why the west is best.
Trust let us evolve faster than the rest.
Trust creates economic velocity, technical velocity, and martial agility.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 06:14:00 UTC
(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
THE ORIGIN OF THE NATION STATE
The City State is a natural consequence of markets, and the enforced dominion of some set of rules in order to gain access to the benefits that market.
The Nation State is a declared, involuntary, genetic and cultural empire enforcing dominion over city states and surrounding territories. The empire is a cross genetic and cultural involuntary organization, enforcing dominion over all political orders in a territory ostensibly for the common good – and in many ways the claim is true.
Prior to the nation state, multi-ethnic, military, legislative, and commercial, empires, usually ruled by a monarch from the dominant ethnic group, were the common form of cultural, economic, political, and military organization.
As markets expanded, and wealth expanded, and ‘cognizance’ of the greater world expanded “as an inadvertent byproduct of 15th-century intellectual discoveries in political economy, capitalism, mercantilism, political geography, and geography combined together with cartography and advances in map-making technologies.” Or stated differently, accounting, record keeping, literacy, and map making made people aware of both their competitors and their economic opportunities for preserving competition against them – for preserving their sovereignty. The result was somewhat of a ‘big sort’ in europe that is currently occuring in the United States, as people in the USA re-nationalize after ‘filling up’ the new continent.
This is the positive, romantic, or ‘opportunistic’ side of the story. But the other side of the story is negative, pragmatic, and defensive.
The modern Nation State was invented by Napoleon for use in funding his invention of Total War. The Nation State evolved everywhere else in response to Napoleon’s invention of total war: either as a defense against it, or as a siezure of opportunity to replicate it.
Before Napoleon, only tropical empires could marshall the resources necessary for sustained expansionary conquest and control. Napoleon was the first European to successfully bring Oriental Despotism to Europe with the same level of mobilization of the populace as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Chinese had been able to do, due given their relative ease of controlling irrigation by flooding of rivers and concentrated production, compared to small farms distributed over large territories with distributed production in what we call Christendom (Europa major).
The combination of Post-Templar Self-Defended Credit, in the form of Jewish-Credit Under State Protection, superior methods of record keeping (accounting), the increases in agrarian and mechanical production in Europe due to the second ‘agrarian revolution’, produced in no small part through rapid expansion of literacy and print, and the windfalls from the transfer of trade from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, and the ability to manufacture muskets in vast numbers thereby eliminating the advantage of a professional warrior class made a Napoleon possible – but only because of the backwardness of the French Monarchy, which, like the church, had stagnated in comparison to her faster-evolving neighbors.
This combination of extremely backward governance, and extreme opportunity to mobilize is usually seen only when there is an extraordinary excesses of young males lacking opportunities for income and sex. But when combined with extraordinary credit and community license to restructure all of society by violence, the momentum of the movement created an opportunity for despotism equal to that which had been available in the ancient river empires.
As far as I know this is the origin of the second phase of the nation state: total war. The technological ability to organize distributed production under the same level of control as concentrated flood river production.
To take this further we must also address cosmopolitan universalism on the one hand(Profits for Some), and the clash of civilizations on the other (Norms for All).
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 03:35:00 UTC
TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS
(very important)
Everything else is education
THE REASON FOR WESTERN EXCEPTIONALISM: SOVEREIGNTY, TRUTH, AND MARKETS PRODUCE VELOCITY.
1) Individual Sovereignty. (Not liberty from immoral rule, not freedom from immoral command, not positive freedom from nature’s constraints – but sovereignty. )
2) Testimonial (performative) Truth: The Development of (unforgiving) Martial Epistemology (of the brotherhood of warriors) into a universal commons, and from that the discovery of objective Truth, and Debate, Reason, Greek ‘science’, Empirical Science, and now Testimonial Truth (‘complete science’).
3) Cooperation at scale under sovereignty can only be achieved by the use of voluntary markets, and reciprocal insurance: a market for consumption(labor, craft, organization, decision making), a market for production(goods, services, information), a market for reproduction(marriage and family), a market for commons (territory, resources, built capital, information, norms, traditions, ‘laws’, and institutions.), a market for dispute resolution (natural, empirical, common, judge-discovered, law, decided by jury), a market for polities (different group competitive strategies accessible through voluntary association and disassociation).
4) Just as only truth survives when we eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, prosperity survives when we first, collect in groups so that we reduce the opportunity cost of cooperation, and second when we eliminate the frictions of unpredictability in our attempts at cooperation increasing the velocity of cooperation and extending our plans and production cycles further into the future, where less change is required in the present to cause greater change in the increasingly distant future.
5) A small, relatively poor group of people can use force of arms to create Sovereign Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism), as an industry and as a profession – and it is the most profitable profession yet invented by man.
6) By incrementally suppressing all nonsovereign acts using natural, judge discovered, common law, as those nonsovereign acts are discovered (the imposition of costs), then humans are increasingly forced out of parasitism and into production, with transfer within kin groups the limit of that legal reach. Kin insure kin.
7) The unproductive are prohibited from reproduction. The problematic are hung. The excesses are eliminated by starvation, disease, and war. Thus incrementally reducing the costly lower classes that lack both ability and will to engage in productive labors.
8) The enlightenment seizure of power by the middle class from the aristocracy using the equalizing power of guns, in the hands of the numerous and common man, destroyed (a) the multi-house government that served as a market for commons between the classes. (b) The ‘truth’ of the four or more classes as cooperating not competing. (c) the cost of the entry into the franchise of property owners as demonstrated by service in the military(the market for property franchise) – joining the company of insurers of last resort. (d) the cost of entry into the political franchise by the ownership of real property. (the market for the political franchise by demonstrated success at productivity) (e) the cost of reproduction as demonstrated by productivity sufficient to obtain a marriage (the market for reproduction), (f) the incentive to limit rule to the minimum interference, and the universal demand for increases in the power of rule to force submission rather than resolve differences by calculation: cooperative exchange. (g) the suppression of natural law by the rubric of monopoly majoritarian rule. And the conflation of law with legislation and regulation(commands). (h+) and many more.
The consequence of which has been our loss of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom (and soon consumption), in exchange for vastly increasing the scale of our underclasses, and increasing the transaction costs of cooperation, and spending down millennia of genetic, institutional, legal, normative, cultural, civilizational, artistic, territorial and every other form of capital that we inherited from those who had accumulated it.
-The Six Warranties of Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
-The inclusion of Moral Due Diligence: Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities that are productive, fully informed, warrantied and voluntary.
-The inclusion of Full Accounting of Changes in Property In Toto(demonstrated property) in the consideration of Moral Due Diligence.
– The writing of laws using strict construction from the first principle of natural law: non-imposition of costs against property in toto.
-The Defense of the Informational Commons against the imposition of costs by use of universal standing in matters of the informational commons.
TRUTH
The problem of the second Great Deceit.
Solving it through demand truth in public speech, prosecuting as fraud just as we prosecute all other frauds.
The problem is creating legal due diligence criteria.
Solving it through tests of due diligence in all possible dimensions
Testimonialism provides a list of those due diligences.
We already know most of those due diligences.
But we add Morality and Full Accounting to the list.
Morality requires productive, informed, warrantied voluntary transfers limited to externalities of the same criteria.
Full Accounting requires that we enumerate the changes in state to all forms of capital (property in toto).
LAW
When we discover new law we write it using strict construction from the first principle of morality (above).
We start with the intention of the newly discovered law (scope), and we continue with definitions(declarations), and processes(functions.)
Law must be then constructed, operationally, and it must be fully calculable – essentially a programming language of law that is just as complete as are computable formulae.
This creates a non-interpretable, but expandable, fully testable, legal system, open to continuous improvement and correction.
To ensure the enforcement of this system, and to ensure constant correction of it, as it applies to the informational commons, this commons must be open to defense under universal standing.
The same criteria applies to all contracts, including those involuntary contracts we call legislation and regulation.
Meaning that any and all citizens can compete with legislators and regulators, and the judiciary to force truthful and moral operation of that industry that we call government, that produces that product and services we call ‘commons’. Or stated in the legal vernacular: the people must always possess juridical defense against law, legislation, regulation, and contract -without exception.
MARKET FOR COMMONS
The other significant advice that I’ve given consists in the methods of restoring the use of government as a market for commons between the classes by various means, all of which eliminate the monopoly production of commons under that worst of all possible tyrannies: democracy.
ALL THE REST IS EXPLANATION
Everything else I have written is to EDUCATE by explanation the causes of the principle of universal sovereignty and the market society that is the only solution to persistence of sovereignty, and why the west in both the modern and ancient worlds, was able to innovate so much faster than the rest, despite being a small, poor population on the edge of the bronze age.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND
But one does not need (as I do) to understand the entirety of why this solution is sufficient to restore the west to its strategy of sovereignty and by consequence markets for consumption, production, reproduction(family), commons(govt), population(countries), and leadership (monarchies). Nor does one need (as I do) to understand the entire history of why this is all so. One needs only understand that the solution is to evolve our law to match the increases in the industrialization of information distribution, so that any informational product of any kind enters the market for information regulated just as we regulate any other product or service: that it must be truthful.
AND IT ISNT COMPLICATED
Now, I do not have the faintest idea why any of that is hard to grasp.
Nor do I understand why testimonialism is hard to grasp:
1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency. I don’t see why we aren’t great at this already. (sensibility)
2 – Logic: Internal Consistency – although when I say this I mean that logical consistency does not refer to ‘meaning’ but to existentially possible statements. There is nothing new here that isn’t largely in eprime and performative truth. (reason)
3 – Empirical: External Consistency (Correspondence). I don’t have to teach the world about empiricism for goodness sakes. (reality)
4 – Operational: Existential Consistency. This takes a bit of practice but again, it is easily solved by writing in eprime in first person voice, as a sequence of operations and observations. This is already done in the physical sciences. (human action)
5 – Moral: Voluntary Consistency. All transfers consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. The only novelty here is in full-accounting of property in toto. (cooperation)
6 – Scope: Scope consistency. Consisting of (a) limits, (b) parsimony, and (c) full accounting. Where the only novelty here is a full accounting of property in toto. (scope)
SURVIVAL VS UNDERSTANDING SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE
What is counter-intuitive, that most people seem to have trouble grasping, is the difference between the false comforting certainty of justificationism, and the true but uncomfortable uncertainty of survival from criticism. We are taught to prove things. to get the right answer. But the universe does not work like that. Anything that is not false might be true. Law works by the same means: if there are criteria by which a thing is illegal (false) than that which survives those criteria is legal (true).
TESTIMONIALISM MERELY INCREMENTALLY EXTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF PROVIDING A WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, AND DECEIT
So testimonialism extends the scientific method into social science, law, and politics. As long as you have done your due diligence as a producer of a good, a service, or information, then you have broken no natural law. If you produce a good, a service, or information, and have not done due diligence, and done no harm, then you have broken no natural law. But if you produce a good, a service, or information and someone claims harm, then you are liable for damages. And the problem you face, is that damages done by disinformation are extraordinarily hard to repair, compared to those done by goods and much harder to repair than those done by services.
Testimonialism is reducible to the requirement that we test all dimensions that humans can possibly sense, perceive, and act against.
WE ARE, OURSELVES, AN INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT
Why does that matter? Because with any testimony we are trying to create a description that through a process of reconstruction, the audience envisions that which you claim to have envisioned. So our bodies, senses, minds function as units of measure. Therefore reducing the world to descriptions that are subjectively testable by a jury is a test of your descriptions. We humans are the unit of measure because we are marginally indifferent – at least in groups – in what we can sense, perceive, understand, and sympathize with.
Imagine you are looking at a scene, and describing it. And you are talking to someone who sees 100 scenes (or an infinite number for that matter), and he is trying to identify which one you’re describing, but you can’t hear him. He can only hear you.
If he can correctly choose the one you’re describing your testimony is ‘truthful’.
THE NECESSARY PART OF MY WORK IS ‘DONE’
So I don’t believe that I have more work to do in explaining the central insights provided by my work. I may have much more EDUCATION to do. And I can create more educational content. But the central thesis of sovereignty > markets > truth > informational commons > strict construction > universal standing > market government with houses for each of the classes does not seem to be very hard to understand.
YOU NEED TO USE YOUR VIOLENCE
If you want to know the answer – I just gave it to you. You just need to withdraw from the state the deposit of your violence, and use that violence in every way possible to disrupt economy and infrastructure and rule until your demand for truth is met.
Or that’s the amount of energy I have to put into this tonight. You don’t need to understand more than that in order to understand how to restore western civilization from the second great utopian deceit: cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno and the many others of their ilk.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 15:15:00 UTC
—“Hi Mr. Doolittle, From my (very limited) knowledge of your work, you seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights? From what I’ve seen, most of us favor an overall capitalistic economic structure with the caveat that economic activity should support the nation, both financially and morally (spiritually?), such as through the limiting of pornography and the banning of usury (actual usury, such as predatory lending terms, not merely interest on capital), and limiting the activity of foreign interests in domestic issues. I ask whether you think it’s a weakness that we don’t discuss this because even though there is a general consensus, I dislike having blind spots in my worldview.Lastly, have you read James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution and/or Sam Francis’ follow-up Leviathan and its enemies? If so, what were your thoughts on the theory presented re: the transformation of capitalist society to a managerial society?”— Great questions. I”m going to reframe the first one: –“You seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.”–I’ll restate this as I try to unify science, morality, law, and philosophy into a single discipline that merely requires we speak truthfully in matters of the commons, and I advocate the forcible restructuring of our institutions using the language of institutions: law. What you see in the alt right, despite the alt right’s embrace of science, is the perpetuation of moral language. The question is, if we evolved from supernatural to reason, to rationalism, to science, and in my work “complete scientific realism”, then why would people continue to argue in reasonable and rational terms, and partly scientific terms, when scientific and completely scientific are available? Well, there are four reasons: (a) moral language helps us rally and shame. (b) moral language helps us with catharsis, (c) moral language is intuitionistic even if unscientific, and (d) scientific l language is none of the above. So to simplify that, I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer. —“Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights?”— All rights are contractually exchanged, that’s the only way they can exist. Natural rights are those we generally require if we are to avoid conflict with one another, and foster cooperation and competition with one another. Otherwise they’re not contract rights or natural rights, but legislative rights enforced by an insurer of last resort. We do not contract for our rights. In our case the government is an insurer. And the government works to construct LEGISLATIVE rights, not NATURAL RIGHTS. SO in answer to your question, it’s not useful to discuss rights other than those we require. Instead, I’ve stated it differently: that our position can, and must be, that the only reason we do not use our wealth of personal violence, group violence, and organized violence, to construct legal rights in our interests alone at the expense of other’s desired natural rights, is if we all possess natural rights and natural rights alone. So I’ve tried to restore the reality of political philosophy to the state prior to the set of lies we created in order to justify adding women to the franchise, in an equivalent house, rather than in their own separate house of government: that the only reason to forgo our desire to rule in our own self interest, is if we rule by rule of law in one another’s equal interest. And if that is not the case, then we simply license parasitism and our own destruction. The first question of ethics and politics is ‘why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff’. It’s only after we’ve decided that we will cooperate that we enter the question of ethics (how not to disincentivize cooperation), or politics (how not to disincentivize the production of commons.) We value a MERITOCRATIC commons (political), economy (ethics), reproductive (family), structure that is against the interests of those who lack competitive reproductive desirability, competitive productive ability, and productive ability to contribute to the commons. That you phrase the question as moral, and I phrase it as economic is the problem with the alt-right that I am trying to solve by providing a rational and scientific language for the discussion, comparison, and contrast of all epistemic, ethical, political, and group evolutionary strategies. The weakness is that we will not come to terms with the fact that meritocracy and eugenics and our ability to produce wealth and commons are antithetical to democracy, and that without the restoration of the market for commons and a judicial monarchy (inherited), we cannot possess the liberty and meritocracy we desire. Eugenics is incompatible with democracy. The original settlers (my ancestors included) used different language but the American colonies were an experiment in eugenics. The disaster was the Louisiana purchase that requires vast immigration to populate the new territory so that it would not be seized (yet again) by the European powers. The new territory would have extended slavery, and this would have firmly put both taxation (on export goods) and the power of the federal government, in the hands of the agrarians and their international market, at the expense of the new industrialists and the domestic market. Had we retained the original colonies it is possible that we could have retained the eugenic experiment – even with the handicap of the Scotts-Irish in the south. Of course, I have read Burnham and I consider him one of my greater influences – he gave me the moral courage so to speak to abandon my cultural allegiances as a member of the puritan families, the anti-monarchy forces in the English civil wars, and the anti-monarchy movement in the American revolution. I consider all of these to be failures. You can see my entire reading list onPropertarianism.com/reading-list, and you can contact Ramsey because he maintains our library, and we have most of the work in digital format available for readers. Burnham’s observation is not unique, but he was trying to warn us about it. There are a couple of human tendencies that we should be aware of: 1) the models we use like analogies to animals, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now computational (information) change with every era, and we misapply properties of those models to man. Man is an organism that grows and is changed by his growth from conception to old age. We tend to try to hang on to a model and extend the use of that model in our minds to ever greater scope. But they’re just analogies, with information in both physics and social science the current state of our ability to represent the world. 2) tendency to thing obvious trends are special and novel. But if we look at all human organizations they go through the same cycles and Burnham was trying to tell us that. Like Hayek and popper, or perhaps even Simmel, he was trying to describe the problem of political order as an information and decidability problem. So just as monarchies fell because their families lacked sufficient population to produce sufficient technocrats to run things, and just as private companies had to give way to corporations with professional managers, the size and scale of the modern state requires institutions. Whether those institutions could have been provided by market services is a question of maturity. At first, no, but over time yes. He was critical because he did not have a solution. We have all be correct in criticizing socialism. What we haven’t been correct about is in criticizing capitalism and democracy. Yes, we can have a star trek society with an average IQ of 125 or higher. But the Arabs cannot with an average IQ of 85-90 at the best. Neither can the Brazilians with such an enormous underclass in relation to the productivity and quality of their institutions. I hope this gave you some ideas to work with. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
—“Hi Mr. Doolittle, From my (very limited) knowledge of your work, you seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights? From what I’ve seen, most of us favor an overall capitalistic economic structure with the caveat that economic activity should support the nation, both financially and morally (spiritually?), such as through the limiting of pornography and the banning of usury (actual usury, such as predatory lending terms, not merely interest on capital), and limiting the activity of foreign interests in domestic issues. I ask whether you think it’s a weakness that we don’t discuss this because even though there is a general consensus, I dislike having blind spots in my worldview.Lastly, have you read James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution and/or Sam Francis’ follow-up Leviathan and its enemies? If so, what were your thoughts on the theory presented re: the transformation of capitalist society to a managerial society?”— Great questions. I”m going to reframe the first one: –“You seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.”–I’ll restate this as I try to unify science, morality, law, and philosophy into a single discipline that merely requires we speak truthfully in matters of the commons, and I advocate the forcible restructuring of our institutions using the language of institutions: law. What you see in the alt right, despite the alt right’s embrace of science, is the perpetuation of moral language. The question is, if we evolved from supernatural to reason, to rationalism, to science, and in my work “complete scientific realism”, then why would people continue to argue in reasonable and rational terms, and partly scientific terms, when scientific and completely scientific are available? Well, there are four reasons: (a) moral language helps us rally and shame. (b) moral language helps us with catharsis, (c) moral language is intuitionistic even if unscientific, and (d) scientific l language is none of the above. So to simplify that, I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer. —“Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights?”— All rights are contractually exchanged, that’s the only way they can exist. Natural rights are those we generally require if we are to avoid conflict with one another, and foster cooperation and competition with one another. Otherwise they’re not contract rights or natural rights, but legislative rights enforced by an insurer of last resort. We do not contract for our rights. In our case the government is an insurer. And the government works to construct LEGISLATIVE rights, not NATURAL RIGHTS. SO in answer to your question, it’s not useful to discuss rights other than those we require. Instead, I’ve stated it differently: that our position can, and must be, that the only reason we do not use our wealth of personal violence, group violence, and organized violence, to construct legal rights in our interests alone at the expense of other’s desired natural rights, is if we all possess natural rights and natural rights alone. So I’ve tried to restore the reality of political philosophy to the state prior to the set of lies we created in order to justify adding women to the franchise, in an equivalent house, rather than in their own separate house of government: that the only reason to forgo our desire to rule in our own self interest, is if we rule by rule of law in one another’s equal interest. And if that is not the case, then we simply license parasitism and our own destruction. The first question of ethics and politics is ‘why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff’. It’s only after we’ve decided that we will cooperate that we enter the question of ethics (how not to disincentivize cooperation), or politics (how not to disincentivize the production of commons.) We value a MERITOCRATIC commons (political), economy (ethics), reproductive (family), structure that is against the interests of those who lack competitive reproductive desirability, competitive productive ability, and productive ability to contribute to the commons. That you phrase the question as moral, and I phrase it as economic is the problem with the alt-right that I am trying to solve by providing a rational and scientific language for the discussion, comparison, and contrast of all epistemic, ethical, political, and group evolutionary strategies. The weakness is that we will not come to terms with the fact that meritocracy and eugenics and our ability to produce wealth and commons are antithetical to democracy, and that without the restoration of the market for commons and a judicial monarchy (inherited), we cannot possess the liberty and meritocracy we desire. Eugenics is incompatible with democracy. The original settlers (my ancestors included) used different language but the American colonies were an experiment in eugenics. The disaster was the Louisiana purchase that requires vast immigration to populate the new territory so that it would not be seized (yet again) by the European powers. The new territory would have extended slavery, and this would have firmly put both taxation (on export goods) and the power of the federal government, in the hands of the agrarians and their international market, at the expense of the new industrialists and the domestic market. Had we retained the original colonies it is possible that we could have retained the eugenic experiment – even with the handicap of the Scotts-Irish in the south. Of course, I have read Burnham and I consider him one of my greater influences – he gave me the moral courage so to speak to abandon my cultural allegiances as a member of the puritan families, the anti-monarchy forces in the English civil wars, and the anti-monarchy movement in the American revolution. I consider all of these to be failures. You can see my entire reading list onPropertarianism.com/reading-list, and you can contact Ramsey because he maintains our library, and we have most of the work in digital format available for readers. Burnham’s observation is not unique, but he was trying to warn us about it. There are a couple of human tendencies that we should be aware of: 1) the models we use like analogies to animals, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now computational (information) change with every era, and we misapply properties of those models to man. Man is an organism that grows and is changed by his growth from conception to old age. We tend to try to hang on to a model and extend the use of that model in our minds to ever greater scope. But they’re just analogies, with information in both physics and social science the current state of our ability to represent the world. 2) tendency to thing obvious trends are special and novel. But if we look at all human organizations they go through the same cycles and Burnham was trying to tell us that. Like Hayek and popper, or perhaps even Simmel, he was trying to describe the problem of political order as an information and decidability problem. So just as monarchies fell because their families lacked sufficient population to produce sufficient technocrats to run things, and just as private companies had to give way to corporations with professional managers, the size and scale of the modern state requires institutions. Whether those institutions could have been provided by market services is a question of maturity. At first, no, but over time yes. He was critical because he did not have a solution. We have all be correct in criticizing socialism. What we haven’t been correct about is in criticizing capitalism and democracy. Yes, we can have a star trek society with an average IQ of 125 or higher. But the Arabs cannot with an average IQ of 85-90 at the best. Neither can the Brazilians with such an enormous underclass in relation to the productivity and quality of their institutions. I hope this gave you some ideas to work with. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
—Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?— 1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now. 2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation. 2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians. 4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty. 5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity. 6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region. The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern. Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian. WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA? Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter. Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t. Without access to water russia cannot be a great power. WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER? They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it. Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable. So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status. So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law. She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites. Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow. IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle. THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS. (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to) BACK TO UKRAINE. A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration. So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP. Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.
—Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?— 1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now. 2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation. 2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians. 4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty. 5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity. 6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region. The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern. Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian. WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA? Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter. Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t. Without access to water russia cannot be a great power. WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER? They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it. Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable. So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status. So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law. She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites. Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow. IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle. THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS. (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to) BACK TO UKRAINE. A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration. So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP. Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.
Dear Doctor Seidman,
Let me help you understand. As someone who feels weak and collectivist, you think the constitution constrains us from collective action.
But you misunderstand. The constitution is the terms under which those of us who are not weak, and not collectivist, agree not to kill, rob and enslave you.
Why? Because cooperation is even more materially rewarding than killing, robbing and enslaving.
So, lest you misunderstand: If you violate natural law, which the constitution weakly attempts to construct as an existential order of men, then you break the contract between the weak (you) and the strong (we), and as such we are no longer bound by self-interest to refrain from killing, robbing, and enslaving you.
You confuse your moral intuition – a reflection of your weakness – with truth – that all our moral intiutions reflect nothing but our reproductive strategies. And that only voluntary cooperation free of parasitism is in the interest of the strong. It is the weak who must negotiate.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 10:06:00 UTC