Theme: Sovereignty

  • They don’t want the EU, they can work with Russia and Israel to be the core stat

    They don’t want the EU, they can work with Russia and Israel to be the core state of islam, and displace Iran.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:50:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765153757361496064

    Reply addressees: @amerika_blog

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765150941561626624


    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/765150941561626624

  • ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIES OF THE UKRAINAN AND RUSSIAN PEOPLES AND A PREDICTION

    ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIES OF THE UKRAINAN AND RUSSIAN PEOPLES AND A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE.

    —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.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:01:00 UTC

  • Q&A –What’s the story with nazis funded by Soros in Ukraine?— The story is, t

    Q&A –What’s the story with nazis funded by Soros in Ukraine?—

    The story is, this:

    Which is more believable: that in a Country the size and population of Canada, whose people look across the border enviously at the prosperity of their extended family in Poland – people who speak approximately the same language, possess approximately the same religion and values – would revolt when their president rejected joining the EU because he was bought and paid for, like everyone else in the government, by the Russian government, in hopes of collapsing the military and civil order sufficiently that Russia could claim a humanitarian excuse for repossessing the territory and restoring the Russian empire by the reuniting of Ukraine, belorus, Prussia, and possibly Kazakhstan?

    What’s NOT rational about the red necks in Ukraine like any other country with a surplus of unemployed men, would not gladly take out their frustrations on a government so corrupt that it makes Venezuela look like holy see?

    OK. So apparently people in these circumstances, tasting the chance that they might exit unnecessary poverty and corruption are going to be swayed by Soros’s money? The USA was flying almost 10M in cash a week into Ukraine to give to people. But no one in a million years thought the president would flee, because no one in a million years thought that the people would fight that hard.

    Soros funds a lot of things.

    BTW: I know these guys that are supposedly ‘nazis’ and if you call them right wing nationalists that’s true. They want to crush corruption of the bolsheviks in Russia the same way the germans wanted to crush the bolshevik movement in Europe. There isn’t anything bad about crushing bolshevism, communism, Russian expansion at all. The only thing we can really (over centuries) criticize the nazis about is overconfidence and running out of money to use resettlement camps as labor and finally starvation camps. Fascism is a rational response to communism. It worked. National socialism was a rational response to communism and bolshevism and Trotskyism.

    Soros should be in prison like Putin put the oligarchs in prison. I have no idea why we don’t just seize everything he owns and prosecute everyone who works for him. The hard right in ukraine is just a patriotic nationalist movement.

    We should not confuse putin’s legitimate constraint of american power, with putin’s illegitimate attempt to restore the russian empire and the corruption endemic to the russian sphere of influence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 08:11:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one i

    REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT

    Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one in the country has the power to do it. And the only external group willing to use power to do it, will just make it worse (Russians). Even though the optimum people to do it are their genetic siblings right next door (Poland). And other peoples (the Americans, Canadians, and Germans) have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it. (yes really). Ukraine’s problem is a Jewish-libertarian’s dream: about 40 oligarchs (rich people) who range from men of commercial achievement and character, to Russian ex-gangsters, to families that control judicial corruption, to jews looking to restore Ukraine to their undeclared homeland.

    Very few people know how to fix the United States of America. But because of our arms, our traditions of legal revolt, and culture of aristocratic martial tradition, we have the ability and power to enact that change. We just need to have the will to do it. But because of that same culture we need a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means of revolt, in order to execute our will.

    Now, every major revolution in the anglo world (anglo-saxon-contractualism) has occurred in no small part, because of expansion of the methods of communication and innovations in technology. We have the ability to communicate and coordinate vast numbers of people that no prior era has ever imagined.

    Washington had nothing at all but pocket change, character, and some helpful propagandists who used the printing press. Stalin did what he did and had nothing on par with the tools we have at our disposal. Mao did what he did, and he nad nothing on part with the tools we have at our disposal. Napoleon had a lot more going for him than we do. Cromwell had more at his disposal than we do.

    But whether one is inside the government or outside the government, it does not matter if one has a set of demands, a plan of transition, a means of raising the cost of the status quo through insurrection, a small minority of males willing to risk life and limb, and a communication system capable of distributing information, tactics, and strategy to participants.

    The world has never been so fragile and in such great transition as it is today – or at least, it has not since the Marxist (Jewish) enlightenment inspired the lower classes to seek power as much as the empirical (anglo) enlightenment inspired the middle classes to seek power. But the difference today is that we cannot, under duress, return to the farm. THere are but a few days of food water and energy in the pipline, and in a momentum economy, like a momentum stock market, the system is increasingly vulnerable to shocks. (Thank your Keynesians for their efforts at ‘balanced equilibrium, rather than your Classical Liberals, for their “changes in capital”).

    We can more easily fix america than any group ever chose to fix any nation in history.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    (I have no idea where I am at the moment) 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:18:00 UTC

  • HOW ARE WE SLAVES? – Inability to Exit – Inability to secede – Involuntary assoc

    HOW ARE WE SLAVES?

    – Inability to Exit

    – Inability to secede

    – Involuntary association

    – Mandatory civil service

    – Non-Dischargeable Debts

    – Alimony and Child Support

    – Property Taxes rather than fees (farming humans)

    – Income taxes without determination of their use.

    – Deprivation of rights of suit in defense of private and commons

    – Deprivation of rights of juridical defense prior to harm.

    – Deprivation of driver’s licenses for non-driving offenses.

    – Punishment for non-property crimes

    – Prohibition on voluntary servitude.

    (more?)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 06:55:00 UTC

  • RT @MartianHoplite: Serve the lord who would serve you; but not the lord who wou

    RT @MartianHoplite: Serve the lord who would serve you; but not the lord who would serve you for dinner. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/763627580960505856

  • I serve none. That is for slaves and servants and the weak who are too stupid, i

    I serve none. That is for slaves and servants and the weak who are too stupid, ignorant and frail.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 11:45:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761166087371288576

    Reply addressees: @SydneyTrads

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761165915467546624


    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/761165915467546624

  • If you must serve then we will lead you and you may serve us. But we will not gr

    If you must serve then we will lead you and you may serve us. But we will not grovel as servants and slaves like the weak. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 11:37:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761164252535222272

    Reply addressees: @SydneyTrads

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761163185193820161


    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/761163185193820161

  • Living as a servant or slave is one’s obligation? Men seek to stand as peers, wi

    Living as a servant or slave is one’s obligation? Men seek to stand as peers, with none above is. This is what ‘Nobility’means.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 11:36:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761163943729594368

    Reply addressees: @SydneyTrads

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761163185193820161


    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/761163185193820161

  • THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN CREATE A MONOPOLY POLITY IS FALSE. Peter Boettke (Rev

    THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN CREATE A MONOPOLY POLITY IS FALSE.

    Peter Boettke

    (Revisiting your post after some contemplation)

    The assumption upon which your argument rests, progressivism rests, libertarianism rests, and conservatism rests – in all their forms – because that assumption is common to all enlightenment visions, of all classes, from all societies, is that the universalism of domestic religion, can be achieved in domestic government (the production of commons), just as the left’s vision is that universalism of domestic religion can be achieved in the market (the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services).

    But what does the evidence tell us? And what can we operationally hypothesize are the reasons for that evidence?

    Evidence is that religions are intolerant, that commons production is only slightly less intolerant, that markets are the least intolerant, but that religion, commons production and market production are all intolerant. But why?

    Well in religion we have relative equality of costs (normative) all of which are voluntary – all costs are exitable. In commons, we have asymmetric costs (material and normative), some are relevant or irrelevant, and some are exitable, some are not exitable. The material, inexitable, and relevant costs create conflicts. The market is highly demanding of normative and material costs, is not just relevant but necessary, and is no longer exitable unless you’re a village farmer in the temperate latitudes.

    What we see happening is the worldwide realization that the promise of monopoly that we see in norm and religion is not possible with government – and only silly people (Marxist utopians and their descendants) assumed it was with market.

    And we have all lost faith with the ability to convert others to our preferences. Why? Because both our moral intuitions and our voting patterns are little more than expressions of our reproductive strategy, reflecting our reproductive, cooperative, and associative desirability.

    So we have post-monopoly choices now in the production of commons:

    (1) evolve the government to include a market for commons, and create a mix of economic orders fulfilling the needs of the different classes. or (2) divide into smaller states which can retain monopoly processes yet provide a diversity of economic and political orders.

    (3) Restore the central object of policy to nation, tribe, and family, under which we seem to naturally create redistributive orders that appeal to all members of all classes, (4) return to authoritarian imperialism (russia/china/islamia) to suppress differences between the classes at the expense of corruption in all its forms.

    Now, the problem is, that the various models are deterministic in their outcomes: if we do not treat reproduction (the organization of reproduction) with the same relative value as production and consumption (the voluntary organization of production), then the future is a pretty clear one: South American/Hindu castes and favelas, or chinese/russian master-tribe imperialism, European manorialism, Jewish/Muslim perpetual tribalism.

    The fundamental flaw under the western Christian aristocratic liberal (classical liberal) model, is that man was oppressed and able to join the middle class with aristocratic virtues.

    The data started coming out more clearly last year, but it’s been obvious to conservatives (western aristocracy) intuitionistically forever: mankind was not oppressed, it was forcibly domesticated against the reproductive interests of the lower class through a continuous process indifferent from how we domesticated our animals, our plants, and our territories.

    And every individual at the bottom is more costly than every individual at the top is beneficial. We cannot maintain a condition of liberty unless Pareto rules: the 80% of the capital in the hands of 2-% of the population must be sufficient to construct a voluntary organization of production out of a hierarchy of incentives each of which must be marginally different enough for individuals to choose to act productively rather than parasitically.

    Liberty is the product the use of common law to create limited inequality of genetic value expressed as demonstrated productivity in reproduction, production of goods and services, or in the production of commons.

    It’s just math. There isn’t any way out of it. Liberty is, like it’s more honest conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) parent, the product of eugenics: domestication of man producing a superior product: subsequent generations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-30 03:46:00 UTC