No, I don’t encrypt my email. I don’t hide. I don’t say what I don’t mean. And I mean what I say: that my purpose is to overthrow the united states government and restore my rights as an englishman, and to demand rule of law, contractual government and truthful speech in matters of economics, politics, trade and law.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-17 09:01:00 UTC
We are the people of Sovereignty.
They are the people of Submission.
These first properties are irreconcilable.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-12 05:19:00 UTC
(Note: I kind of wonder what will happen when people figure out that the difference between Fukuyama/Asian monopoly statism and western polycentrism, is TRUTH TELLING. Chinese lie and deceive as a matter of course, whereas in the heroic model, we pay the high cost of truth telling as demonstrated contribution to the commons. – Curt Doolittle)
[F]rancis Fukuyama got hooked on the idea of meritocratic bureaucracy from his study of Chinese history, and in his two most recent books, works to explain the construction of the modern state, by justifying select bureaucracies. His attempt at justifying his priors is approaching the most exasperating work I have read by someone who appears to be honest and merely flawed.
I value his work, because his comparative analysis, like that of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber, and more recently Olson, is at least marginally scientific.
However, when discussing Europe, he identifies then glosses over the most important attributes of european civilization: we developed contract rather than authority. And our ‘priesthood’ (lawyers) and contract (voluntary association) are sufficient for the production of all commons other than defense. He does not address the church-state-commerce balance of powers. Nor the incentives of a bureaucracy.
Where most of us want to re-nationalize liberalism, and return to the contractual association of man, using law and militia as a means of policing the state, he wants to turn us all into Chinese peasants.
He doesn’t describe why bureaucracies fail, and seems unaware of the criticism of bureaucracies. He assumes professional bureaucrats will have good interests and be accountable, rather than that such creatures only exist at the margins, and the benefit that they add is less than the damage that they cause AFTER rule of law has been implemented.
He also ignores Putnam’s illustration of the ills of diversity – and it appears that he does so intentionally.
So, I have work to do:
1) demonstrate how the contractual state is superior in every possible way
2) elaborate on the transaction cost theory of government.
3) expand the ills of corporatism to that of anti-tribalism
I cannot work as fast as these other people. I look at some of these guys who put a book out every year or two, and I just work so much more slowly.
(Note: I kind of wonder what will happen when people figure out that the difference between Fukuyama/Asian monopoly statism and western polycentrism, is TRUTH TELLING. Chinese lie and deceive as a matter of course, whereas in the heroic model, we pay the high cost of truth telling as demonstrated contribution to the commons. – Curt Doolittle)
[F]rancis Fukuyama got hooked on the idea of meritocratic bureaucracy from his study of Chinese history, and in his two most recent books, works to explain the construction of the modern state, by justifying select bureaucracies. His attempt at justifying his priors is approaching the most exasperating work I have read by someone who appears to be honest and merely flawed.
I value his work, because his comparative analysis, like that of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Pareto, Weber, and more recently Olson, is at least marginally scientific.
However, when discussing Europe, he identifies then glosses over the most important attributes of european civilization: we developed contract rather than authority. And our ‘priesthood’ (lawyers) and contract (voluntary association) are sufficient for the production of all commons other than defense. He does not address the church-state-commerce balance of powers. Nor the incentives of a bureaucracy.
Where most of us want to re-nationalize liberalism, and return to the contractual association of man, using law and militia as a means of policing the state, he wants to turn us all into Chinese peasants.
He doesn’t describe why bureaucracies fail, and seems unaware of the criticism of bureaucracies. He assumes professional bureaucrats will have good interests and be accountable, rather than that such creatures only exist at the margins, and the benefit that they add is less than the damage that they cause AFTER rule of law has been implemented.
He also ignores Putnam’s illustration of the ills of diversity – and it appears that he does so intentionally.
So, I have work to do:
1) demonstrate how the contractual state is superior in every possible way
2) elaborate on the transaction cost theory of government.
3) expand the ills of corporatism to that of anti-tribalism
I cannot work as fast as these other people. I look at some of these guys who put a book out every year or two, and I just work so much more slowly.
—“When President Theodor Roosevelt toured Europe and visited Vienna, he asked Emperor Franz Ferdinand what the point of a monarchy was in this day in age. Emperor Franz answered, ‘My job is to protect my peoples from their governments.’”—
(via Aaron Kahland)
Dear god, save us from democracy.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-29 10:50:00 UTC
WHAT DEFINES TERRORISM? FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY IS ALWAYS JUST.
–“Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.”–
Bingo. It’s not Criminal (for profit) it’s Political.
Usual argument also includes the difference between:
1) state actors (war)
2) state sponsored actors (insurgency)
3) state-tolerated actors (succor)
4) non-state, organized actors (groups)
5) non-state, non-organized actors (individuals)
6) non-state organized rebels (groups)
7) non-state non-organized rebels (individuals)
In practice we treat non-state actors as criminals and state actors as acts of war. But the problem of state-tolerated actors who are indirectly sponsored my giving them shelter has become a problem. Weak states are not capable of preventing their territory from use as a staging area. Yet the post-war consensus is predicated on the inviolability of borders. Prior theory was that states are responsible for the actions of their citizens. In practice americans, as world policemen, hold states accountable under pre-war theory. However, the academy-state complex (what some of us call the Cathedral) ideology is that we cannot hold states or citizens accountable for the actions of their peers.
NOW WHAT ABOUT JUST AND UNJUST ACTIONS?
Well, we can fight to implement greater or lesser liberty (property rights). This is the only question we must answer.
SO WE HAVE THREE AXIS
1) State vs Non State`
2) Internal vs External
3) Increase or Decrease free riding (trust).
Internal or external, individual or group, and increase in liberty: moral.
Internal or external, individual or group, and decrease in liberty: immoral.
So the only question as to whether one is conducting war, terrorism, or revolution is whether one is attempting to increase the scope of impositions on free riding.
Fighting for increased liberty is always just.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-23 03:17:00 UTC
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/viewing-russia-inside#axzz3M40hvzjmSTRATFOR ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE (MUST READ)
George’s Observations from Meeting with their Intelligence Community:
– (a) Sanctions will not affect Russia significantly Why? See (b).
– (b) Russians have an extremely high pain tolerance – the highest on earth, and pressures that will topple western governments will not affect Russian government.
– (c) Russians cannot conceptualize american idealism. They are a brutal and pragmatic people that cannot even comprehend that we have longer term ideological interests, and they interpret everything through their practical short and medium term lens. no on in Russia has good intentions, and they can’t imagine that American’s do either. In fact, most of the world cannot imagine how ideological we are. It has taken me two years living in eastern europe just to begin to see it.
– (d) George agrees that the USA is fearful of a merger of german technology and Russian resources which would result in russian hegemony.
My ARGUMENT on (d)
I have been traditionally in favor of a unified Russo-german people and a withdrawal of american forces from eurasia to a more isolationist and northern american, or perhaps anglo-sphere alliance, with england functioning as switzerland, and america as germany. So I sit opposite of George on this position.
MY ARGUMENT on (c)
Russians’ don’t understand american ideology and I question whether George does either – He speaks in state deparatment language which reflects an implementation of the American ideology, not the source of it. Instead:
Americans have been pursuing a postwar policy of:
(i) borders are inviolable rigid corporate property rights and abridgment of them threatens both US domestic central authority, threatens the wealth of developed countries that depend on a fluid international economy, and threatens another global war which everyone seeks to avoid. The USA is a benevolently intentioned paranoid sheriff that tends to break things when he’s around – and fear of having him around is enough to keep the peace.
(ii) states, meaning governments, are accountable for human rights
(iii) People have a right to self rule, and democracy is the optimum form of rule.
BUT….
(iv) The USA will punish self rulers that perform badly regarding either i, or ii.
(v) The USA foolishly advocates democracy which is a luxury good for high trust western societies and which other societies are incapable of using. Government must reflect the trust levels of the constituencies with more authoritarian for more tribal and familial and more distributed for more outbred and commercial. The question is only whether governments violate human rights and borders, not how they accomplish doing so. Democracy is equally destructive at home as it has been in the rest of the world.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
#ukraine #tlot #tcot
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 07:58:00 UTC
http://takimag.com/article/a_russophobic_rant_from_congress_patrick_buchanan#axzz3LnAORWS3ON FALSE EQUIVALENCE OF COMPARING EXPORTS OF RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN POLITICAL INFLUENCE
(reposted from original site)
Pat.
You posit a moral equivalency where none exists. Here is why:
US *Demonstrated* Postwar Policy Assumes the Following
1) BORDERS – states who don’t respect borders can lead to world wars.
2) HUMAN RIGHTS – states who don’t respect human rights export problems to the rest of us.
3) CONSUMER CAPITALISM – consumer capitalism is in the interests of ordinary people, because it will raise them out of ignorance and poverty, and more importantly, it creates states that can be competed with, and cooperated with, economically rather than militarily – this is profound because just as under consumer capitalism the market competition and conflict produce beneficial ends for consumers, so does does market competition between states produce beneficial ends for consumers since it forces a choice between consumption and expenditure on the ambitions of the central government – not the least of which is military expansion.
BUT ALSO OUR FAILURES
4) DEMOCRACY – it is our evangelism of democracy under the myth that all people desire and are capable of it, rather than, that northern europeans were uniquely capable of self rule for historical reasons:
a) we have a high trust society build through extensive outbreeding. (See Emmanuel Todd)
b) we have had centuries of suppression of the breeding of the underclasses under manorialism and its predecessors (See Clark and Todd)
c) We have had a unique history of the jury of our peers, rather than authority, for what appears to be more than 4000 years, and the common law for nearly as long – and as such a fairly unique ability and cognizance of truth and truth telling that separates us from the rest of the world.
The rest of the world, even southern Europe, cannot accomplish self rule because of pervasive corruption (See Fukuyama).
RUSSIA
Russia is a very, very, low trust society that DEPENDS upon systemic corruption to function, but that imposes corruption on its client states. Russia actively imposes brutality, murder, genocide on low trust countries to create military and commercial order necessary for low trust peoples to cooperate.
Conversely eastern europeans, especially Ukrainians, are NOT low trust peoples, any more so than Poles who are indistinguishable from Ukrainians, or even northern Italians (whom despite being largely germanic, the western Slavs resemble in many ways). So, Russian export of low trust means of government onto middle trust countries that can easily develop into high trust countries is by any definition evil and immoral, (they are Christian here in the east after all, and christianity breeds wealth because it breeds trust.) Just as American export of high trust means of government into low trust polities is harmful to them – they are incapable of self rule. They are incapable of self rule in many cases because they still practice inbreeding to control property in the family. (This is what prevents India from advancing more rapidly as well.)
THE HIGH VS LOW TRUST PEOPLES
So this is the difference between American and Russian political exports: If you export good government onto a medium or high trust people they they will flourish. If you export a low trust means of government on a low trust polity, they will also benefit somewhat – Russia’s southern neighbors did even if eastern europeans were murdered by the millions because of it.
Neither the Russians nor the americans are aware of Emmanuel Todd’s insights: That the only way to create a high trust society is the combination of consumer capitalism and outlawing near-breeding and inbreeding. Because as soon as you see everyone as a potential customer, business associate, mate or family member, trust must increase. Just as if you inbreed and rely upon relationships and corruption and parasitism, you will live in poverty (see Banfield’s Moral Basis of a Backward Society).
Most of the world lives in poverty because they have not adopted the christian ethic of treating all men as members of your family. This is the the first secret of christianity The second is the outlawing of cousin marriage by the church. The third was the granting of property rights to women by the church. The fourth was the construction of chivalry so that status only achievable by martial means was achievable by acts of public service.
These activities by the church were not prescient, but practical, and when combined with out indo-european heroism, birth control, truth telling, juries, and local sovereignty made us capable of self rule.
But none of these would have been possible had it not been for the aristocratic egalitarian ethos (see Ricardo Duchesne), which states that any man who wishes to fight for sovereignty must be aided: we must insure anyone who asks for defense as a means of increasing our numbers. We have been insuring one another’s property for thousands of years by the point of our spears, swords, bayonets and bullets. It is how we keep our numbers – we have always been a minority on the western edge of the world, and for most of history of poor one. Yet able to defeat greater numbers and and wealthier opponents.
Other countries cannot self rule because they have not experienced any of these advances. In fact, they find it heinous and prefer their familialism. And given our differences in reproductive rates, they may hold the correct evolutionary strategy – and not us. Western high trust society, high consumption and low birth rates, are not mathematically compatible with immigration of low trust peoples, dependence upon growth of consumption, and extensive redistribution. It is mathematically inescapable suicide (which you know, I know.)
So while in general I share your ideological position on all but marginal matters, it is this one that I think you err in: you are presuming we are strong enough on our own, and abandoning our aristocratic egalitarian strategy of keeping up our numbers by supporting the liberty of any who will fight along side us to preserve it. Instead we must always seek to increase our numbers – of high trust Christians.
Eastern European Christians are ‘us’. Ukrainians are ‘us’. Russians are steppe barbarians that understand only power, and truth is concept for fools. For Russians, “Words are just sounds you make to distract people so that you can defeat them’.
This difference in trust and truth is what separates Russians from westerners: they are a mix between us and the Chinese. Thy are a despotic low trust people with european aspirations and european mythos character, but who have been influenced by mongol, muslim and turkic despotism such that they remain low trust people – what we mean by ‘barbarians’. They never had our commerce and outbreeding so they never developed trust and universalism.
Unfortunately Gorbachev’s vision to unite the circumpolar people would have been successful and beneficial for the world could we have achieved it. The only thing keeping Russians from despotism is 100 thousand western europeans running their laws for three generations.
Which is exactly what it takes to transform a country to western levels unless it can construct a powerful christian minority capable of taking rule long enough to transform the culture’s expectations into one that depends upon property rights, human rights, and dependable rule of law.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine,
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-13 15:46:00 UTC
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-considering-deployment-of-nuclear-missiles-in-europe/RUSSIA CREATED THE 21ST CENTURY RULE: NUKES ARE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EVERYONE
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 01:55:00 UTC
[M]y objective is the achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.
For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.
As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.
The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.
EQUALITY
Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).
An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).
THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY:
(a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model);
(b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;
(c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)
That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.
ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE
If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.
As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.