Simon Ström · Uncategorized

Why Were Westerners Unsuccessful At Exporting Aryanism: Markets in Everything?


by Simon Ström

By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives.

Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige.

In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses.

The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance.

1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj.

(Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2)

2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America.

3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future).

So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are:
– They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization.
– Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric.
– The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not.

– Simon Ström

From Curt:
The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict.

Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups.

And that is what we see

Ryan Williams · Uncategorized

The Militia Separates The West From The Rest

by ‎Ryan Williams‎

The militia is the institution that is the causal source of the West’s success – that which separates us from the rest of the world.

To be a Propertarian is to prosecute lies
To prosecute, you must have the means to coerce
To coerce you must have weapons
To use weapons you must have skill
To have skill you must practice
To practice you must have discipline

Leave the momentary pleasures behind, and go sharpen your tools. We have work to do.

“Teach him he must deny himself,” said Lee. That was the general’s advice to a young mother who brought her infant to him after the War Between the States to receive his blessing.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Dishonorable Free Markets vs Honorable Natural Law Markets

By Joel Davis

The difference is between free markets and honourable markets.

Free Markets allow fraudulence and the externalization of cost for economic actions (see Rothbard).

Honourable markets disallow fraudulence and the externalization of cost for economic actions.

We don’t merely seek competition (and thus permit frankly Jewish-style parasitism), we seek honourable competition.

Why? Because we want to set the rules of the game to reward those who play by our rules (reciprocity), so those like us win the game, and thus reciprocity may be perpetuated, as this is justice to us (natural law) and game theory, evolutionary biology, and non-pseudoscientific economics demonstrate this reality.

Joel Davis · Uncategorized

Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

By Joel Davis

The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information.

I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers.

I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution.

I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers.

And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

Matej Lovrić · Uncategorized

Gender Opportunity Costs

—“As opportunity costs for women to enter in monogamous relations rises, men must pay more premium for exclusivity of monogamic relations in a world where there is mens value of labor in massive deflation and women’s reproductive labor on inflation. And that premium is payed with power because, women don’t need any more comfort.”–Matej Lovrić

James Augustus · Uncategorized

Economics of Abandoning Reason

—“I am unwilling and/or unable to pay the cognitive cost of acquiring and producing a rational means of decidability, whereby I enumerate the existentially possible options available to me, the corresponding cost and yield (and therefor profit) of acting acting upon those options, and whereby I identify any externality (cost) that I may impose on man if I so chose to act upon those options in accordance with natural law—and in the absence of the calculable (decidable), rely on intuition instead.”—James Augustus

Eli Harman · Uncategorized · Violence

The Information Content of Violence

by Eli Harman

It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum.

Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off.

But this is not correct.

In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum.
And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.”

And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence.

(In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.)

Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes.

No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict.

Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.