1.7-The Solution (Promise) · 3.6-Politics · Core

Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:

1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.

3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce.

But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’.

So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.

Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

1.7-The Solution (Promise) · The New Right · Uncategorized

A Declaration Of War Against The Frauds

(this ought to get me in trouble) (important piece)

Don’t dis on black or other impulsive peoples, we have white trash too. Blacks just haven’t organized to cull their herd as much as we have. They didn’t have winters. The entire warm zone of the planet consists not of failed states but of people who failed to cull the herd.

Don’t dis on Jewish people. We have vociferous gossiping parasitic white people too – most of our women. Jews organized to specialize in verbal creation of the opportunity for parasitism through the use of gossip and suggestion. To maintain Jewish separatism, escape payment for the commons, and to survive and profit by privatizing commons, they have allied with the state against the people in every society and been outcast or decimated for it. But that is the same strategy our women have always practiced since their invention of gossip, and the strategy our women have adopted since their enfranchisement in politics: alliance with the state in order to extract parasitically. Hence the treatment of jews and women by every society in history: as a useful danger to be carefully managed.

The problem that the transcendence of mankind faces is not the races but the classes and the genders. The bottom is more harmful than the top is beneficial. And because people act as racial kinship groups in all areas of life, we try to solve the wrong problem that generates the conflict: parasitism. We solve by war, religion (deceit), and propaganda (lies), that which we failed to solve by truth: the natural common, judge discovered law, of voluntary transfer prohibiting parasitism. We force them into productive voluntary exchanges in order to survive. We force them into productive work in order to survive. We force them into careful mate selection. And we force them back to the status of undomesticated animals if they do not, and sterilize them.

We don’t need to conduct wars of extermination, to put people in ovens, or hang them from ropes, or spit them on pikes – unless they rally in numbers. We need only limit their breeding to one child, and pay them to have no children. And to extend the legal prohibition on false and immoral speech products – protect information just as we protect land, air, water, commons, and institutions from harm.

We need to return to our long, successful, and widely profitable history of domesticating the universe, nature, plant, animal, and those animals sufficiently sentient that we have the potential to cooperate with via productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to productive externalities: at present, that is limited to homo sapiens-sapiens and his sub-species we call the ‘races’, and ‘sub-races’.

Because Western Aristocracy is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a government – it is a technology and an INDUSTRY. And it is by use of this industry we have profited by dragging the beast man out of his parasitic past on the margins of nature into the transcendent mastery of himself, and nature.

Man is an animal. Human is a domesticated man. Aristocracy is a transcendent human: “one who domesticates the beast man”.

You can dis on Muslims in particular, and all religious fundamentalists in general, and all pseudo-academics, and all pseudo-intellectuals, and all pseudoscientists, and all frauds of any kind that spread error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit. Because there is no place for fraud in the marketplace of information and ideas any more than there is for fraud in the marketplace of goods and services. All these people merely profit from undomesticating the animal man.

Because it is only the burden of the underclasses that cannot verbalize abstract ideas, and learn by self-instruction that prevents us from the universal human future we all desire.

And it is those who profit from the un-domestication of the animals, more so than the animals themselves that are our, and mankind’s enemy.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

1.7-The Solution (Promise)

Can We Complete The Germanic Project? Finally?


—“We will complete the system of German Idealism.”—Z.A. Corbett

i used to be against it, but now i see that we need both law, literature, and poetry. and that my work merely is the science underneath the literature and poetry. And that we require the entire corpus of science, law, literature, and aesthetics in order to provide each ‘method of sense’, from the intellectual to the political to the religio-spiritual a consistent message.

This is what I learned from the study of religion. Successful religions do all. The issue is conflation. We cannot break the western tradition of conflation. So instead of one narrative mythos, we must have layers, from the scientific to the purely aesthetic. This is how we preserve western uniqueness but obtain the virtue of religions.

So, the germans failed to resist christianity, they failed in the reformation to overthrow it, they failed in the enlightenment. they failed in the romantic period, they failed with national socialism.

So hopefull this time we all will reunite germanic (eruopean) civilization. not by ONE Method. But by the POLYTHEISTIC method, of LAYERS of different forms of argument, rather than attempting anglo analytic alone, german rational alone, italian poetic alone, and russian literary alone.


1.7-The Solution (Promise) · 2.8-Evolution · 6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism) · Uncategorized

You Want Me To Say Something Both Offensive And True?

You want me to say something offensive? Ok. How’s this: what’s a greater crime? The holocaust (the forcible deportation to of a gypsies, jews, and other non-conformists) or the inventions of the infantilizing lies of the Abrahamic religions and Cosmopolitan pseudoscience? (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Adorno+Co, Rothbard/Rand, Straussian Neo-Conservatism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and “Political Correctness”?)

What has caused more harm to mankind? It’s not even worth discussing. And after the west rescues the disenfranchised, what do they do? They struggle to destroy it by turning our high trust homogenous polity into another failed Levantine catastrophe.

We either create small prosperous redistributive high trust homogenous states, or we create a large corrupt low trust poor caste system.

There is no alternative.

1.7-The Solution (Promise) · Uncategorized

Even Testimonialism Will Not Herald The End Of History

In lower trust countries people justify their various forms of lying just as we high trust people justify the externalities caused by our combination of linguistic conveniences, methodological habits, variations in morality and ethics, and of course political correctness

That does not mean that just as we live considerably better than all these lower trust societies, that we world not yet again live better than we do now if we spoke more truthfully than we do now.

The reasons are not terribly hard to understand. And in simple terms the people you associate with are more important in determining your prosperity and safety than your own abilities.

So just as the Flynn effect is the product of reducing the bottom and saturating everyone else in scientific general rules, we can likewise expect the same increase by saturating everyone in testimonial speech and reducing the bottom.

We are not yet at the end of history. There is a long way to go. And perhaps the reson we seem stalled in physics is because we aren’t producing enough patterns in our own behavior to deduce the construction of the rest of the universe.

1.7-The Solution (Promise) · Uncategorized

The Next Great Leap

( edited by William L. Benge )

“The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been.”

“And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail.”

“Because, each of these groups profits from their lies.”

“But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully?

Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not?
What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust?”

“Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exhcange for false status signals, fraudueltly obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits.
The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more.”