¿De qué manera ha sido deshonesta la civilización occidental? Nuestra civilización no está libre de pecado.
Ninguna civilización realmente entiende sus estrategias grupales de evolución. Pero nosotros podemos hacer el intento de comprender la nuestra.
Cuando los arios combinaron el bronce, la rueda y el caballo, lograron cubrir grandes distancias con velocidad. Se arriesgaron, y el caballo, la carreta y las armaduras eran costosas. Pero le permitían a los hombres ser depredadores de otros hombres así como defenderse de otros hombres. Así que los hombres utilizaron esta tecnología con fines militares para expandir su dominio desde la China Occidental hasta España.
Resulta que si los hombres son militarmente capaces de desarrollar una casta guerrera profesional, capturar y conquistar territorio y esclavizar a habitantes primitivos de los territorios conquistados para ponerlos a trabajar, eso resultó ser una industria rentable. Pero solo un subgrupo de la población es apto para ser gobernado de una manera costo-efectiva y con bajo riesgo.
Así que mientras las tribus consanguíneas habían tolerado amplias variaciones en personalidades, sus gobernantes no lo toleraron, y encontraron a los más problemáticos, agresivos y la más constante persecución de las partes más aisladas, los gobernantes lograron con el hombre lo que lograron con los perros, cerdos, vacas y caballos: la domesticación progresiva del hombre animal.
La esclavitud es costosa, eres responsable de todos los costos, incluida la servidumbre. Y sólo se toman las ganancias de alguna parte del proceso del trabajo del esclavo. Cuando se toman parte de esas ganancias y se les paga, se utiliza el crédito fiduciario de manera dilucional para otorgarles a los ex-esclavos-ahora empleados el poder de consumo y capturar las verdaderas ganancias de su producción.
Así que con el pasar de los siglos nuestros ancestros han combinado el ahorcar desde el 1% hasta la mitad de la población de forma anual, retrasar la tasa reproductiva y limitar la reproducción con el señorío, duros inviernos para matar de hambre a los débiles y flojos, se libraron guerras de forma consuetudinaria con la promesa de obtener botín, y la conspiración de la Iglesia para debilitar a las clases inferiores a finales de la edad media. Eso logró que la población europea fuera la progenie de la clase media genética.
El cristianismo proveyó poco más que la excusa para justificar a los arios: La industria por la cual la clase marcial domestica a los hombres para su ganancia. Esto fue seguido por el yugo del hombre blanco- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos de la moralidad. Lo cual fue seguido por el proyecto americano- el restablecimiento del ideal ario en términos heroicos. Lo cual fue seguido por el humanismo democrático secular de la postguerra- un restablecimiento de la cristiandad en términos seculares. Y ahora la tendencia más reciente es el neo-conservadurismo: un restablecimiento del judaísmo en términos arios.
Ahora démosle la vuelta esto y digamos que porque hemos domesticado al hombre, hemos mantenido el tripartidismo, practicado el gobierno descontrolado para cada clase, y creado mercados para todo, la ley común natural, una definición eterna de la verdad, hemos arrastrado a la humanidad de su ignorancia, superstición, pobreza, esclavitud, enfermedad y elmiedo constante de las vicisitudes de la naturaleza.
Hemos hecho de este mundo mucho más que cualquier otra civilización.
Y lo hicimos no porque fuéramos los primeros en hacerlo, sino porque lo hicimos más RÁPIDAMENTE y EFICIENTEMENTE que otros, porque aprendimos a aprehender y adaptarnos a pesar de ser una pequeña población al borde de la edad de bronce.
El problema que afronta la humanidad es que no hemos terminado el trabajo. Nosotros constreñimos los intentos de Alemania de completar la formación de la civilización hanseática, y creamos una guerra civil que casi nos destruyó y permitimos la segunda invasión ideológica de Occidente en la figura de la pseudociencia, y ahora estamos trayendo abordo a millones de personas con las que hemos librado guerras durante mil cuatrocientos años para prevenir la diseminación de su ideología cancerosa – una versión más venenosa de la profesionalización de la mentira.
Así que calladamente seremos vencidos por las sombras o continuaremos domesticando a la humanidad o regresaremos a la domesticación del hombre, obteniendo ganancias de dicha domesticación, y continuando la trascendencia de muchos, por medio del uso de los bien más costoso que cualquier civilización jamás haya desarrollado: la verdad.
¿Por que la democracia no funciona?
La democracia funciona si se desarrolla bajo la figura de un voto por familia, en un estado pequeño y homogéneo, bajo una sociedad agraria, y si tenemos las cuatro casas gubernamentales bajo el modelo anglosajón: Monarquía, aristocracia, negocios, industria y la Iglesia (proletaria, aseguradora y cuidadora de los enfermos).
Porque las clases y las familias tienen suficiente en común para usar el gobierno mayoritario como un medio para seleccionar prioridades para financiarse con recursos escasos. Pero la democracia en la que hombres, mujeres y clases poseen votos por igual solo resulta en el gobierno parasitario proletario con todos los incentivos negativos para que las sociedades saquen lo peor de si. Podemos usar el sistema de gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar prioridades entre pueblos con intereses comunes pero no podemos usar el gobierno mayoritario para seleccionar preferencias entre pueblos con intereses dispares. Es ilógico
Los datos señalan que si las mujeres no votaran, estaríamos bien. Las mujeres expresaron sus estrategias reproductivas en la política bajo la democracia. Ellas deshicieron a la civilización occidental. Es una píldora dura de tragar.
El paternalismo y los derechos de propiedad, el jurado y el testimonio honesto y la familia nuclear absoluta, junto con la reproducción retrasada bajo el señorío fueron medios por los cuales logramos suprimir la reproducción de las clases inferiores, y controlamos el comportamiento destructivo de la mujer- reproducirse a su voluntad, de forma aleatoria, y causando que su tribu sufra las consecuencias de sus impulsos Malthusianos.
Las mujeres seleccionan una estrategia reproductiva tipo “r” (volumen), no una estrategia reproductiva tipo “K” (excelencia). La civilización requiere la supresión del parasitismo masculino (agresión) así como la supresión del parasitismo femenino (reproducción).
Nosotros deshicimos la historia indoeuropea y la familia como la unidad política central, con una sola actuación. Así que, ¿Cómo construimos compromisos en vez de opresiones? Diferentes casas, bien sea físicas, y representativas o electrónicas y virtuales para aquellos grupos con estrategias reproductivas distintas.
¿Hay alguna salida a la situación actual? ¿Cómo ganamos el control de nuestros países de vuelta?
Por supuesto, pero el chismorreo es barato. La violencia es costosa -aunque muy rápida y efectiva, y las preferencias se demuestran, no se declaran.
No hay una solución astuta, no hay una respuesta fácil. O usamos la violencia para exigir un cambio o perdemos nuestra civilización para siempre.
Nosotros o agitamos a una pequeña minoría para que eleve los costos de carga de nuestros competidores, sobrecargando su capacidad, enfrentándonos a la pseudo ciencia y la mentira, y elevamos el costo de su colonización o nosotros hemos probado que sólo estamos hablando y no actuando.
¿Cómo creamos una revolución?
El problema con la revolución es que en sí misma es una expresión de frustración. No trae cambios buenos necesariamente. Y algunas revoluciones son peores que sus estados originales: Francia y Rusia son buenos ejemplo de ello.
Para implementar cambios uno tiene que tener algo que exigir. Y lo que uno exija debe satisfacer los intereses de mucha gente. Esas demandas tienen que ser posibles y ser puestas en procesos operativos que habremos de llamar “instituciones”. Ellas tienen que ser posible para persistir, a pesar de las creencias de sus participantes. Así que debemos crear los incentivos adecuados.
- Para crear una revolución se requiere de autoridad moral -algo en lo que la gente vaya a usar la violencia como recurso de forma voluntaria como imperativo moral y como justificación moral. CON LA VERDAD BASTA. Estamos cansados de mentiras, pseudo ciencia, y justificaciones racionales oscurantistas. Estamos cansados de que nuestras élites quemen nuestra civilización.
Con la verdad basta. A diferencia del chisme, el culpar y acusar. Y a diferencia de la pseudociencia y la propaganda, la verdad es costosa. La verdad es el arma argumentativa más poderosa jamás desarrollada. Y el propietarismo nos enseña a exigir la verdad y a decir la verdad.
- Después de tener autoridad moral. Se requiere de una solución política – algo que exigir, y de forma suficiente que sea posible discutir racionalmente e implementarlo como instituciones formales.
- Luego se requiere de un plan de transición suficiente para que una revolución no sea necesaria y no mueran millones de personas para llevarla a cabo.
- Se requiere de una serie de objetivos-no un plan- para anular, seccionar, revolucionar y librar una guerra civil. Con la esperanza de que puedas lograr con la anulación progresiva pero estar dispuesto a librar una guerra civil o desarrollar una revolución de ser necesario. Y que de ser requerido, lleves todos esos objetivos a cabo a la vez.
- Se requiere de organización. Un grupo de personas que actúan como el personal general que responde preguntas, y propone ideas sobre cómo implementar, como traicionar y como elevar el costo del estatus quo para que la transición sea preferible a la incertidumbre e inestabilidad.
- Es necesario tener una cierta cantidad de hombres dispuestos a morir por su pueblo, por su cultura y por su civilización, pero que tengan la creencia razonable de que su sacrificio no sea en vano.
No es sabio entrar en los detalles de las tácticas. Pero en general. La idea es ésta: ¿Cuántos días de electricidad, agua, alimentos, y días de “orden” están en la línea de producción todos los días? Si cosas malas pasan en Ucrania o Rusia, el 40% de los alimentos los produce su pueblo. Todos podemos regresar a los campos.
¿Que ocurre en el mundo desarrollado si se éste se altera?
Vivimos en los tiempos más frágiles de la historia. Ya no es necesario que las masas tomen las calles para hacer la revolución. Se requiere de un número pequeño de personas que incrementen la fricción de la vida diaria. Nunca ha sido más fácil crear una revolución. Sólo necesitamos un plan, autoridad moral y algo que exigir.
Y es nuestro trabajo el otorgárselo a la gente.
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.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
(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.
The Propertarian Institute
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.
WE CAN FINALLY DO IT (I THINK).
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.
THE UTOPIA CANNOT EXIST
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.
So what do we do with a generation that has no productive market value, was intentionally infantilized, and has nothing to offer but virtue signalling by giving away via the political process what they did nothing to obtain?
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.
( edited by William L. Benge )
THE NEXT GREAT LEAP 🙂
“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.”
THE BAD AND THE UGLY — BUT NOT THE GOOD
“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.”
THERE’$ LITERALLY NO EXCU$E FOR ALL THE GREAT LIE$ THEY CONTINUE TELLING TO MI$LEAD AND BILK MANKIND
“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 FOR LIES IS COMPLICITY, FRAUD
“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.”
[I] don’t have mercy on any enlightenment group. We were all wrong. My job is to solve it. Our job – together – is to fix it. High trust societies are much more vulnerable to moral suggestion. And the history of deceit is something that we must blame Jews for; just as a history of ignorance is something that we must blame muslims for; just as a history of hatred of the human being is something we must blame the Chinese for; just as parasitic colonialism is something we must blame whites for. Until Jews atone for over two thousand years of sins they will not reform. No free passes for the creators of most of histories most murderous frauds. Until the Muslims repent for 1500 years of sins they will not reform. No free passes for the destroyers of the ancient worlds. Until Chinese repent for 3000 years of sins, they will not reform. No free passes for the most murderous liars on earth.
(note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 )
[Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?
Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst
Why would we give the government such power?
Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other.
And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.
Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst
Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential.
Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential.
NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)
- Science and Natural Law (Necessity)
- Military(defense) and Militia
- Judiciary(dispute resolution) and Sheriff
- Treasury (store) and Auditors
UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION)
The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning:
– Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association)
– Finance, Banking, (hypothesis)
– Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory)
– and Consumption. (law)
The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction.
– Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision).
PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT)
Academy (education production),
Government (commons production),
Hospital (healthcare production)
Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst
As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it…
So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences.
My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂
Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst
Are you trying to profit from your espousal?
Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books
In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst
1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful.
2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted?
3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony?
4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness?
If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution.
Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs).
THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS
The Costs of Truth
Lies and Opportunity Costs
The Cost of Teaching Truth
Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts
[I] hope to convince you that the argument that follows is very close to the final word on the American experiment, if not the Anglo experiment, and that nullification first, secession second, and civil war third, are the only alternatives to extinction of the unique high trust society of the Northern Europeans.
a) Our values are politically, economically, morally and even genetically, irreconcilable.
b) If we do not vehemently fight the opposition both in words, ideas, politics and economics, they will win, and the only high trust society on earth will be rendered extinct.
c) Compromise on manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, family structure, and political structure, can only, as it has in the past, lead to surrender and consequential defeat.
[D]emocracy is a means for resolving conflicts in priority among members of an extended family with similar ethics, morals, family structures, and goals. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts over different ends, driven by different ethics, morals, family structures and goals – ONLY THE MARKET CAN. That is the virtue of the market and why protestants and jews rely so heavily on the market: it tolerates diversity of ends, while allowing cooperation on means. One of the virtues of small democratic states in the pre-unification Germanic model (Lotharingian region) is that states must compete for citizens. This small-state network means that, just like foreign quarters in medieval cities, local direct democracy is possible, and people can move elsewhere. And in turn this flexibility forces competition between states. The swiss model, which accommodates people with different languages and preferences, currently operates on this same principle and as yet we have devised no better. If people have no choice then they must use the government as a means of conquering the opposition rather than one of finding a means of voluntary exchange between groups with diverse interests.
INTER-MORAL TRADE REQUIRES SEPARATE STATES.
[I]f the state acts as the insurer of last resort, redistributor of gains, and monopolistic canon of property rights and obligations, then the state cannot. via democracy. provide a means of reconciling conflicts in ends. it is not possible. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts it can only select priorities. Democracy between people with dissimilar morals and ends, is merely forcible conquest using the force of violence through the proxy of the state as a means of conquest of one group by another. The indirect use of violence is still the use of violence.
The market can only function across polities with heterogeneous strategies: manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production, BETWEEN STATES where states can employe trade policy (collective bargaining) and can neutralize the competitive differences between members of the opposing moral codes.
[A]s such, there is no alternative to defeat except nullification, secession, and the construction of states with different manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production.
The divide in the USA is between the Protestant (Northern European, North Sea, Germanic-Scandinavian), high trust ethic, and the rest of the world’s lower trust ethic. The difference in these ethics is the use of the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) and the total prohibition that the ANF places on free-riding and all other discounts. The ANF suppresses, intentionally, and systemically, the reproduction of the lower classes. It is a form of market based eugenics, driven entirely by merit. However, the lower classes and the merchant classes and the political classes, have incentives to instead, increase the rates of reproduction of the lower classes. As such, the difference between these models and the requirement for both (a) marriage, and (b) total financial independence prior to reproduction, is irreconcilable with the rest of the world’s use of the family and the state to seek free riding, rents and a multitude of corruptions to further their family interest.
As such the diversely populated state, with non-ANF families, and particularly poor single mothers, is antithetical to the North Sea (protestant) ethic, and is necessary for the rest of the world’s ethic. In fact, the very purpose of the ANF is to suppress if not outlaw the reproduction of these dependent classes. Currently these dependent classes are suppressing the reproduction of the middle and upper middle classes, and ensuring old age poverty for even the hardest working.
This moral, ethical, familial, social, political and economic difference is not an arbitrary difference, and the multitude of consequences that arise from this difference in strategies explains the difference in the great waves of indo-european commercial, rational, scientific, productive and military successes (and consequential failures) since the development of pastoralism – despite being a poorer, less populous people, on the edge of the bronze and iron ages.
The fantasy of the enlightenment was ‘the aristocracy of everyone’. It was the excuse that the middle classes used to seize power from the landed nobility, now that trade had surpassed agrarianism as the primary means of production and economic wealth. However, this scheme relied upon the perpetuation of the ANF and related social model. Without the perpetuation of the ANF and absolute private property rights, the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ was impossible to maintain under representative democracy. Had the British and Americans not surrendered the house of commons and the house of representatives, or the house of lords and the Senate, and instead had created a house of the ‘unpropertied’ it might have been possible to use the government as a means of establishing trade policy between the classes, and the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ could have survived. But universal democracy and the destruction of the differences between the houses, and the consequential the merger of class interests into a democratic body, thus eliminated the ability to conduct contractual exchanges between classes on the one hand, and gave the unpropertied majority – especially feminists and socialists – the ability to dismantle both the ANF and the private property rights that both sustained and enforced the ANF, and neutralized the difference in reproductive interests of the genders.
CONQUEST OF THE ANF-NORTH SEA PEOPLE
The redistributive state, under the French totalitarian model, and with the support of Kantian philosophy, followed by increasing numbers of waves including marxists, postmodernists, and totalitarian humanists, has systematically attacked the ANF’s eugenic suppression of all economic rents and discounts. And the reason for the success, argumentatively, against the ANF system, is that such a system was never written down, but existed only as handed-down, intergenerational tradition, and metaphysical value judgments embedded in moral habits.
THE CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS (ALL FREE-RIDING)
[I]n economic terms, a discount, is any reduction that you can obtain from the full cost of something under perfect circumstances. This may seem like a confusing terminology, but in economics, the terminology developed for discussing commodities and commodity prices. Commodities are defined where only price determines the difference between one unit and another. Objects that are not commodities, say are used cars. Unless you have a complete video record of the history of the vehicle, it’s not possible to really know what you’re buying and the seller is in a similar position. Horses are even worse since they cannot easily be ‘repaired’. Stolen goods are something yet again. You can buy something very cheaply but that discount comes at a price. Lying is another way to get a discount in an exchange. So a discount is anything you can do or apply to modify a price where you are fully informed and there is no marginal difference between units because you are fully informed.
The ANF North Sea social model, is a moral strategy, for the TOTAL SUPPRESSION of ALL DISCOUNTS thereby forcing all individuals into the market and suppressing the reproduction of those that cannot compete in it.
(Note: since writing this piece, I have changed from the use of economic language of referring to “discounts”, to term that is common between economic, anthropological and moral fields: “free riding”. While neither “discounts” or “free-riding” is likely familiar to the general reader, they are effectively synonyms for the same behavior – trying to get something without producing yourself something in exchange.)
Those discounts, in economic terms are:
1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
3. Fraud (false information)
4. Omission (Omitting information)
5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. War (organized violence)
The North Sea (Protestant) model suppresses ALL of these, including the ability to seek support from one’s family. It is a unique moral code.
The moral code consists in:
1. Requirement that all property be categorized as Private Property
2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange
3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth
4. Requirement for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth)
5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of symmetry
6. Requirement for proof of work (you must add value to a thing to profit from it.)
7. Prohibition on familial, tribal, and political free riding and rents.
8. Right of exclusion (boycott, and ostracization)
THE REVERSAL OF THE ANF MORAL CODE AND ANF-SOCIAL-ECONOMIC SYSTEM
[U]ntil 1960, even with the addition Roosevelt’s socialistic policies, membership in the USA’s ethical and moral system requires adoption of the ANF. It was possible to force this model on immigrants because (a) dislocation from existing family, tribe and culture and (b) the gift of land, and (c) the use of first private, then state credit to allow them to enter into the consumer class. However, with the end of farming, and the rise of ’employment’ most people have now left the ownership culture, except for their homes. Further, the feminist movement has succeeded in advocating support for single mothers, for fostering easy divorces, and for subjecting males to permanent rents without sex, affection, or the ability to accumulate savings for their sustenance in late life.
We are now in a situation where nearly half of americans will soon be born to unmarried parents, and doomed to perpetual poverty due to the failure of the ability for couples to form households in order to reduce costs.
That is the story of america. As such, the war on the ANF and the Protestant, North Sea, model is nearly complete, both here and in Europe.
As such, the ANF ethical system is antithetical to the rest of humanity. And, because of its competitive success against lower trust groups, the world rebels against it. And immigrants, single women, and single mothers, all of whom possess incentives to REVERSE this eugenic system of ethics, fight it at every opportunity. Our system of government, and the aspiration of the enlightenment to create ‘an aristocracy of everyone’ failed rapidly, within one generation, after we added women to the voting pool. Whereby they sought to, in increasing numbers, break the compromise that the nuclear family provided between conflicting female and male reproductive strategies. In increasing numbers, women have voted, and minorities with them, to seek rents against the high trust society and to dismantle the ANF, the compromise between the genders, and the ethical and moral and political system that suppressed the reproductive abilities of the underclasses. As it stands, single women largely determine the outcome of national elections and the female head of household has largely undermined the truce between the genders that is present in marriage, and has systematically undermined the ability of pair-bonded men and women from accumulating and concentrating property behind success, and instead, redistributed from the successful to masses of free riders and rent seekers.
French totalitarian humanists (catholics), Marxists, Socialists, Feminists, Postmodernists, Academicists (the church having been replaced by the secular academia’s promotion of the state) and now totalitarian democratic socialist humanists in politics that have been trained by those academics, all have sought to undermine the ANF High trust model. But they have done so without comprehension of the consequences of doing so. It is not possible both to possess a high trust society, and to dismantle the ANF ethical system, nor the marriage tradition that it depends upon. It isnt possible. It is not empirically demonstrable, nor is it rationally arguable. At least, not unless human incentives are infinitely fungible, and there are no laws in economics. Genetics, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and economics have proved the prior – to the great disappointment of progressives. And the failure of socialism and communism, and the requirement for money, prices and incentives, that are created by the capitalist mode of production, along with the current failure of Keynesian economics for political, moral and behavioral reasons, have disproved the latter. We are not infinitely morally fungible, we require incentives to cooperate rather than free-ride, and there are laws to economics seated in the properties of human beings, that are unbridgeable. Namely, we all possess a passionate instinct to suppress disproportionality: unfairness. And that we are happily redistributive within an extended family possessing shared values and signals, but increasingly hostile to those who compete with those values and signals. Diversity is the antithesis of intra-state cooperation, and the utilitarian justification of inter-state cooperation.
[T]hese reproductive difference are impossible to reconcile. As a politically unpleasant contrast, the same applies to Jewish culture and their Ethics of Critique. Jews, like Northern Europeans also hold a competitive advantage; precisely because they suppress all possible ‘discounts’ amongst themselves, but do not suppress the same portfolio of discounts outside of their group. In fact, they seek at every opportunity to obtain discounts outside of their group, while the host population tries equally to suppress them.
ANF North Sea Protestant strategy, on the other hand, is to try to include others in their system by enfranchising them into the culture of prohibited discounts. However, this works to suppress the lower classes, rather than simply prey upon them. But both the ANF Protestant ethical model, and the Jewish ethical model, are disadvantageous of the lower classes. The ANF through suppression of reproduction, and Jewish through exploitation of asymmetry of knowledge, and avoidance of paying into the commons. Of these two models the ANF Protestant can hold territory, but the Jewish cannot, since ANF relies upon numbers and armies, and the jewish relies upon operating as a minority population inside of a land-holding majority, in order to maintain their advantage. Both of these models conflict with the catholic model of systematic free riding, rent seeking and corruption of the lower trust society – precisely what we see in the catholic versus protestant countries. Or as we see in the difference between Catholic, Jewish and Protestant supreme court justice positions.
For these reasons both the Protestant ethical model and the Jewish ethical model, are not preferable by the lower classes. And as late as the 1920’s, prior to the arrival of eastern european jews, the ‘ethical difference between a New England Presbyterian and an American Jew, was indistinguishable.” This was not meant as a compliment to either by the catholics.
THIS IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE VISION OF MANKIND AND OUR ENVIRONMENT
[A]re we, in the primitive model, like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, limiting our behavior by the limits that nature places upon us, in the dysgenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation. Or are we improving ourselves, and preserving the planet, via the eugenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation, like our agrarian and pastoral ancestors. Or are we living on some faith that technology will solve this problem for us, via some miracle of transhumanism? Or do we select the strategy that best suits our reproductive interests: the lower classes the first, the middle classes the second, and the intellectuals and elites the third? Because that is precisely the strategy each class uses.
SECESSION IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION
[T]he only possible solution if we are to take advantage of the technical and economic utility of the modern credit and insurance provided by the corporeal state, is to secede into different states each of whom supports the reproductive and economic interests of the different cultures and their moral codes.
If we do not, we will either be totally conquered as the romans and greeks were, and we no longer have northern barbarians to restore our culture as the medieval’s did.
Universalism, homogeneity, monopoly, are evolutionarily and technologically fragile strategies. Diverse polities cooperating by the market, using the state as collective bargainer, insurer and creditor, is the only solution. Otherwise, as the Chinese, the Byzantines, The Iranians and the Muslims have discovered, the bureaucracy eventually is constrained only by the maximum amount of extraction that it can place upon the population, in an effort to perpetuate itself, and hold other competitors at bay through the promise of war.
[A]ny study of world his certain that we are approaching some possible civil war., That will occur when the remaining people of the ANF cultures, and those that are allied with them, no longer believe that convincing others of their model will be possible.
I believe if they understand this argument, that they will understand that it is no longer possible.
This conflict between strategies for our civilization, is the deciding argument of our times. For the next twenty years, demographics will mandate that this conflict continue. We can lose, as did the Romans and the Greeks. We can secede. Or we can fight and reconquer. But we cannot compromise, since these social strategies are incommensurable without the intervention of a state the neutralize differences via trade policy. Just as “Core States” in different civilizations neutralize trade policy between civilizations.
The weakness in european civilization is actually tolerance and inclusion. Tolerance without limit is not tolerance but submission. Inclusion without limit is not inclusive it is conquest, in exchange for not paying the high cost of protecting higher generations.
And the ANF is counter intuitive and uncomfortable for the rest of humanity. And like the Jews, we are being exterminated, systematically, for our reproductive and social strategy. Despite all the amazing contributions that European civilization has given to the world, NO MAN IS A HERO TO HIS DEBTORS.
The Propertarian Institute