25 Sunday Mar 2018
Posted in Races
Power is available under democracy that is not available under constitutional monarchy.
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-point-of-racialization-of-different-ethnic-groups
19 Thursday Jan 2017
Posted in 5.4.0-The Genders, Alberto R Zambrano U, Classes, Español (Spanish), Genders, Races
El Problema:
La regresión constante de la calidad de los hombres por debajo de la media y las desviaciones estándar crean la necesidad para que existan presiones persistentes que mantengan una necesidad genética en los grupos humanos. Esto quiere decir que los grupos pueden perder calidad muy fácilmente en cualquier momento que permitan mezclarse entre sí o que haya un cambio en las tasas de reproducción dentro de los grupos.
Valor:
Los hombres se pueden adaptar a cualquier circunstancia sin que tengan que mutar de forma evolutiva, pero debido a la simple frecuencia en la que se expresan los caracteres de una población en un lugar, espacio y tiempo determinado en la forma que la naturaleza los requiere. Esto trae como consecuencia que el hombre sea altamente capaz de adaptarse como organismo. Nosotros nos adaptamos cuando aprendemos, por medio de normas sociales, y por tasas de reproducción entre clases. Porque las clases son y siempre han sido expresiones genéticas superior y e inferiores.
Especialización:
Tal parece que todos los hombres hemos estado involucrados en el proceso de erradicar a todos los competidores del Homo sapiens sapiens, y luego nos comenzamos a subdividir en razas.
Existen cuatro razas principales: Negroide, mongoloide, caucasoide: Europeo (Del Norte, de los bosques y llanuras) Caucasoide, Iraní (sureño, del desierto y las estepas) Caucasoide y muchas otras sub razas como las semitas (africano/iraní-caucasoide) todas las cuales tuvieron que experimentar de manera directa un proceso de especialización. Las diferencias entre estas razas están descritas y son explicables desde un punto de vista endocrino, ya que los humanos “crecen” y los cambios endocrinos modifican las expresiones de ciertos caracteres, comportamientos y apariencias entre las razas.
Es por ello que:
Esto es bastante sencillo y son un juego de reglas q que no requieren experimentación genética (mutaciones) para que evolucionen las diferencias entre grupos de otra forma que no sea la expresión de caracteres.
¿Cuál es el secreto del hombre occidental entonces?
Los hombres occidentales somos los pueblos que más hemos puesto en práctica la eugenesia, “para mejorar nuestra raza”. Eso no nos hace mejores per se. Simplemente hemos matado a todos lo peor y lo malo durante tanto tiempo que muchas familias buenas y mejores tribus han surgido y sobrevivido que las tribus y familias malas.
La revolución industrial cambió todo eso
La democracia cambió esta antigua estrategia cultural porque cambiamos de una familia productiva (no sólo un hombre) un voto, a votos igualitarios para todos – y desde que las mujeres se volvieron reproductivamente irresponsables (disgénicas) y las clases bajas se volvieron reproductivamente dañinas (disgénicas también), y juntos esos dos factores son más numerosos pero no superiores en calidad, implementaron políticas que revirtieron la excelencia genética que alguna vez tuvo Occidente.
Hemos experimentado una “explosión” (efecto Flynn) que luce estadísticamente como un dispositivo que mejora la nutrición y distribución de las clases inferiores. Sin embargo este efecto puede ser neutralizado (revertido) ya que las tasas de reproducción de las clases inferiores continúan en expansión. Es probable que la tasa reproductiva de las clases inferiores disminuya conforme los caracteres genéticos negativos continúen perpetúandose, pero eso es cuestión de un número no determinado de generaciones y mutaciones indeterminadas.
Es así de sencillo
Es necesario poner en práctica políticas de eugenesia.
No se puede tener libertad y prosperidad si no se tiene una civilización eugénica y racialmente homogénea.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.7.1-Orders, Uncategorized
—“Observation — journalists and other intellectuals freaking out over the outcome of the election reveal that they were never really “students” of society, or even “social critics”, but were instead partisan cheerleaders. Also, it appears that many are completely incapable of asking themselves whether it might be possible that the consensus of the progressive elite in public policy is perhaps neither as accurately descriptive of how the world works or as normatively appealing as they sincerely believe. Rather than critical self-reflection we see outrage, blame, and emotional expression of pain.
There are many reasons to be concerned, but the responsible response from intellectuals is to think through rationally, to ask what I was wrong about, try to force yourself to pass an ideological Turning Test, and to recognize that if there are institutional problems the answer requires institutional solutions.
Liberal democratic traditions do not work based on the “good” and the “wise” being in power, but were designed so that “bad men can do least harm”. Let’s hope those liberal democratic institutions are still in operation after so many years of sustained critique by progressive intellectuals.
Democratic governance (liberalism) is a different beast from bureaucratic governance (progressivism). Bureaucratic governance requires trained experts immune from democratic checks and balances, democratic governance requires responsible citizens and institutions that empower as well as constrain.”– Peter Boettke
(NOTE: I would say they are all engaged in customer seeking – a long form of rent seeking. The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:
(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;
Depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others? And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.
I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.
If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means. – CD )
27 Sunday Nov 2016
THE FUTURE IS JUST A CHOICE. RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY: RULE.
We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.”
You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.
27 Sunday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.7.1-Orders, 4.3.9.7-Slavery, Uncategorized
THE EVOLUTION OF SLAVERY
Slavery exists wherever exit, and return to subsistence, is practically impossible.
Slavery: violence slave
Serfdom: land slave
Employee: wage slave
Consumer: credit slave
Citizen: tax slave
The only freedom is food, water, and shelter, self-sufficiency, with participation in the market purely voluntary.
And only commissions on transactions payment for the commons.
Yet all of us must be paid for policing of the commons if we police it – dividends.
With self-sufficiency and payment for commons we gain liberty. All else is slavery.
Roughly speaking each person could take 10k in dividends at present. Between self-sufficiency and 10k in dividends on our continuous investment in the commons, we would possess liberty.
Otherwise we’re just farmed.
26 Saturday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.8-Evolution, Sequences, Uncategorized
Nov 18, 2016 6:37am
1) Aryan Expansion of sovereignty, domestication, and invention.(E)
2) (Reformed) Christian expansion of duty, trust, and production.(E)
3) Jewish expansion of separatism, deceit, and parasitism.(E/D)
4) Marxist expansion of rebellion, pseudoscience, and parasitism.(D)
5) Islamic expansion of submission, ignorance, and predation. (D)
(E: eugenic/domestication. D:dysgenic/un-domestication. E/D: internal eugenic and external dysgenic)
26 Saturday Nov 2016
We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
25 Friday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.2-Mind, Uncategorized
Nov 18, 2016 7:34pm
—“We can follow Pinker in the characterization of Intelligence itself as a heuristic of sorts devised by evolutionary processes. The cost of specialization in terms of individuation is simply too costly, so a general set of cognitive dispositions that can adapt is of greater benefit to the species in question.”—Skye Stewart
25 Friday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.7-Politics, 2.7.1-Orders
Nov 19, 2016 11:50am
KIN, CLASS, CASTE: MODELS AND FUNCTIONS
Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation states),
Class System (informal institution – markets) or
Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws),
exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by east Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is.
We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability.
kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse.
Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders.
All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and therefore create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper.
There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning.
The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses.
Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.
25 Friday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.3-Psychology, Uncategorized
HIERARCHY OF THE SENTIENT BEING
– Sense: change state in reaction to changes in information state.
– Movement: physical change in state in reaction to change information state. (automatic)
– Perception: changes in state by sensations (memory and anticipation)
– Sentience: identity : positive/negative rewards/punishments in reaction to changes in anticipated state of the organism (automatic)
– Consciousness: perception of changes in state and expected state of memory (automatic)
– Apperception: scaling (organizing) an idea into a body of knowledge.(automatic)
– Cognition: (wayfinding) (automatic)
– Reason: (intentional)(comparison and judgememt) is a faculty of our minds. It consists of a very small set of operations.
– Philosophy: (intentional) recursively re-organizing: commensurability
Rational Instrumentation
– Identity
– Rationalism: non-contradiction
– Logic: set comparison
– Algorithm: process comparison
– Model: equilibrial process comparison.
Physical Instrumentation
– counting
– measurement
– change
– magnification (scale)
– time
Relational Instrumentation
– numbers (identity)
– arithmetic (operations)
– mathematics (sets)
– geometry (space)
– calculus (relations)
– statistics (scales)
– post-euclidian (logical)
Cooperative Instrumentation
– voluntary exchange
– narrative, parable, argument, proof
– numbers, mathematics, accounting
– economics
25 Friday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.8-Evolution, Uncategorized
CURT AND MURRAY SELL ON CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
—“The Chinese [primary method of decidability] is stability – [non-conflict]. Chinese history is tumultuous so everything must be done in the name of maintaining equilibrium and stability in the nation state(which is seen as a collective entity).
The American [primary method of decidability] (until very recently) is reason – [negotiation]. Maintaining that people will ultimately do what’s right for themselves in the end and will act in their own self interests.
(CURT INTERJECTS: Chinese prevent conflict through denial, delay, and deceit. westerners attempt to expose conflicts and resolve them quickly. europeans regulate heavily to prevent legal conflicts later. Americans provide very precise legal rules so that limited regulation is necessary except in those cases where the exceptions have failed. These are three methods of insurance against conflict. The Chinese delay and deceive and deny until ‘matters solve themselves’. The continental method of regulate in order to limit conflicts. And the anglo method: provide clear rule of law so that those conflicts that do arise are decidable.)
It’s probably why our greatest weapon has been unleashing chaos into societies (weaponized culture)in order to drive events in a way that serve America’s greater interests.
(CURT INTERJECTS: Americans have followed the anglo enlightenment, peace of Westphalia(States are responsible for all agents within), and Postwar Consensus (human rights and fixed borders), that the world will remain peaceful through economic cooperation rather than territorial expansion. So americans seek to raise in to ‘adulthood’ every nation, so that it can participate in a meritocratic international market. This is ok, except that every nation may not have the human capital to compete successfully, and may try to circumvent that meritocratic competition by other means (islam).)
I feel like this idea failed with the Middle Eastern destabilization program of the obama administration. The realization that people are literally wired differently from the western mind I feel is a revelatory moment of catharsis for western neoliberal thinkers. Universalism is a generic lazy way of seeing collective groups of people on earth. I have watched lectures on YouTube from the army war college stating that it doesn’t really matter if we technically “lose” wars with other nation states (fail to hold territory). As long as we utterly destroy your nation and knock it back a century in its progress we have technically won against our opponent because they can’t develop a civilization strong enough to challenge us on our own territory. The third world is aware of this and some folks theorize that we are in a multigenerational asymmetric conflict with the devolving world using our own principles and mass migration (another form of warfare) against us…”— Murray Sell
(CURT INTERJECTS: agreed)
24 Thursday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.4-Sociology, Classes, Uncategorized
So, as far as I know, you are always a slave as long as you are dependent upon other people’s efforts to survive.
1 – Undomesticated animal
2 – Slave (no rights)
3 – Serf (rights to some of the proceeds of labor)
4 – Employee/Freeman (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons) – Rule of Law
5 – Manager ( rights to property, rights to proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility for the organization of others in their production )
6 – Investor (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility to determine the utilization of scarce resources among various managers )
7 – Ruler (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons,responsibility to create some combination of voluntary or involuntary organizations of defense, production, distribution, and trade, that make investment, management, employment, serfdom, slavery possible.
23 Wednesday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.8-Evolution, 5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion
Ill give you the objective model instead:
1-utopians(plato)(hindus),
2-truth tellers (aristotle),
3-truth avoiders (sun tsu),
4 – The Truth Benders (russia)
4-liars (abraham),
5-lying+ignorance(muhammed)
23 Wednesday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.8-Evolution
15 Tuesday Nov 2016
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.
14 Monday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.4-Sociology, 2.5-Cooperation, Definitions, Uncategorized
EMPLOYEE
Responsible for own provision of room and board and care from the product of one’s wages.
FARMER
Holds sufficient land and labor to produce goods not only for consumption but for sale in the market, as personal property.
PEASANT
Holds a small plot of land farmed by the family, for family consumption, as family property (this is an important distinction) – one does not have control over the property – the family does..
SERF
Holds access to a portion of land for family in exchange for a combination of labor on the manor’s holdings, in addition to some percentage of his personal production. And is bound to the land, having little or no right of exit except under certain conditions.
INDENTURED SERVITUDE
Receives room and board, and possible small spending money, in exchange for labor. But loses right of exit.
SLAVE
Bound to the land, manor, and or family, providing room board and clothing, but holds no title or rent, and no discretion.
slavery as we understand it is an historical fabrication. one could be everything from the equivalent of a full-time household employee treated as a cherished member of the family, to a farm hand, to a disposable laborer, to a prisoner with no chance of survival working in the mines.
PRISONER (SLAVE)
terrible conditions which you might not be expected to survive, under hard labor, as a form of punishment.
14 Monday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.4-Sociology, 2.7-Politics
I would say that the Cathedral Complex (state, academy, media) are all engaged in customer seeking – an incrementalist form of rent seeking. They profit from the building of customers and rents.
The interesting question not discussed is that because we humans make use of law, religion, and market, but we choose a dominant bias with which to employ them in our social orders, yielding:
(1)kin/law,
(2)cult/religion, or
(3)state/corporatism;
depending upon homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population; to overcome resistance to the creation and preservation of commons – so that why is it that one bias in the order is always better off than the others?
And why does not social-criticism and intellectual-decidability limit itself to the order desired by the population? of course, we know the answer is genetic in both desire for construct, and in the expression of that desire for construct as a will to power.
I frequently ask the same question: why do economists vary in bias of decidability? for the same reason: austrian-social-science and rule of law preserving sovereignty, freshwater limits of rule of law as a commons against harm, and saltwater abandonment of rule of law in favor of preferential discretion in order to acquire customers for the state.
If it isn’t clear to you, then the answer is this: anything other than kin/law is nothing more than an act of war by slower means.
We have been at war. We are at war.
Time to win the war.
14 Monday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.6-Commons, Uncategorized
As a general rule, roughly doubling population density gains a 15% increase in both all goods and all bads. Why? Because the opportunity cost decreases.
That should be pretty obvious.
But now, let’s take a look at what happens to Commons: normative, institutional, and physical.
They get cheaper. But they also get less valuable. Becuase the primary commons that produces returns is just density.
But what happens to commons in non-urban areas: they get expensive, and they get more important. Because what sustains a population in the production of consumption, generations (families); goods, services, and information; commons, institutions, and territory.
This explains the very great difference between cities, suburbs, and rural areas: government produces commons, under the perception of uniform cost and value to humans when the value of commons is determined by the difficulty in creating them, preserving and maintaining them, and the cost of infractions gainst them.
We have the electoral college to ensure that the large states that have such discount on commons production cannot overwhelm the smaller states with smaller budgets, or smaller populations or smaller territories.
But what we do NOT have is votes within states determined by opportunity costs: population density.
Yet we tax people by income which to some degree reflects population density, because income is determined largely by that density, because opportunities are determined by that density.
Now there is a trade-off between the ‘cheapness’ of opportunities for CONSUMPTION in the city versus the expense of opportunities for INVESTMENT in the suburban and rural areas.
I hadn’t really given this much thought in the past although it’s intuitively obvious that the electoral college is necessary to prevent the people living off cheap commons in cities to force harm to the people in lower density places with expensive commons.
But since the entire purpose of government is the production of commons then it’s only logical: we lack a means of calculating the differences in these invisible differences in opportunity costs, and that without compensating for density, we are harming the suburban and rural areas.
Now, of course, we could say that rural and suburban areas don’t matter, but the truth is that cities are dysgenic IQ sinks, cultural conflict generators, and debt increasers, as well as helpful marketplaces
And that the reason that we immigrated so many people into this country after 1803’s Louisiana Purchase was to fill up the west with people, so that we could hold the territory in case the Europeans decided to come back and take it again.
Because you only hold territory as both a resource and as a buffer against competitors if it’s full enough of people to do so.
if votes were weighted by county by population density, that would ameliorate the differences between the different opportunity costs.
Now is this going to happen? Unlikely. So the alternative is secession so that regions, states, and localities can produce with government that which government is necessary to produce: commons.
And my alternative is to convert government from a monopoly to a market for the production of commons so that groups can produce local commons that they desire without the interference of others.
May a thousand nations bloom.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
08 Tuesday Nov 2016
Posted in 2.3-Psychology
Dunning Kruger Never Stops
To the idiot, the world conspires or lies.
To the average, the more powerful conspires or lies.
To the intelligent, the more intelligent conspires or lies.
Differences in knowledge and understanding that are to you unimaginable are to those with far more just normal risk assessments they would make.
I published this graphic many years ago in an attempt to explain the problem of false positive ethics and false negative ethics.
The problem is, that when you FAIL, you look unethical, whereas if you succeed your look brilliant or heroic.
I’m a more than ruthless guy. I don’t do symbolism. So I take the risk whether it will result in a false negative or not.
Why? Skin in the game.
You cannot cooperate on equal terms with unequals.
Some men must be led if greatness is to be achieved.
Sometimes we die in our attempt at…
View original post 1 more word
15 Saturday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.7-Politics
The west is deconflationary. We do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them.
We maintain a competition, and circumvent any monopoly: *power*.
|— LIMITS ——- > UTILITY ——–> GOALS/IDEALS–>
Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent
—Curt
15 Saturday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.7-Politics
STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES
Communism
…. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )
…. (mandatory consumption)
…. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )
…. (strength in numbers)
Market Government
…. (middle class – medium term – production)
…. (mandatory exchange)
…. (productive offense – market exchange of assets)
…. (strength in adaptation/evolution)
Fascism
…. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)
…. (mandatory production/contribution)
…. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)
…. (strength in ability[resources])
Innovative < —————- > Defensive
…. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)
…. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)
…. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)
Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)
….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible)
…. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible)
…. …. ….Fascism (particularism)
We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.
—Curt
10 Monday Oct 2016
Posted in 1.6-The Pattern of History, 2.8-Evolution, Definitions
It’s called Paedomorphic Evolution: Genetic Pacification selecting for lower maturity – the “juvenile”. One of which is Gracilization: loss of bone mass. The ‘strange’ sexual interests of the Japanese (and the asians) and our men’s attraction to Asian women, is very likely due to the greater paedomorphism of the asians and the lower levels of testosterone. The east and the west have been engaging in genetic pacification over a long long time. The rest of the world has not. Because they were unable to reduce the bottom population.
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.4-Sociology, Genders
Women exist as our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives and friends. In that capacity we are equal. But in politics and war women are as incapable as men are of conception and birth. And it is more likely that men will give birth than women will demonstrate capability in politics and war. Dependence upon female defense of communal capital is as suicidal as dependence upon male bearing of offspring.
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in P02-Man
Just as falsification tells us what may be true by that which we cannot make false; and proofs tell us what is not false but not what is true; and the law tells us now what we must do, but only what we must not do; and evolution tells us only what fails, not what succeeds, it is not important that the best people lead, as much as it is important that the worst do not.
For this reason we must limit access to power to those least likely to lead poorly. How do we know? Demonstrated character in familial, entrepreneurial, political, and military excellence over multiple generations. And the elimination of consideration of those who fail the test of character in familial, entrepreneurial, and military excellence across multiple generations.
Nobility is most frequently demonstrated by intergenerational excellence. For those who cannot master their passions enough for good breeding, good rearing, good production, and good defense, have demonstrated by their actions that they and their families are unsuitable for leadership.
Note that survival from the opinions of others in schooling, academy, politics and church, tell us nothing about an individual other than his ability remember and to obey, while engaging in various forms of politicking and deceit. Only family, commercial, and military experience tell us about the capacity of an individual to lead.
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.6-Commons, 3.6-Politics
The value of democracy in the selection of commons decreases with the size of the population voting.
Why? because the size of the population increases Continue reading
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.3-Psychology
Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary.
Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation.
Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.5-Cooperation, Responses
–“trust isn’t necessary just capitalism”— Diego Anonymous
Diego,
Let me correct you a bit – largely by providing you with more precise language.
Capitalism – private production of goods and services by the universal distribution of private property rights – has always existed to some degree – it must for trade to exist.
But, cooperation at *scale* using institutions, that creates what we call ‘consumer capitalism’ requires high trust society.
Without high trust, states are necessary to organize sale and complex production, because of the risk required of all participants. States as the insurer of last resort, insure against ‘risk of defection’.
This is why centrally managed economies can be used to transform states from a condition of backwardness, but cannot be used to maintain them once backwardness is reduced and society reordered, or to create persistently competitive states where self-ordering produces consistent market innovation.
The only known way of producing high trust is evolution from common (negative) law, property rights for women, and the prohibition on inbreeding (cousin marriage). Common law insures against ‘risk of defection’.
The only known way of producing common (negative) law is evolution from a militia (Anglo-Saxon model).
The only known way of producing a professional bureaucracy is evolution from an army (french-german-prussian). (And this leads to napoleonic law of state vs people, not common natural-law of militias of universal equality)
The only known way of producing a libertarian (anglo-saxon) political order is with militia and common law, combining to provide sufficient suppression of free riding such that commons can be produced without defection preserving competitiveness, and private goods can be produced competitively.
One man may rule.
An Oligarchy may rule.
A professional bureaucracy may rule.
Or all may rule – thereby ensuring that none rules.
Rule of law (nomocracy);
The civic production of commons (liberalism);
The private production of goods and services (capitalism);
And the condition under which we experience all three (liberty);
Can each exist but they cannot exist without one another.
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.7-Politics, 3.6-Politics, 3.8-War
Clausewitz was pretty much wrong about everything. War is not an extension of politics. Politics is a means by which we limit war. It is not politics that is the basis of human interaction, but the ever present rational choice between war, conflict, boycott, cooperation, insurance, and kin-sacrifice. Political organizations exist to defend the interests of the group from competitors, and if possible convert the group to the most successful competitor, and therefore the competitor with the greatest discounts on negotiations with other groups. Politics is the extension of cooperation, and when politics fails, we return to the prior state – whatever is in our rational self-interest. But, as we are strong when organized gainst competitors, and weak when disorganized in the face of competitors, when political solutions fail, we merely choose politically organized conflict of large numbers rather than otherwise organized conflict of smaller numbers – thus allowing us to concentrate our full resources on the conflict in question.
07 Friday Oct 2016
Posted in 2.2-Mind, 2.3-Psychology, 6.1.0-Progressivism (Feminism)
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory.
This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality.
They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all.
They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences.
Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously.
It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
07 Friday Oct 2016
(By Eli Harman)
—” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant.
That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.
Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe.
So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties.
The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks.
But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—
