—“That we have immoral politics for thousands of years does not make crass politics any less evil.”– David Macdonough.

(Note, I just wanted to capture this response here, as a good illustration of the familial origins of morality. In this reply, I’m trying to suggest why government must be not just rational but scientific. Because, as most of you know, I have become very hostile to the pretense of reason, given the pseudoscientific attack on the west during the 20th century.)

David,

CASES
A population ISLE is on a large island with Crete’s climate, plenty of sea resources, fertile volcanic soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can afford to buy their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. This controls their population. They are all closely related so they out-breed. They conduct internal and sea trade.

A population FOR lives in a land of forests and rivers, with a temperate climate of hot but bearable summers and cold but bearable winters, fertile soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can own their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. Most neighboring populations practice very similar manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and they conduct land and river trade. They are all closely related so they out breed at least locally.

A population PEN lives on a peninsula that provides adequate but not good terrain and soil. They are surrounded on all sides by very different peoples, all of whom seek control of trade routes and taxes to fund the costs of keeping competitors at bay. They practice traditional families. Only the upper classes control their breeding. They practice non-egalitarian inheritance to keep property in the family. They breed largely with close friends and relatives.

A Population STP lives on an steppe of horsemen with limited resources, no transportable rivers or sea lanes, harsh winters and warm short summers. All local resources are scarce so they move their herds constantly across vast areas and constantly come into competition with other similar groups. The do not control their breeding and they in-breed to keep limited portable property in the family.

A Population DES lives on a desert of horsemen with no resources, hot days and cold nights, useless soil, and they sustain themselves by migratory herding. There are no local resources so they move their herds constantly across very fragile terrain and compete ruthlessly to obtain or hold what they have. They do not control their breeding and they in-breed almost exclusively to keep limited portable property in the family.

While the assessment of criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct remains constant in all cultures, the TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE for criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct varies between these groups. The degree of demonstrated morality one practices reflects the degree of outbreeding one practices.

Cooperation is a reproductive strategy. The only rational reason for abandoning violence is that it is more rewarding to cooperate than conflict. The only reason to engage in ethical behavior is because it is more rewarding than engaging in deception with out-group members (the market) and in-group members – because they will ostracize you. The only reason to engage in moral behavior is because other members of your group will ostracize you for not. But one doesn’t care about out-group members, upon who we can impose costs at will whenever possible.

Westerners make the mistake of confusing the universal ethics of the market, with the strategic reproductive ethics of the polity.

No one other than westerners makes this mistake. When other civilizations complain about capitalism, it is the attack on their family structures that it represents, in no small part, they are reacting to – justifiably.

In then end analysis, under unmitigated fully ethical, but morally neutral capitalism, over time, the most parasitic peoples that breed the fastest will conquer those that attempt to concentrate and accumulate capital.

(See **Altruistic Punishment**. ie: suicidal tendencies.)

I don’t make ‘should’ arguments. I make ‘is’ arguments. What we do with the world as it is, is a competitive advantage. That is why scientific arguments are a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage for the tribes and families that use them. Everything less scientific is merely a disadvantage.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

 

CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM

Roman has suggested that I try to clarify:

(a) Ethical statements are truths, not Preferences.

(b) Some groups prefer MORE moral and ethical societies, and some LESS moral and ethical societies, depending upon the homogeneity of the group.

(c) Criminal, Ethical, Moral and Conspiratorial prohibitions constitute a spectrum from the most personally experiential to the most distant and indirect. An homogenous society can prohibit many forms of unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial conduct. However, heterogeneous societies do not benefit from enforcing ethical moral and conspiratorial prohibitions, since this prohibits inter-group parasitism.

(d) Humans compete by cooperating. Even though we are cooperating we are still competing. We are just competing productively rather than destructively. He who breeds wins.

 

ETHICS: IMPROVING FUZZY LANGUAGE

—“To be correct, ethical memes need to be universal. It cannot be right or wrong only for some but not for all. But all mere values are personal, but a value is only like a belief in that respect.”— David M.

Excellent. I’d suggest improving this a bit.

First:
“All true ethical propositions must apply universally. All preferential rules need not apply universally. All preferences must exist as individual opinions. All ethical (and moral) rules must exist independent of individual opinions. “

Second:
The term “meme” refers to the rate of involuntary distribution. An ethical rule may be stated mimetically or not. While it is certainly more efficacious that an ethical rule be stated mimetically, the truth of the proposition holds whether it is stated mimetically or not.

For example, most false moral statements constructed by the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists as well as many of the pseudoscientific arguments of twentieth century social science, appear to be ethical, but are not.

Third:
Worse, justifications for unethical and immoral actions spread fastest because they allow for rapid returns.

CONCLUSION
So (a) ethical rules, if true, are universal. (b) The memetic construction of an idea has no correspondence with its truth. In fact since ethical rules require us to forgo consumption, in general, they impose a cost upon us, and therefore they are constantly met with friction. This is why the common law must always evolve: we find a new way of ‘cheating’ and then must describe that form of cheating as illegal. Rules follow inventions.

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

 

WHAT CONSTITUTES “ETHICS” AND WHAT MAKES CERTAIN ETHICAL STATEMENTS UNIVERSAL?

—” what constitutes ethics and what makes certain ethical values it universal?”—

Cooperation (forgoing opportunity to use violence) is non logical under conditions of parasitism, imposed costs, or free riding. Voluntary exchange is only rational if mutually productive, and free of negative externality.

Now, if one exists in a tribal family structure (say levantine or arabic) or in an outbred family structure (northern Europe), whether one is ‘free riding’ on whom may constitute different ethical preferences. One group may prefer a less moral and ethical society, and another may prefer a more moral and ethical society. In other words, in a low-trust in-bred polity (Jews, gypsies, arabs) one is expected to act on behalf of the family at all costs. (See Banfield’s The Moral Basis of a Backward Society). However, this inbreeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Emmanuel Todd) Just as jewish and Gypsy near breeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Macdonald) These groups practice dual ethical systems: high trust-in-group and low-trust out-group. Only northern europeans, who practice the absolute nuclear family, evolved high trust ethics – a total prohibition on parasitism, imposed costs, and free riding. Because only northern Europeans succeeded in breaking the family and tribal fealties through manorialism, outbreeding and property rights. It was an economic advantage for westerners to develop universalism. But that universalism independent of separatism, is uncompetitive.

Ethical rules are universal. We choose a m ore ethical society or a less ethical society given the diversity or heterogeneity of the population.

(Period. End of Argument. Much to the displeasure of many.)

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

 

What is the return on an individual’s respect for property rights?

For him?
For the polity?
For man?

We cannot construct the voluntary organization without widespread respect.

So then how do we calculate the cost if that adherence?

Labor has no known value except in exchange. At which point we learn its value.

But respect for property rights, and active construction and perpetuation of them, always produces value.

Earlier thinkers assumed that membership and participation in the market was sufficient compensation for respecting property rights.

But this exchange was possible only because of the possibility of entry.

In a world of mandatory inclusion, this choice no longer exists.

In a world of marginally different productivity, where the underclasses no longer can provide useful skills, they are mandatorially included, but necessarily excluded.

In fact, their only value is in providing instructions in the form of demand, for the organization of production to satisfy their wants and to reward producers.

But they have nothing to exchange except constructing and maintaining the voluntary organization of production.

This presents us with a logical contradiction. They are forcibly included but necessarily excluded.

How do we solve this contradiction?

Par them for services rendered, and do not pay them if they fail to render services.

Voluntary exchange.

 

Peace is an idiot’s obsession.

The only rational pursuit is the positive expression in property rights of the negative prohibition on free riding. Violence toward that end is always rational and moral. Peace is an undesirable pursuit, since it simply justifies whatever level of immorality is currently extant.

People who pursue peace for its own sake are, if necessity, immoralists.

 

THREE AXIS OF AESTHETIC CRITICISM:

1) CRAFT (Materials and Workmanship)
2) DESIGN (Aesthetic appeal and ‘beauty’)
3) CONTENT (Values, associations and narrative)

The comparative quality of all art is objectively ascertainable by recursive triangulation.

 

Critique != Criticism 

In Criticism the alternative choice must be defended.

In critique the alternative choice must be obscured.

The purpose of Criticism is to identify truth. The purpose of Critique is obscurantism: complex deception.

Critique is deception. Control by deception using  obscurantism.

We forgo our opportunity for violence in exchange for pursuit of the truth.

However if the opposition is not equally engaged in the pursuit of the truth, then we need not forgo the honesty of violence just to tolerate acts if deception.

 

Trust and Demand for the State

 

WEAPONIZING REPRODUCTION

You know, I had bought into the ‘equality’ thing pretty deeply. But yet again, I”m overturning my own biases.

While patriarchy made possible by property helped to constrain female reproduction rates, and female reproductive parasitism, one of the northern european innovations was to further improve on the suppression of feminine reproductive parasitism, by delaying childbirth as well. Both patriarchy, the absolute nuclear family and manorialism further suppressed female reproductive parasitism.

The state by contrast, within just one generation of enfranchisement of women, was used by women to reverse thousands of years of innovations in the institutions of property which controlled female reproduction – particularly in the lower classes.

The state has not only been the source of predation but under universalism the sponsor of both dysgenia and suicide. The most paternal cultures are the most successful. The most aggressive males produce the most aggressive paternalism. The most aggressive paternalism produces the most aggressive family structure.

We weaponized norms and technology, while other groups of people weaponized reproduction, and yet others weaponized deception.

Why then should we abandon truth and violence so that we can be conquered by reproduction and deception?

(This was a conclusion I certainly didn’t expect to come to. Especially as a maker of alpha widows. The family is more important than my own demonstrated preferences illustrate.)

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.