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.



—“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.

“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. “

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.

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

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 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.



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



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.)



And of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.


The “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

(I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)


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