Grid of Cultural Tactics

1) TRUTH AND DECEIT,
2) MASCULINE AND FEMININE,
3) HOMOGENOUS AND HETEROGENEOUS.

———————TRUTH——————————
MASCULINE————————-FEMININE
—————————————————————-
TEXAS………..GERMAN…………BRITISH 
…………………..JAPAN…………….FRENCH
……………………………………………LATIN
AMERICAN………………………….HINDU
…………………..CHINA…………………………..
ISLAM……….. RUSSIA……………JUDAISM
—————————————————————
——————DECEPTION—————

Note that the american/hindu line represents “idealism” more so than deception.
Latins and french are pragmatic.  Anglos and Germans ‘truthful’.

More later. Just capturing the idea while I’m thinking of it.

Source: (3) Curt Doolittle

On Gays, Gay Marriage, and the Consequence of Breaking the Limits of Tolerance

(interesting) (some novel ideas)

Two over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travelers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.)

I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilization. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really.

But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives.

But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism.

And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant.

I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratic-ally regulate reproduction through property rights.

Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either.

The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment.

I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange.

Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject.

So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now.

If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law.
And that’s my plan.
And it’s working.

Property:Positive / Commons:Negative

Property is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources.

But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption).

(Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.)

Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture).

Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies).

Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports).

To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited.

Property=consumption (positive).  Commons=preservation(negative).

Another on Aristocracy(criticism) vs Republicanism(Justification)

Science=critical.  Morality=justificationary.

I have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, property-right/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.

OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.

REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(London, July 16, 2015)

Q&A: Aristocracy vs Republic? It’s Criticism vs Justification.

—“I’m a bit ignorant on this. What makes an aristocracy different from a republic. With leaders or rulers representing a population.”—

Great question. Thanks for asking it. Because you gave me the nudge I needed to write a first draft of aristocratic government that circumvents problems in libertarian thought.

I have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, propertyright/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.

OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.

REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(London, July 16, 2015)

Universalism: The Love of Man

Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.

I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes.

There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference.

A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher.

ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION.

Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict.

I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia.

But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites.

Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone.

Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

How To Repair The Western Press?

Roman got me thinking last week, about the central difficulty with western press’ reliance on telling both sides of the STATED story, instead of whether they tell the truth given the INCENTIVES of both sides, regardless of what they state.

Telling both sides merely gives the liars equal air play as the truth tellers.

And it’s much easier for a ‘journalist’ to report on someone’s feelings, and speech than it is to report on facts and incentives. It’s much easier to create moral outrage or high ground with verbalism that obscures incentives, rather than the incentives themselves.

To report ‘scientifically’ is possible with propertarian incentives and testimonial truth. We can systematically criticize what people say, and report on their incentives rather than their propaganda.

But that means retraining a lot of ‘journalists’ and eliminating the perverse incentives that we have produced with the popular press.

And the press, who free rides on destruction of the informational commons, may not like carrying the burden. On the other hand, we would have a lot fewer ‘journalists’ and they would be highly respected – and highly paid.

And I think that’s something all of us would like.

Choice: Truth vs Lies

WE HAVE A CHOICE:

Truth and Trade (propertarianism)

-versus-

Lies and Takings (progressivism)

Source: (2) Curt Doolittle

Propertarianism is for the Prosecution

(good)

If we claim we speak truthfully, then that we perform an act of testimony.

If we are both trying to find the truth, then we engage in an act of discourse.

If we are both trying to persuade and inform a jury(audience), then we participate in a debate.

But if you are trying to engage in deceit for the purpose of theft (free riding) then you are a defendant and I am a prosecutor.

 

I AM A PROSECUTOR
That is why I appear and am hostile. If you are a parasite, then I am a prosecutor. And I want to build an army of prosecutors the way the Jesuits did.

Except this time, we will prosecute liars.

The Reason You’re Poor

You are not a landlord or rentier.  So, I understand why you are not rich. But why are you poor and always broke? The answer is that you or the society you belong to, have – for various reasons- a very short time preference. You will rather spend now than save. And you prefer to consume now than delay gratification. — Haille Mariam-Lemar