Behavioral norms must be treated (and defended) as property. Doing so would allow a limited number of people from other cultures to immigrate. Not doing so, is treason against the native population, the loss of high trust (which is VERY expensive to achieve), the deterioration of society, and the seeds of racial hostility.
Trump and the libertarian implosion:
—“Libertarians had their hour, but their embrace of dubious causes made them irrelevant. The movement needs to think hard about how to reengage conservatives again. But there’s no sign of that. Instead it’s pursuing its alliance with the left in support of freeing drug dealers… a program that has no possible positive outcome either for America or for them.”—
Didn’t Defend The Kingdom of Israel and were cast out.
Didn’t Defend Spain and were cast out
Didn’t Defend Eastern Europe, and were cast out.
Didn’t and Couldn’t Defend in Wester Europe and were cast out.
Didn’t and Couldn’t Defend Russia and were cast out.
Using (Germanic) Americans for Neo-Con Defense (and losing it).
Failing to Defend the State of Israel and losing it.
There are no free rides.
You either produce warriors or are conquered by those who do.
Warriors always rule.
I AM TRYING TO REPAIR THE ENLIGHTENMENT
1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
vs European Universalists Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.
2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)
vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).
3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism
vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.
1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).
2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).
3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).
3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)
All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).
The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.
Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)
That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.
So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.
That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.
Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.
The Propertarian Institute
IF YOU CAN’T TESTIFY BEFORE YOUR PEER, YOU CAN’T BE WESTERN.
—“I want to give people the language to force other people to speak
truthfully. Because that’s our [the West’s] evolutionary strategy. That’s
what we do. The problem is: we spoke truth for so long, for a whole bunch
of reasons, and they [high functioning non-Westerner‘s] came in and
attacked our school system. [They took our history out.] They took our grammar out, which is [how we speak] logic. They took our logic [out]. They took our rhetoric out, which is standing [and orating] in front of people. If you can’t practice giving testimony in front of a jury, [then] you can’t be Western. We don’t know how to call people liars anymore. We’re ashamed to call people liars. We felt guilty?”— Curt Doolittle. The Right Stuff. 2015
*BUT THEY WERE LIARS AND THEY TAUGHT US TO LIE*
the problem is that in practice it very much matters that Jewish and Islamic law is so substantially different from Western common and continental law. Particularly in that western law is universal and inclusive, Jewish Law is dual-ethical and arguably unethical, and Islamic law is intolerant and hostile. And both Jewish and Islamic law are separatist for the purpose of prohibiting integration.
It simply is not true that Catholic entry into America was not disastrous for the constitution or that Jewish immigration was even more so.
Aristocracy (those of us who are educated and debate the empirical consequences of these matters) are relatively irrelevant because we are not dependent upon our tribes for information. But the middle and lower classes are inversely dependent on norms and traditions and related status signals as well as peer opinion in order to act.
As such it is our lower and middle classes that demonstrate our cultural differences, and the opportunity middle and upper who parley those biases by way of votes under democracy into political power that exacerbates our differences.
Internet the monarchies we had diversity and lots of it because political power was denied as a means of status competition. And only market competition provided a means of signalling.
This is one of the most important readons why democracy has been a catastrophe for western man.
THE COST OF ELIMINATING PSEUDOSCIENCE IN ECONOMICS
(Please tolerate the long post. Some ideas are not reducible to pithy wit.)
[I]f a statement in economics cannot be reduced to a sequence of subjectively testable rational operations, then it cannot be true – it is not existentially possible. If a statement in economics can be reduce to a sequence of subjectively testable rational operations, then whether it is true or not is still open to question.
The philosophical problem (epistemic truth) of correcting pseudoscience (of which mathiness is a subset) in the field of economics is not something that is going to easily be solved by economists, who tend to be good at neither advanced mathematics, nor the ethics of science, nor at the principle problem of truth.
And this is a serious problem. Because, of all the disciplines save psychology, economics is the **most subject** to pseudoscience: the failure to eliminate imagination, bias, error and deceit. And we have the greatest incentive to insert imagination, error, bias, and deceit.
And among all the scientific disciplines, the social sciences have been the most subject to pseudoscience other than perhaps philosophy itself (which in truth is objectively a social science).
We have not yet developed the warranty that the hard sciences have developed, or that psychologists have developed. And this is in no small part because in economics, the warranty that we must give is much broader, and places a much higher burden on authors, because the scope of our statements is much broader in influence than that of our peers in other fields.
[D]ue Diligence Necessary For the Warranty of Truthfulness:
1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?
2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?
3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.
4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility?
5) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting?
6) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)
If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.
Why is it that the informational commons, and by consequence the political and normative commons, are not – in an age of information – as subject to warranty and liability as pollution (“Abusus”) to physical commons, life, body, and private property?
Truthfulness – testimony that has been subject to due diligence – is a non trivial cost. And economists are too happy (as it appears all social scientists have been) to produce defective products for personal gains, without the warranty that all other products have been subject to.
Why is it that free speech is not limited to free truthful speech? After all, the cost of producing truthful scientific testimony under due diligence and warranty is much higher than the cost of producing untruthful pseudoscientific testimony without due diligence or warranty. Doesn’t mere free speech without warranty of due diligence of truthfulness construct an impossibility under which the production of high cost truth and the production of low cost fantasy, bias, error and deceit must eventually win?
There is a great difference between the terms “empirical” (observable and measurable) and “scientific” of which empirical criticism is but a minor subset of the criterion necessary for the production of warranty of due diligence against fantasy,bias, error, and deceit.
We have had a century of economists running with intellectual scissors, causing inter-temporal externalities of profound consequence. And the Cosmopolitan (freshwater) rationalist’s justification of priors is only more visible than the mainstream Anglo empirical (Saltwater), justification of priors under the pseudoscience of Rawlsian justificationism – itself a fascinating example of the logically impossible, yet pervasively persuasive.
So just as all enlightenment adaptations were plagued with errors – anglo, french, german and jewish – both freshwater and saltwater economics are plagued with pseudoscience. The freshwater try to justify objective morality, by argumentative construction (pseudoscience), and the saltwater try to justify immorality by intentionally failing to account for profound normative, institutional, civilizational, and genetic consequences (pseudoscience).
So it’s one thing for all of us to point the finger of the accusation of pseudoscience one place or another. But it is quite another to realize that the minute you draw the lens of truth upon either freshwater or saltwater economics, you will discover that both are pseudosciences that merely confirm ideological priors.
This is probably the most important remaining problem in the philosophy of science.
I set out to debunk the pseudoscience of libertarianism (cosmopolitan libertarianism, not anglo libertarianism) and to refute the postmoderns as masters of pseudoscience. And I did. But I did not set out to reform economics. And in truth, I have less interest in reforming economics and social science than I do in reforming law and politics – the sciences will merely follow incentives.
But Paul Romer lit the kindling, and perhaps this is the time to solve the remaining problem of science. If we do it will be the most important reformation of thought since the enlightenment. Because our errors – our priors – are all errors of the enlightenment. And that is because the enlightenment was incomplete.
We can complete it.
But only if the utility of truth is more valuable than the utility of pseudoscience. And I am suspicious of that assumption.
The Propertarian Institute
ps – And I question whether truth is of more utility to the state than is pseudoscience. The truth is of more utility to the law than pseudoscience. But as far as I can tell, pseudoscientific justification of deceit is part and parcel of the political process. And we are rewarded for our deceits.
Part 4 — methodology, seems like it might be of particularly interesting. He criticizes the primacy of theory and rejection of empiricism
Love that you’ve tuned into Jonathan Haidt! According to my friend Curt, here is the list of people reforming 20th century mysticism (as Hayek called it).
The Emerging Consensus :
– Paul Romer (mathematics or ‘Mathiness’ )
– Nassim Taleb (anti-fragility) or, information requirements.
– Ricardo Duchesne (uniqueness of western man)
– Kevin Macdonald (group evolutionary strategies)
– Curt Doolittle (Truth, Trust, Law, and Institutions)
— Jonathan Haidt’s (morality)
— Pinker (who started it all – psychology)
— Daniel Kahneman (mind)
– Stephen Hicks (Postmodernism) (Reluctantly Associated I’m sure)
– Nial Ferguson (Economics) (Possibly Reluctantly Associated)
– Martin van Creveld (The Culture of Warfare)
– Emmanuel Todd (The Evolution of Western Morality and Identity)
— Meng Hu (statistics ‘anecdote is not data’)
– Steven Hsu (statistics, intelligence and genetics)
– Jayman (genetics and history)
– HBD Chick (the institutions of marriage and family)
I think property rights and rule of law are virutes.
Intervention on behalf of property rights are rule of law are good things.
Non-intervention alone is not a good thing. It has become so in the parlance of many libertarians because the US gov’t intervention often goes hand in hand with violations of property rights / rule of law. But non-intervention should never be considered a virtue in itself. That is suicide.
Many libertarians have what I consider to be a very feminine / gossiping / shaming / beta male conception of property. They think it is “natural”, and everyone who violates property can be shamed into behaving more “naturally”.
This is childish and naive.
The grownup version of libertarianism is this: you get property when you can punish everyone who would violate property.
Libertarians who ignore the cost of doing this are attempting to free ride — to purchase their liberty as a discount.
Mutual insurance seems like the best chance at establishing liberty.
I pledge to intervene on your behalf (in support of property and rule of law), if you pledge to intervene on mine.
Go to http://blog.dilbert.com/ for more Dilbert cartoons!
Apollonian / Magian / Faustian These are Spengler’s terms for Classical, Arabian and Western civilisations respectively.
Apollonian Civilisation is focused around Ancient Greece and Rome. Spengler saw its world view as being characterised by appreciation for the beauty of the human body, and a preference for the local and the present moment.
Magian Civilisation includes the Jews from about 400BC, early Christians and various Arabian religions up to and including Islam. Its world feeling revolved around the concept of world as cavern, epitomised by the domed Mosque, and a preoccupation with essence. Spengler saw the development of this civilisation as being distorted by a too influential presence of older cultures, the initial vigorous expansionary impulses of Islam being in part a reaction against this.
Faustian Civilisation began in Western Europe around the 10th century and according to Spengler such has been its expansionary power that by the 20th century it was covering the entire earth, with only a few Regions where Islam provides an alternative world view. The world feeling of Faustian civilisation is inspired by the concept of infinitely wide and profound space, the yearning towards distance and infinity.
Truth is a martial virtue.
A warrior depends on his fellows. Honesty breeds trust. Trust breeds loyalty. Loyalty breeds cohesion. And cohesion breeds power and victory. Dishonesty (towards friends) is punished by defeat.
The truth is enough, for a warrior. Just the facts, and – so far as possible – just the necessary ones. Let people form the conclusions for themselves.
The Spartans were notoriously curt, and contemptuous of those who bandied about meaningless words, as a direct result of being perhaps the most martial culture in history.
The west has always been a culture of warriors.
When warriors trade, they can trade honestly, because they’re bred for honesty, and they can demand it in return. If you will not deal honestly with them, they have alternatives. They can simply kill you and take your stuff.
But, on the other hand, when people are weak, they seek advantage in subtlety, and verbalisms, and moralisms.
The martial virtue of the west made us the best traders, and the wealth from trade made us the best warriors. It was a virtuous cycle.
But then we largely gave up violence, and you may observe the results for yourself.
The most consice criticism I’ve heard yet:
MORAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPRESS ROTHBARDIAN PSEUDOSCIENCE
If you don’t claim economics isn’t an empirical science, and that praxeology isn’t a loose statement of operationalism, that apriorisitc reasoning produces apolitically certain premises, that rights ‘exist’ without a consensual contract, that the NAP is sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity, or that rothbardian ethics are either objectively ethical, or capable of producing an anarchic polity, then that’s good enough for me.
Just doing my job trying to rescue liberty from the lunatic fringe.
Some things are too serious to leave to crypto-marxists.
Unfortunately you ‘aren’t’ anything other than a bag of mostly water, and rights only exist when they have been created by an act of promise or contract.
As such you may DEMAND, or WANT to be treated as the owner of your body, and therefore are seeking CUSTOMERS for your offer, and those customers will offer you the same deal in exchange – albeit with differing degrees of warranty. But until that point you ‘have’ no ‘right’. You cannot. It cannot be made to exist without the action of exchange.
So if you are willing to fight hard enough that you raise the cost of your subjugation to the point at which those who prefer to subjugate you prefer to engage in the reciprocal exchange of rights to self, life, mind, and body, then you may per-chance, obtain that property right in exchange for your offer of that property right.
But until you raise the cost of your subjugation such that it is more profitable to give you a right to your self, life, mind and body, it is absolutely demonstrable – empirically, logically demonstrable – that you do NOT in fact, possess such a right.
Nonsense appeals to ‘rights’ like nonsense appeals to pseudoscience are the modern equivalent religious comforts and promises of life after death. They are just nonsense appeals to make you feel comfortable as a slave with some hope of savior by technology, democracy, Arthur, Jesus, or God.
Nonsense is for children who fear monsters under the bed, those who need comfort on their death beds, slaves who much suffer without relief, and the lazy and cowardly who fear to act. Use of nonsense words means one is a child, lost to life, lazy or coward.
The only right you possess is the one you obtain in exchange. And that which you receive in exchange, like that which you obtain by homesteading, is only yours because you act to defend it with your life.
Wishes are free. Words are cheap. Actions are dear.
Freedom is purchased by strong arms and pointed weapons.
Everything else is nonsense-words.
Leave the false prophecy of the Libertines behind. Come to Aristocracy. We know better: Violence and time are the only wealth you were born with. Spend them wisely.
The Propertarian Institute