Choice: Truth vs Lies


Truth and Trade (propertarianism)


Lies and Takings (progressivism)

Source: (2) Curt Doolittle


Propertarianism is for the Prosecution


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.


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

Eli Apologizes for American Yankees

I want to formally apologize to the world for the part America has played in pushing women’s rights, gay rights, civil rights, egalitarianism, democracy, and all the other hallmarks of progressivism. We didn’t kill enough Yankees. That’s a mistake I hope we can someday rectify. But in the meantime, I’m deeply and sincerely sorry. We’ve done as much harm to the world with this crap as the French, the Russians, the English, or the Jews.  — Eli Harmon


The Problem Isn’t Democracy Per Se, But the Combination of Democracy and Women

COOPERATION MATTERS. Not just cooperation between members of the PRODUCTIVE economy, but between members of the REPRODUCTIVE economy: men and women. We have to cooperate. Not parasite. OTHER WISE COOPERATION IS NOT PREFERABLE TO PREDATION. And under predation, men will win.

—“Democracy has brought us both the death of Socrates and the election of Hitler. It doesn’t get much better than that!”—

Women. Not “us”. Women. Not democracy per se. But women in democracy. The decline of the west was caused by the enfranchsement of women into the democratic process. Prior to their enfranchisement it certainly appears that the one family (man) one vote system functioned when there were houses for each class.

Since then, within one generation, women moved through democracy to devolve the west. And since then they have been “useful idiots” for communists, socialists, postmodernists, and feminists.

In the medieval era through the classical liberal era, we were evolving a market for the production of commons by the negotiated construction of trades between the classes, and our fascination with reason and equality led us to the fantasy of reasoned optimum decision making (monopoly rule), rather than merely constructing trades between classes.

I think this is the right analysis.

For high trust westerners, a market for commons is an extremely valuable competitive advantage.

But introduction of women into the polity allowed them to express their reproductive strategy – which the entire history of property rights evolved to suppress: parasitism.

I love women. But they are as cognitively blind to politics as men are cognitively blind to interpersonal relations.



Women are widely distributed to the conservative and progressive ends just as men are. Women skew left just as men skew right. So when I say ‘women’ I mean the obvious: that the distsribution of women under democracy causesleft-skewed results.

It is natural for a solipsistic female (or male) to interject with ‘not everyone…” but this statement in itself is evidence of the solipsistic (empathic) bias – because even the question itself would not occur to an alpha male, only to a feminized male. Of course not every womAn is identical, but as a block womEn vote their biases. It’s interesting that men casually and without question label one another alpha’s, betas, gammas and deltas, and rank women on an attractiveness scale of 1-10. Our differences are obvious, and our differences meaningful. It’s equally interesting that women don’t hierarchically categorize people as commonly as we do. Men are very often deniers of IQ and women deniers of the 1-10 scale. We can go through dozens of such differences all of which are manifestations of female generalizatino and male specialization.

While the original feminist movement was constructed by puritans, (Quakers) the consequential problem was caused by disproportionately by catholics with rhetoric provided by jews and then unmarried women and single mothers. Rothbard blames the Puritans and Conservatives blame the jews, and an empiricist like myself blames the combination of reproductive strategies of Jews(Undesirable people) and Feminists (undesirable women), and the signaling value to Neo-Puritans (un-productive people).

Women are more circumstantially driven than men are. Which is really interesting to me. It’s because they’re more solipsistic and less autistic. And they have to be. Women need to care for these obnoxious creatures we call children, and men need to suppress emotions to fight and hunt. But this bias has profound consequences.

There are good men and bad men.
Good women and bad women.
Good christians and bad christians.
Good jews and bad jews.

But in general, distributions are what they are. And stereotypes are largely true.

( I grew up in the town where Susan B Anthony, one of the first women’s suffrage leaders lived and was tried. )

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Genetic Bias Toward Philosophical Systems


—If I understand correctly, your novelty is arguing that ideas are the structure and genes are man’s accommodation of them.

You can say ideas (civilization) and genes inform each other. Perhaps the influence of ideas is underestimated. I don’t think it’s correct to say that one completely determines the other.

Different civilizations (ideas, norms, institutions), create different reproductive incentives which lead to genetic differentiation of groups and, after a very long time (many millennia) may cause species to diverge.

My hunch is that people’s genetics (moral intuition) will cause them to look at a philosophy and ask “how can I seek status within this system?”

Genetics may determine what strategy individuals adopt: Express it. Protect it. Enforce it. Pretend to express it while cheating. Openly Flout it. Ignore it. Undermine it.— Roman Skaskiw


Institutions not Genetics. Epigenetic or Otherwise.

Epigenetics is interesting but it doesn’t help me with institutions. As far as I can tell, we don’t need to ‘persuade’ anyone of anything. We just need to outlaw the entire spectrum of lying in addition to fraud theft violence and murder and to create universal standing in matters of the commons, and natural incentives will take care of the rest.

I differ from the right in the sense that while our personalities may in fact be 80/20 genetic, I am not sure that the resulting genetic composition isn’t 80/20 institutions. In fact, I’m pretty sure of it.

So we can use institutions to produce genetic outcomes.

That is better than warfare. 


Michael Philip on Malthus (Smart)

I view Malthus as a tempered social revisionist who knocked down myths, thought in terms of social science mechanisms (he had both supply and demand and Keynesian macro in surprisingly sophisticated forms, not to mention an early form of Darwin’s theory of evolution), and was painfully aware of the importance of contingent human choices. He is one of the five most underrated, and also least understood, economists. To be sure, he favored small government and opposed the Poor Laws. But he was skeptical enough about the notion of a voluntary self-regulating order that I would not quite call him a classical liberal. I read his economics as starting with the Bible, and asking whether any mechanisms might bring us to a less tragic outcome than what is found in the Old Testament. He was never quite sure of the answer, and his mix of moralizing and skepticism later attracted Keynes.


Taleb is On Board with Tribalism

Why GREECE, GREXIT, and “EUROPE” are an unnatural proto-Nazi “Aryan” construction — or why putting Teutons and Greeks together isn’t the smartest (and most stable) idea.

Nor is it natural.

The least *unnatural* union for Greece is some sort of *loose* Mediterranean League of City States (and another minor Balkan connection). But again, it would need to stay fuzzy –i.e., should you want to use history/culture, use them properly (“annales” style).

+ There are two natural cultural (eventually leading by mixing to ethnic) demarcations: butter vs olive oil (and eventually a third, the palm tree). The demarcation is robust: if people have the same food, they are the same (or eventually through mixing) become the same. Now if a nonblind but deaf Martian visited Turkey and Greece, he would think they are the same people (same with Lebanon and Western Syria). If words are different, body language in the Levant, Greece, Turkey and Southern Italy is similar. “Una faccia, una razza”. But a bureaucrat blinded by constructions would put the Greek in the same unit as the German, and bundle the Turk with the Huns in the Altai mountains near China.

+ But Mediterraneans are integrated as a socio-cultural unit. This is not just recent; the integration is 5000 years old in the East and 3000 in the West. The trend to “Europeanize” came with German scholarship which starting in 1820s (one Müller) tried to kill any Levantine/Babylonian connection to Greece, trying to give Germany some nobility in its historical roots, while French scholarship was until then considering Greece as deeply rooted in the Levant and Asia Minor, as a continuum from Babylon to the Phoenicians to classical Greece (mythology says that Europa herself was Phoenician). The rise of antisemitism played a part: the Teutonic cultural separation from the Levantine Canaanite race (the Jews and Phoenicians had near-identical language and ethnicity).

+ The Levant and what is now Greece spent at least 1000 years in the same political unit Rome-Byzantium and another few hunded in the Ottoman Empire; the Greeks and the Germans have now about 40 years together.

+ The nation-state started integrating the Mediterranean people. During the 19th Century only a few coastal cities such as Marseille and Toulon in Southern France spoke French, the rest spoke Provencal or Catalan.

+ The idea of a Mediterranean unit is not popular. Partly because it has been linked to Mussolini.

+ The Mycenians did not use a Semitic language (linear B). But the word Knossos (the capital) means “settlement” in Phoenician.

+ If a French person looks like a Mediterranean and speaks French, it is by colonization. The same applies to the “Aryanization” of Greece, to the “Turkification” of Asia Minor, and the “Arabization” of Syria or the “Aryanization” of India. Arian/Semitic/Hun is not a distinction beyond the language spoken.


Religions Come In Many Forms

To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both.

Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.

Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad.

To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics).

I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true).

Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology.

I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific.