An Insight into the Damage of Monotheism and Psychology to Western Thought

Just an insight into one of the many ways authoritarian cosmopolitan pseudoscience of psychology has damaged our world view: introversion is the result of deep thinking, and ‘neuroticism’ (worry) is the result of deep thinking. Both of which are criticized rather than rewarded. Everyone else is just ‘noise’ without the deep thinkers.

My work on Propertarianism taught me to see us as locally specialized ants, and that there is no such thing as an ideal individual other than one who does so honestly and knowingly.

Our observable personalities advocate for acquisition on behalf of our genes. Because of our different reproductive costs, very desirable males, very desirable females, and every gradation in between, is merely negotiating using his or her necessary strategy. What makes us ‘crazy’ is when we construct lies.

MONOTHEISM did this damage via ‘one-ness’. That’s how damaging it is. It’s freaking tragic. Polytheism did not do this to us.

This is a profound restatement of the nature of man.

We are expensive creatures. We must act to acquire ‘property’ – that which we inventory for our own use and consumption. Cooperation is so disproportionately rewarding a means of acquisition we must bias in favor of cooperation to acquire. But cooperation invites parasitism. So we must act to punish violations of cooperation. And cooperation is always an act of experiment: trial and error. So we must preserve non-cooperation in our genes in order to ensure that unlike lemmings, we break off when cooperation is no longer in our interests.

This is man. Everything else is accumulated lie. Most of it from babylonian and levantine deceit. Meanwhile in every epoch europeans seek to overturn this authoritarian deceit and return to our pagan egalitarian origins.
Propertarianism tells us how.

(a) we are all different and therefore need our own ‘gods’ for use in our own virtue ethics.

(b) Monotheism is more damaging because of ‘one-ness’ (and equality) whereas polytheism (correctly) preserves differences (and hierarchy).

(c) Perfect rulers are infallible and demand we obey(positivism), and imperfect rules are not always working in our interests and demand only we do not irritate them (falsificationism).
Freudian Psychology further expanded one-ness and servitude by demanding conformity to a personality type that could be forcibly indoctrinated through peer pressure, guilt and shaming (and it worked), whereas polytheistic reasoning, and darwinian reasoning, and scientific analysis tell us that we each fulfill niche’s that need exploiting.
Monotheism, 20th century Democracy, and Freudian psychology, all perpetuate a catastrophic fallacy of man. But why was this fallacy developed? Well, in Judaism it was developed for the same reason monotheism was developed between the Iranians and the Indians, who were originally the same people: to put them into conflict so that the Iranians could be controlled (by lying). Just as the jews needed a reason to unite different primitive tribes (by lying). Whereas in the west we did not encounter this problem since rule was achieved by arms, not deceit. It was only once Rome was too weak to enforce rule by arms that Justinian closed the schools and imposed christianity on the west. The value of christianity is in that it was ‘germanicized’ and that the central proposition: extension of kin love to non-kin was useful in uniting Europe under christian kings sanctioned by the church.
This criticism of ‘monopoly’ and ‘monotheism’ and ‘one-ness’ and ‘equality’ is an application of the propertarian principle of the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy, between the consumptive (feminine) productive (libertarian), and accumulative (conservative) biases, wherein the only means by which we can make use of all available perception, cognition, and knowledge in the spectrum, is to conduct voluntary exchanges between the classes in that division of perception, cognition, and knowledge, just as the only means by which we can make use of the knowledge in the market is by voluntary exchange, money, prices, and contract.

This a profound reformulation of the enlightenment vision of man, and the necessary form of government that assists him in production, reproduction, and genetic persistence.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Testimonialism, Propertarianism, New Classical liberalism.
The Propertarian Institute , Kiev, Ukraine.


The Value of Studying Philosohpy

(from elsewhere)(via stephen hicks)

Only two regrets I have in life. First was not choosing a degree in philosophy despite my fascination with it – although my study of art and art history has framed my personality and life.

I can attest personally that the study of certain philosophy dramatically improves your ability in the work force.

It’s a lot like living life as Methuselah. You have all this accumulated wisdom of all these smart folks, and you don’t have to so much learn the hard way as you go along, as work to gather useful information with which to apply that accumulated wisdom. It’s so much easier.

1) Intro-Micro/Macro Economics, History, Philosophy, Grammar, Rhetoric, Art (aesthetics).

Combine that series with ANY one of the technical disciplines (learn how to extend your perception with logical instrumentation):

2) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Accounting, Finance, Programming, Mathematics, Law, Econometrics.

We should teach western fairy tales, myths and legends, literature and history throughout our youth.

If you enter the world literate, with exposure to moral philosophy, grammar and rhetoric, classes on math through geometry, newtonian physics, basic checkbook accounting, money, banking, credit and interest, basics of consumer purchase/sale and contract, and most importantly, classes on cooperation(ethics), friendship, and marriage – then you are armed for daily life.

We focus too heavily on trying to make everyone a member of the upper middle class via mastery of abstractions. But those of us with those abilities will succeed no matter what. and instead, we create chaos in our civilization by both destroying the family as the source of wisdom and education on life matters, sending unsophisticated people entirely unready into a world managed by law, economics, finance credit and interest.

We screw over our lower and middle classes with the folly of good intentions and false promises.


The Return of Wisdom?

The terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion.

First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”.

An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms?

We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise.

Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics).

Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues.

Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe.

One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists.

So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience.

Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences.

Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

Source: Curt Doolittle


I Am Trying To Repair The Enlightenment

1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
vs European Universalist 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.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


Revolution: The Plan

Western Man is moral man, and moral men need:

1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.)

2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.)

3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.)

4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors).

5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (I need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set.

And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service.

One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink.

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


The Purpose of Privatization?

(important evolutionary hierarchy)

1) To prohibit consumption (create a commons – the ongoing production of a good or service).
2) To increase cooperation by reducing opportunity for conflict.
3) To eliminate rents and fictions on use of such resources in production.
4) To create efficient organizational use of these resources through competition.
5) To permit rational planning (economic calculation) and therefore complex production.
6) To provide individuals with incentives to produce in order to survive without parasitism, and thereby reducing the incentive to cooperate.

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


Privatization is Not an Intrinsic Good

Well, the Nobility in western Europe privatized everything and in doing so virtually enslaved Western Europeans. They were civilized by the church, each other and competition for commerce, and eventually displaced, or as in the case of France – murdered wholesale. The rest of Europe surrendered rather than face the same fate.

The “Nobles” in eastern Europe privatized everything and in doing so enslaved the eastern europeans. They and their ‘administrators’ were either executed or run out of Europe.

The Russian Boyars and Oligarchs privatized everything, and enslaved Russians. They were either massacred (frequently) or imprisoned for it. Now they have been exterminated.

Although Putin’s privatization of the commons seems to be holding up relatively well – but it will likely end in similar fashion.

How many Arab tribes have privatized everything, yet have been recently tortured and dismembered?

Privatization is not an intrinsic good. Privatization is only valuable if it both decreases costs and improves services through competition. Privatization is not so much a good, as much as a monopoly bureaucracy is a bad. That does not mean that common assets managed by competing contractors, in the care of a monarchy is not better than both. (it is).

Privatization is a distraction from the only source of liberty: rule of law, universal standing, under the common law, under the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against the demonstrated property of any other. This scope of law eliminates all possibility of extra-legal retaliation, and eliminates all demand for the state for the discretionary choice of fault, and all demand for the state as a prohibitor of retaliation for those impositions that humans universally retaliate against.

Commons are the most effective means of competing against other groups. The west progressed faster in both the ancient and modern periods when they produced the most competitive commons. Property rights and rule of law, the jury process, truth telling and honesty are all normative commons that are exceptionally expensive to construct. Commons prevent rent seeking by private agents. That’s what define’s a private (corporate) or public (civic) commons: something you can’t force costs upon, yet from which all of us gain “fructus” (fruits. Benefits)

Conversely, privatization is just another excuse to recreate the oligarchical parasitism of Russia and eastern Europe.

We have had enough deceit for one century. The Cosmopolitans were a failure in all their forms: Socialists, Rothbardians, Freshwater economists, and Neocons. The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which was practiced between european aristocracy: rule of law, universal standing, and property-en-toto. While the effort to create an aristocracy of everyone failed, that does not mean that we cannot create an aristocratic rule of law that everyone must adhere to.

And why not? The only reason to practice the ethics of libertines (Block and Rothbard) are to license parasitism, and prohibit retaliation. There is no noble ambition here. It is to restore the parasitism of eastern Europe. So, leave the Russians and The Eastern Europeans to their own history. It continues to be a tragedy they struggle to exit from.

Liberty is the product of the aristocratic militia: the organized application of violence to institute rule of law such that all parasitism is prohibited, thereby forcing all humans into the market for the productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange of goods and services free of external imposition of costs.

Rule of law: Universal constraint, universal standing, strict construction, total prohibition on parasitism, expressed as rights to property en toto, and ‘every man a sheriff’ to enforce it.

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


Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?


Well, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples.

I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural.

****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities****

I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it.
– Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures)
– Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood )
– Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production)
– Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production)
– Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail)
– Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty )
– Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence)

Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world.

I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any.

Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends.

So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants.

So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition.

If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation.

I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities.

—“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”–

Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist.

—“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”—

Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.)

If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory.

We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure.

So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other.

Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible.

—“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”—

That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end.

(b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?”

Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it.

If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked.

Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you.

It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions.

The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it?

Science is prohibitionary, not ideal.


—“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”—
—“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”—
—“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”—

Science is prohibitionary, not ideal.

—“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”—

In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation.


—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”—

Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose.

–“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”—

Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases.

I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist.

—“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”—

I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression.

I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life.

I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward.

Curt Doolittle


Mind: Against The Puppeteer


  • System G (genes),
  • System 0 (property),
  • System 1 (intuition/search),
  • System 2 (reason)

The ‘puppeteer’ (returns search results constantly)
The mind handles exceptions (or disparate choices)
Negotiation (morality) is an exception handler.

I disagree with Chomsky, and I am fairly sure that Jeff Hawkins, and Kahnemann and his references, are correct: we just constantly search and re-search memory, and we pre-load any sequence of actions that have high value and then we become aware of the predicted outcome, and we choose to accept the proposition of our search, or we reject it, or we weigh it (research it, and reason with it).

I don’t like the ‘puppeteer’ metaphor as much as I like the “systems” metaphors.

We act on behalf of our genes. The conscious mind (system 2: reasoning search) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, which is biased by our reproductive strategy, which is biased by our genes.


Economic Velocity and Trust

(important concept)


American Utopianism (absurdly high trust)
British Moralism (very kinship trust)
German Realism (high trust)
Catholic Familialism (medium trust)
Eastern European Skepticism (low trust)
Russian Nihilism (no trust)
Chinese Deceive and Delay (negative trust)