If you eliminate the possibility of political action then the civic society and the market are the only means of achieving one’s ends. – Markets in everything.

Natural law: nonparasitic cooperation requires productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited externalities of the same criteria.

I think the descriptive model is that of king as first among equals, and nobles as franchisees. We didn’t really invent the partnership and corporation. We were practicing them for all of our history.

We have been capitalists for long enough that we have inverted the conceptual problem of interpreting the past: the only marginal difference in the value of the corporation was the quality and volume of the land held for mining, farming, grazing.

Why is it necessary for governments to legislate norms? Why do governments have the epistemic, moral, or practical justification (and this is where justification matters) for the legislation of norms? If we cooperate by natural law (non-imposition) then the civic society is the logical outcome – unless there is social devolution because of heterogeneity. Why should I appeal to the provision of commons (government) for that which is a natural law (court)?

but if such things are the deterministic consequence of natural law, why must the government legislate them? In other words, under a constitution of non-imposition, is not the civic society a deterministic outcome?

SO when colonizing an area we must put in place a constitution of natural law. Now lets return to the question: if we have judges of natural law in that new territory, is legislation necessary, or are judges of natural law sufficient?

Every man fights. No Man Quits. We must suppress parasitism and never again let down our guardianship of morality and liberty. ‪#‎NewRight‬

A man who does not fight for liberty and morality is a coward and a thief – and has not earned liberty or morality by his actions. ‪#‎NewRight‬

Ergo you have no virtue whatsoever if you fail to use violence to suppress parasitism in interpersonal(moral) and political form. ‪#‎NewRight‬

So the way to restore the west is the organized application of violence to suppress the natural parasitism of women and parasitic classes.

Political Liberty and Personal Morality require the organized use of personal violence to suppress parasitism political and interpersonal.

So it is not that I have some passion for violence, but a passion to prosecute those who fail to construct liberty while claiming virtues.

We lost our civilization by trying to signal to women and avoid the high cost of using violence to impose morality and liberty. ‪#‎NewRight‬

Women immediately sought about allying with the lower classes to destroy property rights and the high cost of preserving them.‪#‎NewRight‬

The purpose of political rights is to select the commons we produce with the scarce proceeds from production and reproduction.‪#‎NewRight‬

One need no political rights if one possesses property rights – unless one seeks to violate property rights. ‪#‎NewRight‬

Granting women political equality was impossible – they cannot pay the cost of violence necessary for the construction of morality.‪#‎NewRight‬

Those who eschew violence seek only to escape the high cost of creating a condition of personal morality and political liberty. ‪#‎NewRight‬

Why? Because violence = intrinsically neutral value. If put to moral ends a virtue and to immoral ends a crime. Might Can Make ‪#‎NewRight‬

—Nietzsche holds that moral values are not conducive to the flourishing of human excellence,— You mean, ‘moral norms’ not moral laws. As a german he is both a conflator and a prisoner of conflation of others. Non-operationalism bites him too. All moral laws are negative. I am having a hard time understanding what inspiration to greatness (aesthetics) and morals have to do with one another. (Nothing)

—“Every choice human being,” says Nietzsche, “strives instinctively for a citadel and a secrecy where he is saved from the crowd, the many, the great majority…”— I want to be insulated from the political folly of the crowd. On the other hand I love the moral classes regardless of wealth or sophistication, and despise the immoral classes regardless of wealth or sophistication.

Why? I am trying to end the false virtue signaling of the pacifists, and restore responsibility for the preservation of commons. ‪#‎NewRight‬

The Middle Class Thinkers could not solve social science. Why? It would have been an admission their enlightenment was a failure. ‪#‎NewRight‬

Sorry. I’m not a Racist. I know you’d like it if I was. But Truth is a universal. I do truth. Social Science. Solutions. For all mankind.

Fantasizing about desirable end points demonstrates one’s ignorance. Knowledge consists of knowing existentially possible operations, and how to arrange those operations to produce the desired outcome.

SOCIAL SCIENCE: Natural Law, Monarchy, Regional Nobility, Market Commons, Family, Nationalism.

When I use the term Monarchy, I use it in the narrow sense as a property holder of territory and formal institutions, where the monarch provides the ultimate veto power over contracts for commons, and the judiciary ultimate veto power over natural law.

(I just realized that for all of school and university I only liked the social circumstance – it was a calm safe social place – but I generally ignored the teachers and professors and just read the books, and couldn’t’ care less about the tests. There are only two professors I felt I learned anything from (rhetoric, and political science). The rest were just discussion leaders. I learned everything from books and almost nothing from people. )

I have understood the german secret. the secret anglos lost. the oath. that is all it is. nothing more. the oath alone produces the culture.

Almost all wealth today consists of promises (obligations) that are only remittable (payable) if the economic velocity continues unabated. Most paper wealth only exists then as momentum. End the momentum, and end the wealth. End the wealth, end the influence.

There is no equality among men; only better or worse in this way or that. There is no rest or respite for us. Rule is costly. But one must rule or be ruled.

The church only cares for itself. It has no truck with Europa. It never did. We were but excuse. Labor for the fields. Coin for the tithe. Fools for the book of lies. Rule or be ruled.

Having failed at the colonial program because of its civil war,the west is now colonized by the barbarians it would have civilized.‪#‎NewRight‬

The longer I work on the necessity of a judicial priesthood, the longer I study the Templars(bankers), the Inquisition(judges), the closer I come to the model I’m looking for. The problem is always paying for the initial stages. The first phase must produce sufficient confiscation that the men can be fed and armed. Yet wholesale predation on the islamic model (ISIS) is counter-productive.

Living in isolated cubes, watching fake friends, belonging to fake families, obtaining status from consumer goods. The mirror lies. SERF.

Man I do NOT wanna be roped into populism but it’s like a force of gravity.

FROM THE ART OF DUELING: “The practice is severely censured by all religious and thinking people; yet it has very justly been remarked, that ‘the great gentleness and complacency of modern manners, and those respectful attentions of one man to another, that at present render the social discourses of life far more agreeable and decent, than among the most civilized nations of antiquity; must be ascribed, in some degree to this absurd custom.’ It is certainly both awful and distressing to see a young person cut off suddenly in a duel, particularly if he be the father of a family; but the loss of a few lives is a mere trifle, when compared with the benefits resulting to Society at large.

I should consider it very unwise in the members of government, to adopt any measures that would enforce the prohibition of duelling…the man who falls in a duel, and the individual who is killed by the overturn of a stage-coach, are both unfortunate victims to a practice from which we derive great advantage. It would be absurd to prohibit stage-travelling-because, occasionally, a few lives are lost by an overturn.”

So they Reporter asks me “What do you have to say to our politicians about corruption?” And, I said something along the lines of “nothing. All politicians are corrupt.” Then “The reason they get away with corruption is the person in the mirror: you let them.” Then ” So, I have something to say to Ukrainian mothers: raise your sons to fight for liberty, or you shall never have liberty.”

The longbow were decisive in something like four major battles. After that the french learned that the cavalry must break the archer’s lines before they can set up a defensive position. It looks like the bend (pull) of a long bow varied from 80/100lbs to 160/180lbs. Skeletons of archers show the stress. The upper body strength of these men must have been freaking amazing. And men had to be raised to use them. They could not just equip men with the technology. Conversely, we can teach almost anyone competency with a rifle in a few sessions.

The duel was outlawed only because we allowed champions (substitutes). This led to the evolution of a series of hired murderers. It was this reason that the duel did not survive.

If you speak the truth, you can construct an argument, not complaint, sarcasam, ridicule. If not, then you do not speak the truth. ‪#‎NewRight‬

The Torah, The Bible and the Koran are the greatest acts of fraud in human history. Why do we tolerate fraud in the commons? ‪#‎NewRight‬

( The more radical I allow myself to become, the more satisfied I become as a westerner, as a man, as a human being. I suspect this will be a universal feeling for all western men – those who are still men that is. ) ‪#‎NewRight‬

I am pretty confident that Russians think they are doing good just like Americans. Both are idiots. Mind your own fucking business and severely punish the wicked.

You need to take it personally. There is a very great chance we are going to bring about a civil war this year. Own it. ‪#‎NewRight‬

I want to make Vlad the Impaler look like a candy striper.

British: desperately seeking congratulations. Americans: desperately seeking attention. Canadians desperately seeking mediocrity.

Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie while looking for a rock. Strategy is having a rock in hand.

Aspies have trouble learning to converse in large part because it is very hard to figure how to lie constantly like everyone else.

Luke Lynch: I wonder if Wittgenstein’s attempt to understand his own autism may have influenced his philosophical preoccupations.

If your concept of god is “him who created the rules of the universe”, then if Physical law, Natural Law, Common Law, Norms, Traditions, Myths and Rituals are identical, then man has followed the commands of god and become one with god’s deigns.
And only evil does otherwise. Any religion incompatible with physical and natural law is not divine: it is either error or the work of the devil.

Just as I’m a good Anglo boy, and Hoppe is a good German boy, Rothbard was a good Jewish boy who intuited that separatism (the ethics between nations) could be universalized as an ethic between individuals.
All groups make this mistake. Westerners (wrongly) intuit universal inclusion. Jews (wrongly) interpret universal separatism. These are not universals but group evolutionary strategies that facilitate group survival amidst competition.
I believe I know more about Anarchism than any man other than perhaps Hoppe. But that’s like saying I also know a great deal about lying and deception. I would not advocate lying and deception, and I would not advocate anarchism.
I’d advocate truth and nomocracy.
Truth is enough.

My (Amazing) ex-wife and I used to go on lots of walks and talk about all sorts of things. Men love to walk and talk. But the subject of the talking matters a great deal.

I can go to prison as a CEO for the actions of my subordinates, but a politician cannot?

There is no better way to be remembered in history as freeing your people by violence from invasion made possible by weak leaders.

Anglo, American, French, German, Jewish
We all tried to position our group evolutionary strategy, as a universal moral code, each of us using our internal method of social argument: empirical, legal, moral, rational, pseudoscientific.
Truth is enough.

FRANK: I can’t argue with that! The hard part, however, is knowing when you have some universal truth (and the solution lies in discovering when what you have is NOT true).

I use the term ‘Limits’ because I am fairly sure that it is erroneous to call what works false when it is the justification not the recipe that seems to incrementally expand.

FRANK: I think I understand what you mean to mean, and if I am right in my understanding, I agree! Still, sometimes what works satisfyingly for a time is subsequently found replaceable by something that works even better — for example, the discovery that Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativistic mechanics that holds exactly only in the limit of v approaching zero, but is “good enough” an approximation for most government work when v is < < c).

Moral language is a failure because they convinced useful idiots that morality was subjective. Financial and economic language defeats them.

Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Keynes, Rothbard, Strauss. The old right failed to crush pseudoscience. Truth crushes pseudoscience. TRUTH

Is it that Germans have no pseudoscience because they have rationalism and German philosophical literature instead? What can I learn from that? Is the ineffectiveness of Anglo literature because of science and law? Why?

Why are we the ‪#‎NewRight‬? Because we earned it. The West rose because we invented Testimony. We tell the truth. The Old Right didn’t.

If I write a thorough analysis people complain. If I write pithily people both complain and misunderstand. No happy medium exists. smile emoticon

If you want a solid argument you must supply a chain.
if you want to inform you create an image.
the chain is hard to understand, but once understood, correct.
the image is easy to understand a little, but misunderstand a lot.
It’s problem of costs

The moral high ground: If you cannot accept voluntary exchange with us in the production of commons we cannot tolerate your existence.

The problem with western civilization is easily found – in the mirror. Civilizations do what warriors allow them to do. And nothing more.

The strong plan and act. The weak gossip and complain.

Bitching about the present, criticizing the past, is not the same as providing a solution. Creating a plan. Acting on it. (Ignorance whines)


In The Long Run A Property Regime Matters

(By Adam Voight)

In the short term, you have an impasse between property regimes.

But in the long term, different property regimes compete for how well they cultivate the potential of what they already have. Those who make better use of their resources outcompete those who do not. This does not depend on declaring genocide, just the normal level of animosity that exists between any two neighboring peoples, which occasionally erupts into open conflict.

This is how a certain regime of property rights came to dominate Europe in the premodern era, and something like this is how this regime continued to spread.

Now perhaps you may prevail upon some country or two to allow inefficient use of resources, but ultimately this is a “conspiracy of doves” and is liable to fail in the long run. And it would make sense if some creature who has not gone extinct would be loath to adopt such a strategy. Conversely, any other creature who wants to avoid extinction should also avoid such a strategy, even those at a disadvantage.

Even in this best case you are professing a strategy which is unlikely to become an ESS. Which in my view is the same as being wrong, although many differ with me on this.

The traditional alternative to avoid extinction in this situation is to convert to whichever universalistic religion the dominant property regime adheres to.


Systems of Thought...

—“Curt Doolittle’s ‘propertarian’ ideology is the culmination of hyper rationalist Anglo-American libertarian attempts at reconciling White racial interests with a nominalistic and deracinated worldview. It’s only appealing to sperg dinks and it will fail”—Anonymous


This is a great conversation to have. I welcome the criticism. I understand your interpretation. You’re wrong. but I understand it. smile emoticon


Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science

A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion.

An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes.

A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies.

A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy.

A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence.

War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.


American Empirical-Legal vs German Rational Pseudo-Religious vs French Moral Reasonable vs Jewish Pseudoscientific.
Over the past two centuries it has been the use of Jewish Pseudoscience (Boaz-anthropology, Marx-socilism, Freud-psychology, Cantor-math, Mises-economics, Frankfurt-politics, Rothbard-ethics, Rand-philosophy, Strauss-Neocons) that has been the most demonstrated success in the reconquest of the west. Just as the first conquest of the west was accomplished by Jewish Mysticism (“The Great Lies”). And mysticism and pseudoscience were distributed in the ancient world by pulpit, and in this world by press and media. But they were distributed primarily to women and slaves (minorities), for the consumption of women and slaves (minorities).

Over the past three centuries, french, german, british and american traditionalists have attempted to retain germanicised christianity in some for or other, by pseudoscientific (economic) and pseudo moral means. And empirically speaking (and rationally explicable) all four cultures advocating conservative (aristocratic, meritocratic, paternalistic) have failed – bringing us to the current condition. Every single conservative movement has failed.

That is because science and pseudoscience, not morality and pragmatism, not myth and mysticism, are the languages under which complex decisions are rationally made, complex arguments rationally conducted, and complex institutions rationally constructed.
Beliefs are sold to women and slaves. Armies operate and govern not on beliefs but on actions, decidability, and cooperation:rules. Because rules that produce organization and prosperity consequently determine the resources available to an army -whether that army fights or governs.

So it is not that I will fail (because I think the evidence is building already) but that what you ‘believe’ and ‘sense’ has failed for centuries. And the very fact you retreat into it for self empowerment demonstrates it is a minority ideology without a method of organizing those that must be ruled. You are useful to people like me for the purpose of conducting battles, and you can win when we work together. But you have no solution to implement only passion and advocacy. You are good soldiers, but like good soldiers you must leave generalship to those who practice strategy and logistics. Because while man on man it may be passion and skill that determine an outcome, when it is many men against many men in war, it is strategy and logictics , that win the day.

We are not equal. You are good soldiers. But you are not generals. Or you would be offering competing solutions of the same depth and institutional veracity rather than ‘reaching’ to nonsense words for inspiration.
I may need you but you need me more. And I know it. You’ve “got nothing” except criticism that I’m not telling the story the way you want me to, and confirming your emotions. But one teaches the young to learn what he must, he does not cow to the childish impulse.

My position on race, which I have stated over and over again, is:
a) groups must be homogenous in order to engage in redistribution
b) groups who engage in redistribution can create commons, because a commons is a method of redistribution.
c) commons are competitive advantage and few groups can create them
d) western whites can create them because we demonstrate a demand for productivity, a demand for truth telling, an implied warranty, and we punish alternatives. Every man is in the militia, as such every man a sheriff. Every sheriff policing the commons. Every sheriff at least marginally equal in rights for having policed the commons. We have higher trust, higher economic velocity, greater differences, more competition, and therefore more creativity and invention.
e) invention is what allowed a minority population on the fringe of the bronze age to conquer nearly all of the know world both in pre-history, in ancient history, and in the modern world. We need technological superiority to succeed in small numbers against the hordes.
f) we have been using eugenics for all of our known history and it appears our pre-history. We invented aristocratic egalitarianism (enfranchisement through military service in reciprocal insurance of life and property.) We hung vast numbers of our underclasses. And we kill off more in war. For multiple reasons we have domesticated (culled) the evil 80’s from our populations and achieved high sexual dimorphism (gender differences). This has led to a superior gene pool for all intents and purposes.
g) however, any other group that practiced the same has the potential of eliminating the lower demographics and improving their family, tribe and race.

So my position is that we need many small homogenous nations.

Now it is true that I think some peoples would be worth exterminating in practice if not in fact (gypsies, arabs). But from what I can see a dumb christian is still a good man, and a dumb muslim is not. A black christian with an education and an IQ over 110, is a pretty damned good thing.

So my solution is to direct the families, races, and tribes to ‘take care of their own’ rather than ‘suckle off the west’, or to conquer the west through immigration of inferior genetics at scale.

I am not sure why you can argue with this position other than you want to feel that your emotional nonsense in which you take apparent great pride is somehow left unsatisfied.

I accept you as you are for the rank you must play. But I understand you think, feel, and are incentivized as a man of lower rank.

We are not equal. I must to my job. You must do yours. It is only when all of us do so that we are together the unstoppable army we have been for 5000 years.

I hope this has been clear. I prefer to avoid this kind of discourse and simply stick with science. But sometimes generals must discipline the men.

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


Compare American and Russian falsehoods.


1) The american revolution was an attempt to escape paying for the french and indian war that nearly bankrupted the crown.

VS the Russian myth of the nazis was an excuse to conquer more territory, and Russian occupation of eastern Europe set them back a century of development. The germans would have advanced eastern Europe, and probably the world.

2) the american civil war was not so much about slavery but the expansion of slavery into the western territories, and therefore the shift in political power from the north to the south.

VS The cult of soviet, the cult of lenin, the pride in recent history. As far as we know the tzars had created both unions and a parliamentary equivalent. And with time could have reached european standards of living. Instead the soviets murdered 100M people. The experiment was a fucking disaster, and Russia, China, and even India cannot recover from Russian legal codes. (omg don’g let me talk about Ukraine).

3) the americans spread the cancer of democracy – a luxury good for small homogenous nations that is the result of extreme domestication of the population.

This is because they argue falsely that democracy is the source of western prosperity,m rather than that rule of law and suppression of the reproduction of the lower classes through the use of the nuclear family, rule of law, and property rights.
Russians spread communism as an excuse to expand their conquests of asia around the world. Why russians need political power when they have the best resources in the world, is beyond me.

4) Regan attacked Grenada for the same reason Putin attacked ukraine and syria: to restore national pride, and to distract the population from the economy, and to collect political power.


Russians move south and conquer the ‘problem people’
Chinese move south and conquer the ‘problem people’
Europeans move south and conquer the ‘problem people’
Americans go home and mind their own fucking business.

We have a lot of the world remaining to domesticate.


Liberty Facilitates Love of Others

-I] love people. I love pretty much anyone who is nice to me. Humans are awesome. Even the bad ones plagued with good intentions are mostly just delusional. Sure there are bad people. But in general I love human beings.
Especially when they can’t do anything to me despite their ignorance and good intentions.
Liberty facilitates love.


Of Course It's Possible and Profitable

If Hadrian can build a wall to keep out the Scots there is no reason that Trump cannot build a wall to keep our the Mexicans.

If Obama can push through worldwide regulation of bank accounts for tax evasion, Trump can push through national regulation of wire transfers to Mexico, or even shut down the service entirely.

If we can remove islam from Spain – despite the terrible damage,and if we can implement nationalism in Europe once, we can remove islam from the west and restore nationalism again.

If we reverse hispanic immigration we end the future white minority problem. If we reverse muslim immigration we end the future civil war problem.

What is the price of the loss of white america? What is the price of a wall, regulation of wire transfers, and large scale deportation?

Don’t let them lie to you.

This is trivial work.


Noose, Pike and Pyre





The Public and Specialists

Because specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft.

Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior.

The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason.

While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists.

In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.


Confidence in Ignorance

(you see this kind of stupidity from the left and their followers, the muslims)

—If socialism is the next stage of human society, why bother fighting for it?—

Socialism is impossible. It cannot be the next stage of human society. So the question is not meaningful.

–But look at this quote: “…….”—- (moronic sophist drivel that conflates economic and political models, ie: verbalisms.)


Socialism: the involuntary organization of investment, production, distribution, and trade and the absence of rational incentives.

Capitalism: the voluntary organization of investment, production,m distribution and trade, and the presence of rational incentives.

Mixed Economy“: the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade, and a ‘fee’ collected by the government for use in the production of commons by legislative means.

Rule of Law: the market economy in which all actions must be voluntary, fully informed, productive, and free of negative externality

Democracy: (economic or unitary) the selection of legislation by majority rule.

Republic: the selection of representatives who determine legislative outputs by majority rule as proxy for citizens.

Totalitarianism: the choice of commands at the discretion of some elite.

So whomever is writing what you quote is a very ignorant person.

I have another question:

Why do you think you are either smart enough or knowledgeable enough to discuss these topics, and hold an opinion on these topics? This is the interesting question.


Philosophers Must Ply A Trade

( I‘m a technologist just like Da Vinci was a siege engine designer, Plato administrator of a school, Bacon a Lawyer, Descartes a Soldier, Montaigne a bureaucrat, and Spinoza a lens grinder. A man must have a trade if he is not to become a parasite. Most men practice both vocations and avocations. For some they are the same. For others they are different. For Philosophers, unlike scientists, it remains an open question whether we do more harm or good. If we ply a trade we at least tip the balance in favor of good. )