Aristocratic Egalitarianism: The Unique Culture Of The North Sea Peoples

[I] hope to convince you that the argument that follows is very close to the final word on the American experiment, if not the Anglo experiment, and that nullification first, secession second, and civil war third, are the only alternatives to extinction of the unique high trust society of the Northern Europeans.

a) Our values are politically, economically, morally and even genetically, irreconcilable.
b) If we do not vehemently fight the opposition both in words, ideas, politics and economics, they will win, and the only high trust society on earth will be rendered extinct.
c) Compromise on manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, family structure, and political structure, can only, as it has in the past, lead to surrender and consequential defeat.


[D]emocracy is a means for resolving conflicts in priority among members of an extended family with similar ethics, morals, family structures, and goals. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts over different ends, driven by different ethics, morals, family structures and goals – ONLY THE MARKET CAN. That is the virtue of the market and why protestants and jews rely so heavily on the market: it tolerates diversity of ends, while allowing cooperation on means. One of the virtues of small democratic states in the pre-unification Germanic model (Lotharingian region) is that states must compete for citizens. This small-state network means that, just like foreign quarters in medieval cities, local direct democracy is possible, and people can move elsewhere. And in turn this flexibility forces competition between states. The swiss model, which accommodates people with different languages and preferences, currently operates on this same principle and as yet we have devised no better. If people have no choice then they must use the government as a means of conquering the opposition rather than one of finding a means of voluntary exchange between groups with diverse interests.


[I]f the state acts as the insurer of last resort, redistributor of gains, and monopolistic canon of property rights and obligations, then the state cannot. via democracy. provide a means of reconciling conflicts in ends. it is not possible. Democracy cannot resolve conflicts it can only select priorities. Democracy between people with dissimilar morals and ends, is merely forcible conquest using the force of violence through the proxy of the state as a means of conquest of one group by another. The indirect use of violence is still the use of violence.

The market can only function across polities with heterogeneous strategies: manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production, BETWEEN STATES where states can employe trade policy (collective bargaining) and can neutralize the competitive differences between members of the opposing moral codes.


[A]s such, there is no alternative to defeat except nullification, secession, and the construction of states with different manners, ethics, morals, signals, myths, traditions, family structures, and structures of production.

The divide in the USA is between the Protestant (Northern European, North Sea, Germanic-Scandinavian), high trust ethic, and the rest of the world’s lower trust ethic. The difference in these ethics is the use of the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) and the total prohibition that the ANF places on free-riding and all other discounts. The ANF suppresses, intentionally, and systemically, the reproduction of the lower classes. It is a form of market based eugenics, driven entirely by merit. However, the lower classes and the merchant classes and the political classes, have incentives to instead, increase the rates of reproduction of the lower classes. As such, the difference between these models and the requirement for both (a) marriage, and (b) total financial independence prior to reproduction, is irreconcilable with the rest of the world’s use of the family and the state to seek free riding, rents and a multitude of corruptions to further their family interest.

As such the diversely populated state, with non-ANF families, and particularly poor single mothers, is antithetical to the North Sea (protestant) ethic, and is necessary for the rest of the world’s ethic. In fact, the very purpose of the ANF is to suppress if not outlaw the reproduction of these dependent classes. Currently these dependent classes are suppressing the reproduction of the middle and upper middle classes, and ensuring old age poverty for even the hardest working.

This moral, ethical, familial, social, political and economic difference is not an arbitrary difference, and the multitude of consequences that arise from this difference in strategies explains the difference in the great waves of indo-european commercial, rational, scientific, productive and military successes (and consequential failures) since the development of pastoralism – despite being a poorer, less populous people, on the edge of the bronze and iron ages.

The fantasy of the enlightenment was ‘the aristocracy of everyone’. It was the excuse that the middle classes used to seize power from the landed nobility, now that trade had surpassed agrarianism as the primary means of production and economic wealth. However, this scheme relied upon the perpetuation of the ANF and related social model. Without the perpetuation of the ANF and absolute private property rights, the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ was impossible to maintain under representative democracy. Had the British and Americans not surrendered the house of commons and the house of representatives, or the house of lords and the Senate, and instead had created a house of the ‘unpropertied’ it might have been possible to use the government as a means of establishing trade policy between the classes, and the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ could have survived. But universal democracy and the destruction of the differences between the houses, and the consequential the merger of class interests into a democratic body, thus eliminated the ability to conduct contractual exchanges between classes on the one hand, and gave the unpropertied majority – especially feminists and socialists – the ability to dismantle both the ANF and the private property rights that both sustained and enforced the ANF, and neutralized the difference in reproductive interests of the genders.

The redistributive state, under the French totalitarian model, and with the support of Kantian philosophy, followed by increasing numbers of waves including marxists, postmodernists, and totalitarian humanists, has systematically attacked the ANF’s eugenic suppression of all economic rents and discounts. And the reason for the success, argumentatively, against the ANF system, is that such a system was never written down, but existed only as handed-down, intergenerational tradition, and metaphysical value judgments embedded in moral habits.


[I]n economic terms, a discount, is any reduction that you can obtain from the full cost of something under perfect circumstances. This may seem like a confusing terminology, but in economics, the terminology developed for discussing commodities and commodity prices. Commodities are defined where only price determines the difference between one unit and another. Objects that are not commodities, say are used cars. Unless you have a complete video record of the history of the vehicle, it’s not possible to really know what you’re buying and the seller is in a similar position. Horses are even worse since they cannot easily be ‘repaired’. Stolen goods are something yet again. You can buy something very cheaply but that discount comes at a price. Lying is another way to get a discount in an exchange. So a discount is anything you can do or apply to modify a price where you are fully informed and there is no marginal difference between units because you are fully informed.

The ANF North Sea social model, is a moral strategy, for the TOTAL SUPPRESSION of ALL DISCOUNTS thereby forcing all individuals into the market and suppressing the reproduction of those that cannot compete in it.

(Note: since writing this piece, I have changed from the use of economic language of referring to “discounts”, to term that is common between economic, anthropological and moral fields: “free riding”. While neither “discounts” or “free-riding” is likely familiar to the general reader, they are effectively synonyms for the same behavior – trying to get something without producing yourself something in exchange.)

Those discounts, in economic terms are:
1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
3. Fraud (false information)
4. Omission (Omitting information)
5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. War (organized violence)
The North Sea (Protestant) model suppresses ALL of these, including the ability to seek support from one’s family. It is a unique moral code.

The moral code consists in:
1. Requirement that all property be categorized as Private Property
2. Requirement for Voluntary Exchange
3. Requirement for Speaking the Truth
4. Requirement for Symmetry of knowledge (the whole truth)
5. Requirement for Warranty as proof of symmetry
6. Requirement for proof of work (you must add value to a thing to profit from it.)
7. Prohibition on familial, tribal, and political free riding and rents.
8. Right of exclusion (boycott, and ostracization)


[U]ntil 1960, even with the addition Roosevelt’s socialistic policies, membership in the USA’s ethical and moral system requires adoption of the ANF. It was possible to force this model on immigrants because (a) dislocation from existing family, tribe and culture and (b) the gift of land, and (c) the use of first private, then state credit to allow them to enter into the consumer class. However, with the end of farming, and the rise of ’employment’ most people have now left the ownership culture, except for their homes. Further, the feminist movement has succeeded in advocating support for single mothers, for fostering easy divorces, and for subjecting males to permanent rents without sex, affection, or the ability to accumulate savings for their sustenance in late life.

We are now in a situation where nearly half of americans will soon be born to unmarried parents, and doomed to perpetual poverty due to the failure of the ability for couples to form households in order to reduce costs.

That is the story of america. As such, the war on the ANF and the Protestant, North Sea, model is nearly complete, both here and in Europe.

As such, the ANF ethical system is antithetical to the rest of humanity. And, because of its competitive success against lower trust groups, the world rebels against it. And immigrants, single women, and single mothers, all of whom possess incentives to REVERSE this eugenic system of ethics, fight it at every opportunity. Our system of government, and the aspiration of the enlightenment to create ‘an aristocracy of everyone’ failed rapidly, within one generation, after we added women to the voting pool. Whereby they sought to, in increasing numbers, break the compromise that the nuclear family provided between conflicting female and male reproductive strategies. In increasing numbers, women have voted, and minorities with them, to seek rents against the high trust society and to dismantle the ANF, the compromise between the genders, and the ethical and moral and political system that suppressed the reproductive abilities of the underclasses. As it stands, single women largely determine the outcome of national elections and the female head of household has largely undermined the truce between the genders that is present in marriage, and has systematically undermined the ability of pair-bonded men and women from accumulating and concentrating property behind success, and instead, redistributed from the successful to masses of free riders and rent seekers.

French totalitarian humanists (catholics), Marxists, Socialists, Feminists, Postmodernists, Academicists (the church having been replaced by the secular academia’s promotion of the state) and now totalitarian democratic socialist humanists in politics that have been trained by those academics, all have sought to undermine the ANF High trust model. But they have done so without comprehension of the consequences of doing so. It is not possible both to possess a high trust society, and to dismantle the ANF ethical system, nor the marriage tradition that it depends upon. It isnt possible. It is not empirically demonstrable, nor is it rationally arguable. At least, not unless human incentives are infinitely fungible, and there are no laws in economics. Genetics, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and economics have proved the prior – to the great disappointment of progressives. And the failure of socialism and communism, and the requirement for money, prices and incentives, that are created by the capitalist mode of production, along with the current failure of Keynesian economics for political, moral and behavioral reasons, have disproved the latter. We are not infinitely morally fungible, we require incentives to cooperate rather than free-ride, and there are laws to economics seated in the properties of human beings, that are unbridgeable. Namely, we all possess a passionate instinct to suppress disproportionality: unfairness. And that we are happily redistributive within an extended family possessing shared values and signals, but increasingly hostile to those who compete with those values and signals. Diversity is the antithesis of intra-state cooperation, and the utilitarian justification of inter-state cooperation.


[T]hese reproductive difference are impossible to reconcile. As a politically unpleasant contrast, the same applies to Jewish culture and their Ethics of Critique. Jews, like Northern Europeans also hold a competitive advantage; precisely because they suppress all possible ‘discounts’ amongst themselves, but do not suppress the same portfolio of discounts outside of their group. In fact, they seek at every opportunity to obtain discounts outside of their group, while the host population tries equally to suppress them.

ANF North Sea Protestant strategy, on the other hand, is to try to include others in their system by enfranchising them into the culture of prohibited discounts. However, this works to suppress the lower classes, rather than simply prey upon them. But both the ANF Protestant ethical model, and the Jewish ethical model, are disadvantageous of the lower classes. The ANF through suppression of reproduction, and Jewish through exploitation of asymmetry of knowledge, and avoidance of paying into the commons. Of these two models the ANF Protestant can hold territory, but the Jewish cannot, since ANF relies upon numbers and armies, and the jewish relies upon operating as a minority population inside of a land-holding majority, in order to maintain their advantage. Both of these models conflict with the catholic model of systematic free riding, rent seeking and corruption of the lower trust society – precisely what we see in the catholic versus protestant countries. Or as we see in the difference between Catholic, Jewish and Protestant supreme court justice positions.

For these reasons both the Protestant ethical model and the Jewish ethical model, are not preferable by the lower classes. And as late as the 1920’s, prior to the arrival of eastern european jews, the ‘ethical difference between a New England Presbyterian and an American Jew, was indistinguishable.” This was not meant as a compliment to either by the catholics.


[A]re we, in the primitive model, like our hunter-gatherer ancestors, limiting our behavior by the limits that nature places upon us, in the dysgenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation. Or are we improving ourselves, and preserving the planet, via the eugenic model of production, reproduction, and cooperation, like our agrarian and pastoral ancestors. Or are we living on some faith that technology will solve this problem for us, via some miracle of transhumanism? Or do we select the strategy that best suits our reproductive interests: the lower classes the first, the middle classes the second, and the intellectuals and elites the third? Because that is precisely the strategy each class uses.


[T]he only possible solution if we are to take advantage of the technical and economic utility of the modern credit and insurance provided by the corporeal state, is to secede into different states each of whom supports the reproductive and economic interests of the different cultures and their moral codes.

If we do not, we will either be totally conquered as the romans and greeks were, and we no longer have northern barbarians to restore our culture as the medieval’s did.

Universalism, homogeneity, monopoly, are evolutionarily and technologically fragile strategies. Diverse polities cooperating by the market, using the state as collective bargainer, insurer and creditor, is the only solution. Otherwise, as the Chinese, the Byzantines, The Iranians and the Muslims have discovered, the bureaucracy eventually is constrained only by the maximum amount of extraction that it can place upon the population, in an effort to perpetuate itself, and hold other competitors at bay through the promise of war.


[A]ny study of world his certain that we are approaching some possible civil war., That will occur when the remaining people of the ANF cultures, and those that are allied with them, no longer believe that convincing others of their model will be possible.

I believe if they understand this argument, that they will understand that it is no longer possible.

This conflict between strategies for our civilization, is the deciding argument of our times. For the next twenty years, demographics will mandate that this conflict continue. We can lose, as did the Romans and the Greeks. We can secede. Or we can fight and reconquer. But we cannot compromise, since these social strategies are incommensurable without the intervention of a state the neutralize differences via trade policy. Just as “Core States” in different civilizations neutralize trade policy between civilizations.

The weakness in european civilization is actually tolerance and inclusion. Tolerance without limit is not tolerance but submission. Inclusion without limit is not inclusive it is conquest, in exchange for not paying the high cost of protecting higher generations.

And the ANF is counter intuitive and uncomfortable for the rest of humanity. And like the Jews, we are being exterminated, systematically, for our reproductive and social strategy. Despite all the amazing contributions that European civilization has given to the world, NO MAN IS A HERO TO HIS DEBTORS.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute