—“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
[T]his is a great conversation to have. I welcome the criticism. I understand your interpretation. You’re wrong. but I understand it. smile emoticon
1) SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT
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.
2) RACIAL / GROUP ARGUMENTATIVE STRATEGIES
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.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute