Chapter I. The laws of action.
Chapter II. The laws of interaction.
Chapter III. The state.
Chapter IV
History
Methodological individualism
Human groups do not act. Only individuals act. They have a free will. Thus laws of history do not exist in the strict sense that they would determine the course of history. This is because on the one hand the events of nature can be unpredictable and on the other hand individuals have free will.
Even biological evolution cannot be predicted with certainty because there can always come unseen events such as meteorites or other unpredictable natural phenomena. With human history the situation is even more unpredictable since humans can have new ideas and make new choices. They are not automatons but choosing individuals. Even the biological law of reproduction does not hold 100% for the humans because it is conceivable that humans could stop reproducing either because of some disease, voluntarily or by force through some green dictatorship. From methodological individualism it follows that strict laws of history do not exist.
Framework laws
Human free will makes it impossible to predict future with absolute certainty. However, under certain fairly realistic assumptions it is possible to predict both natural and social evolution with a high degree of probability. After all, the evolution of animal groups is quite easy to predict under certain assumptions. And since humans are also animals and divided into genetic groups it is also possible to predict the future of different human races with fairly high probability.
Predicting is made even more easy by the fact that human actions are not only constrained by scarcity and the laws of nature (physics, biology, medical science, psychology) but also by laws of logic (mathematics, protophysics), action (praxeology) and interaction (ethics, economics and politics). These logical, natural and social laws operate as frameworks of action. They can be called the framework laws of history, present and the future.
From the Christian Middle Ages through Spanish Scholasticism to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of Enlightenment, parallel to and intertwined with the development of “normative” natural rights theory, a systematic body of economic theory developed, culminating in the writings of Cantillon and Turgot. According to this intellectual tradition—carried on in the nineteenth century by Say, Senior, Cairnes, Menger, and Böhm-Bawerk, and in the twentieth century by Mises, Robbins, and Rothbard— economics was viewed as a “logic of action.” Starting with self-evident propositions and combining these with a few empirical and empirically testable assumptions, economics was conceived as an axiomatic-deductive science and economic theorems as propositions which were at the same time realistic and nonhypothetically or a priori true.
Consider, for instance, the following economic propositions: In every voluntary exchange, both partners must expect to profit, they must evaluate the things to be exchanged as having unequal value, and they must have opposite preference orders. Or: Whenever an exchange is not voluntary, but coerced, such as highway robbery or taxation, one exchange party benefits at the expense of the other. Or: Whenever minimum wage laws are enforced that require wage rates to be higher than existing market wages, involuntary unemployment will result. Or: Whenever the quantity of money is increased while the demand for money remains unchanged, the purchasing power of money will fall.
Or: Any supply of money is equally, “optimal,” such that no increase in the money supply can raise the overall standard of living (while it can have redistributive effects). Or: Collective ownership of all factors of production makes cost accounting impossible, and hence leads to permanent misallocations. Or: Taxation of income producers, other things remaining the same, raises their effective rate of time preference, and hence leads to a lower output of goods produced. Apparently, these theorems contain knowledge about reality, and yet they do not seem to be hypothetical (empirically falsifiable) propositions but rather true by definition. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Great Fiction, p. 462)
Robinson Crusoe can make many choices but they are all limited not only by his scarce physical surroundings and the laws of nature (physics, sociobiology, etc.) but also by laws of logic and action. The laws of logic constrain all his thinking and the laws of action (Robinson Crusoe economics) further constrain what course of actions he can take. All these create sort of a framework that limits his possible life paths. We can fairly accurately predict much of his life with the help of the framework laws though we cannot predict many of his daily individual choices.
Later we can as historians study these individual choices and see what crossroads Robinson faced and how he chose and acted. For example, how did he feed himself? Was he lazy or hardworking? Did he build a fishing net? Did he build a raft so that he could escape from the island? Did he burn fires during nights so that ships could find him? These major decisions determined what crossroads he faced and which of the few available paths he therefore followed. The framework laws not only help to predict his life path but make it even easier to explain them afterwards.
Predicting future actions and understanding past actions of an individual are thus two sides of the same coin because they both utilize the laws of logic, protophysics, nature, action and interaction. Understanding the past is the task of history. Understanding the present and predicting the future is the task of sociology. Both apply the same framework laws that constrain human action.
A historian, sociologist or other scientist who does not understand all these constraining laws is as incompetent as a scientist who believes that the laws of nature and action can be overcome with magic. Most historians, sociologists and other scientists understand the laws of nature. They realize that witches cannot cast magical spells that turn men into frogs. However, these very same historians, sociologists and scientists believe in interventionism or communism and thus believe in social magic. Only those who understand all the framework laws including the praxeological laws of action and interaction can truly understand human history.
Praxeological theory of history
Both the Marxian materialist theory of history and the idealist theory of history are mistaken because the former does not understand the power of the free will and the latter does not see how choices are constrained not only by laws of nature but also by laws of action and interaction (economics and politics). However, the materialist theory of history has so much truth that it is practically right.
The materialist theory of history is right in the sense that we do not live by air and ideas alone. First, we need good genetics, tools, food and other essentials before we can develop a culture where complex ideas and advanced theories can evolve. Second, true ideas develop dialectically in the intellectual battlefield of debate and especially through practical tests. A primitive society cannot develop advanced ideas of logic and mathematics let alone discover the more complex laws of nature, action and interaction. Advanced ideas and theoretical systems require a certain level of material comfort, high culture, intellectual debate and practical tests in order to develop. In this sense stages of material development do always precede the development of ideas. The plow comes before the pen.
Furthermore, the sword also comes before the pen. Brute force always wins over ideas. Of course, it is true that the sword is wielded according to prevalent ideas but in the long – or medium – run the sword will determine what ideas prevail in society. In time it is easy to censor and brainwash people to obey and even worship the one who wields the sword.
However, not all ideas are equal. Even the sword cannot change the framework laws and permanently uphold many false ideas. Such attempts only lead to the demise of the group in the competition with other groups. In the long run the question is then not whether the sword is mightier than the ideas but whether the ideas are right or not. Truth always wins in the long run. Two plus two will be four whatever anybody says or thinks. Try to change that fact on the level of actions and you will fail. Similarly the law of supply and demand always operate. Try to change that on the level of interactions and you will fail. If you refuse to face the facts and scientific laws your group’s policies will simply fail in the long run. If your group is too stupid or stubborn to understand this then sooner or later it will perish by famine, disease or by being conquered by another group.
There is only one way to permanently cling on to false practical ideas: Hide on some isolated island or deep in the jungle or desert. This explains why there still exists extremely primitive groups. They were never under great competitive pressure from outsiders. It is only because of this that so may of their false ideas were able to prevail so long. False ideas and primitive cultures prevail only in hiding.
The one true path
Praxeological theory of history combines the materialist and idealist theories by emphasizing the constraints of human actions. Matter is dead and does not choose anything. Ideas are conditioned by matter and serve brute force. It is only the relation of ideas to concrete actions of individuals and their groups that test and reveal the practical truth. These practical tests explain the development of ideas of both natural and social science. Ultimately those ideas survive and spread which help to serve human groups in the battle of the survival of the fittest group. Competition is the God that reveals the truth and directs history on to the one true path.
Every single individual has his own lane on the one true path if he wants to live justly and prosper. He must obey the laws of logic, protophysics, nature, action and interaction. In the case of Robinson this is very clear since he must homestead, save, invest and produce in order to live and prosper. However, following the path is not easy. There are many crossroads where he is tempted to turn into more easy roads where he does not have to work and save so much. But such easy roads do not remain easy for long. Instead they turn into surprisingly long and arduous detours since laziness, stupidity and other weaknesses create more trouble in the long run. If Robinson is too lazy he makes too many detours and will die of hunger or disease.
Groups too have their own narrow lane on the one true path. When Friday and more people arrive on the island things change radically because instead of an isolated individual there is now a group, a society. Robinson all alone on his island could take many false detours and stubbornly suffer the consequences. But now when others arrive on the island the actions of Robinson become much more constrained by interactions and their rules.
The first crossroad any human interaction faces is the question of social rules. The choice is simple because there are only three possible rules of interaction: Communism, propertarianism and interventionism (mixed system). All these rule systems have very different social consequences that can be easily predicted with the laws of economics and politics. The first obvious prediction is that pure communism does not work for the simple reason that it is impossible in practice. Even small hunting-gathering bands cannot be completely communist because the tribe members often have different values and opinions. They also always want to have some private possessions and leisure. Pure communism is possible only between a mother and fetus. Communism between adults is impossible.
Propertarianism and Natural order
Propertarianism is very practical. All it requires is the the first-user-rule. From this natural and almost instinctual principle follows individual self-determination (ownership of one’s own body), right to homestead unowned resources and transform/produce them into commodities (agriculture, mining, etc.). These commodities or labor can then be gifted or exchanged for other commodities. All interaction is contractual and thus voluntary. Natural order is achieved and division of labor develops almost automatically raising the living standards to ever higher levels. Justice, peace and prosperity reigns in propertarianism.
The reaching of the natural order is not inevitable because of both free will and the possibility of unforeseen natural events but the tendency is extremely strong nevertheless. Human reason and competition between individuals and human groups makes sure there is an inexorable tendency toward Natural Order of justice, peace and prosperity just like there is an inexorable tendency in biological evolution to more fit animals and animal groups. The one true path has many stages where the property rights, intelligence, savings, technology and the division of labor are increased and consequently also peace and prosperity. This path gives us a yardstick we can use both in studying history and predicting future. Rationalism tells us beforehand the milestones of Natural Order. There are four stages of civilizational development:
- Foraging economy
- Barter economy
- Money economy
- Banking economy
Economic development is practically automatic since rationalism and economic self-interest inevitably create barter networks. These then gradually start to use a medium of exchange (money) in order to solve the problem of the double coincide of wants. Similarly the development of banks is also inevitable because it is in the interest of both savers and investor-producers to use a bank as the middle-man in creating interest bearing credit contracts, i.e. loans. At each stage both savings and division of labor are greatly increased and thus productivity is increased especially since prices and interest rates help to coordinate production. A great peace and prosperity ensues. Humans can rationally understand, predict and control social evolution.
If and as far as labor under the division of labor is more productive than isolated labor, and if and as far as man is able to realize this fact, human action itself tends toward cooperation and association; man becomes a social being not in sacrificing his own concerns for the sake of a mythical Moloch, society, but in aiming at an improvement in his own welfare. Experience teaches that this condition—higher productivity achieved under the division of labor—is present because its cause—the inborn inequality of men and the inequality in the geographical distribution of the natural factors of production—is real. Thus we are in a position to comprehend the course of social evolution. (Ludwig von Mises. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1966. pp. 160–61.)
The economic development in a propertarian society also affects the social order by improving not only the genetic quality of the people but also their culture. Especially the natural elite becomes ever more intelligent, just and prosperous. The arbitration system and propertarian social discrimination then spreads these qualities to the whole population. Soon a man cannot anymore aggress, lie or behave badly without huge repercussions. Similarly philosophy, science, schooling and the media become completely rationalistic and culture is purged of all aggressive and relativist elements. All this develops in people a psychological independence, self-control and a positive can-do attitude. The propertarian society is not only prosperous physically but also psychologically.
The laws of logic, protophysics, nature, action and interaction cannot be changed. From the perspective of humans they are eternal and immutable. Those individuals and groups who understand the laws and act accordingly will prevail over all others. Stay on the true path by protecting property rights and you will not only prevail but soon lead others by example.
Interventionism and parasitism
The one true propertarian path is very narrow. It is very easy to deviate from it. Deviate a little from the path by violating laws of logic and property rights and you will suffer. This is what happens when the group chooses the only practical alternative to propertarianism: Interventionism. It violates property rights and leads to the emergence of robbers. However, robbers are more of a nuisance. The problem is that they tend to become first mafias and then states.
From the rationalist perspective the original sin of interventionism has always been the monopoly of arbitration. This creates a state that is always in a parasitical relationship with individuals. The state is the slave master. It robs you of your right to arbitration by unilaterally decreeing judgments and laws that disarm you, conscript you, tax your property, debase your currency and regulate your trade and other interaction. You become a public slave. Unlike a private slave who can buy his freedom a public slave is stuck in slavery with no hope of freedom.
The deviations from the one true path are always parasitic. They always violate property rights. Furthermore, these parasitic detours from the one true path are always cyclical in the sense that they must always return back to the true path though the traveler/society might perish before that. Violate property rights and the disintegration of the economy and social order either forces the group to become more respectful towards property rights or it becomes so weak that another more propertarian group starts to dominate it. Either way the group is forced to come closer to the one true path. Statist history is always cyclical.
But if the state is such a cruel slave master why has civilization advanced at all? Because the state behaves parasitically just like any other mafia. It does not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Political entrepreneurs running the state firm soon learn to increase exploitation only gradually. But why are not people discouraged by the continuous and often worsening exploitation? Why they continue to feed the parasite? Because they do not dare to resist the parasite and have the will to live despite of the exploitation. Adam Smith noted that this natural determination is what drives history forward despite the parasitic state:
This frugality and good conduct, however, is upon most occasions, it appears from experience, sufficient to compensate, not only the private prodigality and misconduct of individuals, but the public extravagance of government. The uniform, constant, and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the principle from which public and national, as well as private opulence is originally derived, is frequently powerful enough to maintain the natural progress of things towards improvement, in spite both of the extravagance of government and of the greatest errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution, in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of the doctor. (Wealth of Nations, book 3, chapter 2.)
The state is simply a parasite that slows us down. If it grows too big it will destroy us. The parasite theory of the state explains much of history. It is a simple theory that has been understood since time immemorial though rulers have always tried to suppress or obfuscate it. Rationalist history and sociology can easily study the parasitic detours made by interventionist and communist states. The detours are cyclical errors in the sense that they eventually lead to the disintegration of the economy and thus there is a move back towards a more propertarian order until there is again another attempt to violate natural order. History is thus both linear and cyclical. It is linear because there is an inexorable tendency toward the natural order and the consequent ever increasing prosperity but it is also cyclical because of the parasitic activities of the states. However, even the cycles gradually move towards the natural order because people gradually learn how limited are the powers of the state.
The parasitic cycles only slow down the march on the one true path though at worst dysgenics can return man to the start. If the statist parasite grows too big it can even destroy man itself by reducing him to animal level both economically and intellectually. Through dysgenics a green multicultural world state could in principle degenerate man to the level of a parasitic animal. The global parasite state would finally give birth to a “New Man”: A semi-human parasite.
French revolution: before and after: satirical drawing by French draftsman Caran d’Ache, 1898, in the middle of the Dreyfus affair and the foundation of Action Française. Although the Ancien Régime is not shown as idyllic, the contemporary situation is shown as an increase of oppression, which technical improvements (notice the plowshare) don’t lighten, and to which financial capitalism (the banker with his top hat and his wallet), the Freemason (with his set square and plumb bob) and the Jew (with a curved nose) are contributors. (Wikipedia)
Civilizational and parasitic stages of history
It is relatively easy to see the parasitic stages of history. The host simply tries to rid himself of the parasite by seceding while the parasite tries to hold on and keep on sucking blood/income from the host victim. This creates the stages of history where four stages are civilisational and three parasitic. Together they create parasitical cycles of history. At each parasitical stage the parasite gets too greedy which then creates a move toward secessionism.
Foraging economy
Parasitic stage 1: Foraging economy limited with local warfare and communism
Civilizational stage 1: Secessionist break-up of communism and development of barter economy
Barter economy (Sparta)
Parasitic stage 2: Barter economy limited with tribal militarism and taxation interventionism
Civilizational stage 2: Secessionist break-up of interventionist tribes and development of money economy
Money economy (Rome)
Parasitic stage 3: Money economy limited with national imperialism and regulatory interventionism
Civilizational stage 3: Secessionist break-up of the empire and the development of a banking economy
Banking economy (England)
Parasitic stage 4: Banking economy limited with globalism and monetary imperialism
Civilizational stage 4: Secessionist break-up of globalism and the birth of liberty
Secession usually occurs when parasitism has first seriously weakened the economy and then the state. However, since the state is not completely killed it starts to grow again during the next more economically efficient stage. At each stage state becomes more powerful both in interventionism and geographical extension. The fourth and final parasitic stage is the world police state.
Applying the parasitic cycle theory we see that the first parasitic stage starts when small families join a bigger about 30 – 50 person strong hunter-gatherer bands. Genetically this is very useful because it decreases inbreeding. However, these bands easily develop a sort of democratic or rather mobocratic (rule of the mob) primitive communist ministate where a large majority opposes the development of private property and private arbitration. Consequently there is little investment in production of commodities or children. Sex is relatively free, parentage is unclear and children belong to the group. Thus the average intelligence remains low which further strengthens the mob rule.
Primitive communism inevitably leads to the tragedy of commons, overpopulation and war. Gradually those groups start to dominate which have started to secede from communism by privatizing relationships and children thereby creating marriages and private families. These then develop into clan based tribes which have an incentive to gradually increase the privatization of land and animals thus creating agriculture and pastoralism. The first parasitic stage ends and the first civilizational stage starts with the development of barter. Liberty and contractual society is born.
The second parasitic stage starts after the barter economy has increased productivity and created a free and prosperous tribal society. Now statist parasitism becomes a realistic possibility. Greed and envy easily lead to civil wars as well as conquests especially from the North. The winner of the civil war or the conqueror can now create a military state and efficiently tax the people. With his tax income he can create a standing army. It is the combination of wars and taxation that lead to the birth of states. These parasitically draw great income from the barter-money economy thus creating the first states such as Sparta.
Gradually the rule of a conquerors develop into a stable aristocracy which gives birth to economic competition and a money economy. Freedom is about to break out. However, the money economy enable the state to gradually become more powerful. This starts the third parasitic cycle. Aristocracy turns into monarchy and finally its most aggressive form, despotism when the money has been debased and price controls have destroyed the economy. This third parasitic stage ends with the disintegration of the empire, anarchic political competition and the rebirth of freedom. Especially frontier freedom shows how freedom works in practice and leads to the ideological freedom movements. Now there is a real possibility to kill the state. After the fall of Rome the political system became highly decentralized, the economy started to gradually boom and general living standards rose to new heights in the High Middle Ages.
PICTURE OF CYCLE: Free family –> communist band –> free tribes –> interventionist state –> free nations –> FRB –> Free humanity
PICTURE OF FRB CYCLE: Free banking economy –> FR banking –> monetary imperialism –> World Bank –> Freedom
The fourth parasitic stage starts when banking has developed but honest 100% reserve banking is turned by the state-banking alliance into fraudulent fractional reserve banking. The ability to create money out of nothing gives the state enormous income. It can now tax all the users of state money in an invisible way. Monetary imperialism not only increases state income and debt finance but even more importantly it allows the state to gradually free the rest of the economy. The paradox of state finance becomes clear: By freezing taxes and decreasing regulations (monopolies and cartels) the income of the state is increased in the long run especially with a better credit rating.
This is also why it starts monetary imperialism by forcing other countries to use its currency. This first looks like benevolent imperialism in the sense that at the same time the conquered economy and society is partially liberalized. This creates the paradox of imperialism because it is the relatively more free states that are the most imperialistic. Furthermore, the greater income from both fractional reserve banking and monetary imperialism increases the power of the state to such an extent that it receives a competitive advantage with other states. This forces other states to copy both FRB and monetary imperialism.
This decrease in regulations makes the Industrial revolution possible even if the state money machine (fractional reserve banking) makes it unstable by creating ever worsening business cycle. Banking crises and wars create so much unstability that the state tries to maintain public support with democratization and egalitarianism. However, eventually monetary imperialism creates a world state which eradicates the competition between states. This leads to ever increasing regulations, taxes and a global police state with almost communist rule. Economic growth stops and the business cycle helps to crash the semi-communist global economy. This then leads to a global secessionist movement and the end of the second parasitic cycle. If the freedom movement is strong enough the state can finally be killed.
Parasitic megacycles
The propertarian economy has a linear development that starts from the barter economy and proceeds to money economy and finally to banking economy. Parasitism feeds off from this linear development and thus creates an economic megacycle from gatherer-hunting band communism to national interventionism to global communism. At the same time there develops a political megacycle from the band majority rule (mobocracy/democracy) to the national rule of the few (oligarchy/aristocracy to tyranny/monarchy) to the global majority rule (mobocracy/democracy).
The economic and political megacycles create the philosophical megacycle. First, hunting-gatherer band’s semi-communist democracy creates pre-modern irrationalist relativism with belief in magic. Second, national interventionist oligarchy tries to control society with the help of historicism and nature with the help of empiricism but largely fail because the philosophical glue of rationalist apriorism is censored as too anti-statist. Third, global semi-communist democracy creates postmodernist relativism which returns science to the primitive magical level.
The three megacycles also create a feminine-masculine megacycle. First, the hunting-gatherer stage is largely dominated by communist minded women who support communism and the use of magic. However, gradually some of the women start to limit access to sex, choose spouses and create families and the first stage of civilisation. This then makes possible the second interventionist stage which is dominated by militarist minded men. With the return of communism on the global level the communist minded women again start to dominate and belief in magic becomes prevalent again. Soon science and economy are destroyed and secessionism breaks the global feminist world state.
Together these four irrationalist parasitical megacycles determine history as long as property rights are violated.
- Feminist local pre-modern relativist democratic communism with marauder imperialism
- Misogynist national semi-rationalist oligarchic interventionism and military imperialism
- Feminist global post-modern relativist democratic communism and monetary imperialism
Parasitism starts the cycle but its motor is the long-run impossibility of both communism and interventionism. Pure communism is impossible even in short-term except as a relationship between fetus and mother. Communism on a large scale is in practice always semi-communism and only tries to modify propertarianism. Pure interventionism is also impossible in the sense that it is not possible to totally regulate the lives of people. Interventionism on a large scale is in practice always semi-interventionism and only tries to modify propertarianism. Just like communism is practiced in infancy so interventionism is practiced during early childhood. Both are practically impossible in productive adult life and totally impossible in a large society. Their popularity is based on the atavistic desire to return to childhood and the idea that “world owes me a living”.
Both communism and interventionism try to revolt against nature and thus suffer from “internal contradictions”. The more they revolt against nature the more the economy suffers and support for the ruling elite declines. This soon leads to a move toward propertarism. In this sense they create error cycles where aggression and the creation of a state always leads to failure in the long run. The second parasitic cycle is the final stage of parasitism since it is a sort of final revolt and thus also a final failure. There is no way to make global parasitism more efficient. It can not extend geographically since the whole globe is now under a parasitic monetary imperialism. There can be no third cycle but only a break-up of the world state or a global green semi-communist dictatorship.
Global green dictatorship seems improbable because people probably would not accept massively lower living standards. Therefore the second parasitic cycle probably leads either to peaceful propertarianism or a return to national militarist interventionism prevalent during the first cycle. Either way the situation is improved since communism always totally destroys reason and civilisation. Even national military interventionism is better since there is competition and so at least a drive towards higher civilisation and a realistic possibility to achieve liberty. It is communism that is the enemy of civilisation.
Parasite megacycle in history
Applying the parasitical cycle theory to history in more detailed manner we see how for thousands of years human societies have been dominated by parasitic activities, i.e. first primitive communism and then classical and modern states. Since parasitism cannot continue without the host the property rights have only been curtailed only partly. Thus parasitism has only dragged down human societies and their productive activities. However, without parasitism many wars, poverty and injustices would have been avoided.
The first parasitical stage of history started at the dawn of history with the appearance of human hunting-gatherer bands. These were clearly communistic. There were no families because females and males copulated almost freely. The political order of the band was democratic majority rule. Women had economic and political power. Land was not owned and transformed since the tribe members were hunter-gatherers. Almost all property was shared equally. Naturally this led both to low investment and overpopulation. This was first alleviated by migration that colonized the whole world. Soon the only way to alleviate overpopulation were but continuous local wars.
Gradually these wars between hunter-gatherers intensified to the extent that only the fittest groups survived or could expand their territory. The fittest were naturally those groups who had started to adopt private property principles. Couples became contractual and families emerged. This privatization of interaction led to huge increases in productivity and gradually also land was privatized. Soon propertarian tribes were able to have more members and better arms. Agriculture started to spread ever faster and propertarianism became dominant. Humanity entered the first civilizational stage. The great river valley civilizations developed and living standards rose to previously unimaginable heights. 3000 BC the average living standards in the Fertile Crescent were so high that they would not be surpassed until after 1800 AD.
The second parasitic stage of history started after the barter-money economy and civilization had developed in the Fertile Crescent. This prosperity made large scale parasitism more appealing for aggressors. Civil wars and conquests allowed especially the military leaders and conquerors to create the first states. In the beginning there were many small competing states run by aristocrats and monarchs. It was the states which made slavery, taxation, monopolies, cartels and large scale wars possible. In time relatively low tax military empires such as Egypt, Babylon and Rome developed. After achieving hegemony they gradually increased taxes and regulation thus keeping humanity in the Malthusian trap.
The late Roman emperors tried to increase their income by debasing the currency with money clipping. To make matters even worse they instituted comprehensive price controls that strangled the economy. The disintegration of the economy led to the collapse of Rome and the invasions of the Germanic people. This coupled with the power of the Church and the idea of Natural Order created an almost anarchic political order in Europe. In frontier areas such as in Iceland the state did not develop at all. This created the second civilizational stage. Competition between the remaining small European states was so intense that many people and especially the merchants could vote with their feet. In Switzerland, Netherlands, North Italy and Holy Roman Empire the state was withering away. This gave birth to liberty and the European Miracle. It made possible the Industrial Revolution which freed mankind from the Malthusian trap.
The third parasitic stage started after the anarchic Europe had developed an banking economy. It was especially the Court Jews that made the states powerful again by financing the rulers and helping to create the fraudulent fractional reserve banking system. This money machine made both Jews and the state very powerful especially in England which developed an empire and parasitic monetary imperialism together with the United States. Jews also helped states to develop egalitarianism and democracy. This third parasitic stage is still continuing and creating a global police state and accelerating dysgenics.
This second parasitic cycle ends when monetary imperialism creates so deep depressions and crises that there will start a secessionist wave. If the state is totally killed then liberty and natural order is finally achieved. However, if the state is not killed then the parasitic cycle will continue. In worst case scenario the democratic dysgenic tendencies continue and lower the average IQs so much that civilisation itself is destroyed and humanity descends back to the level of primitive states.
The end of parasitism
The cycle of parasitism can always be stopped with secessionism and propertarianism. The first parasitic cycle could perhaps not been avoided but the second cycle could easily have been avoided in many ways. In fact, from the sociobiological perspective the Whites seem to have avoided primitive state building and only engaged in it in Southern multiracial societies. This is all the more probable since after the first parasitic cycle states remained very weak especially in the Germanic Holy Roman Empire. Whites and especially Germanics seem to be anti-statist by nature because of their high individualism. This is also why the second cycle probably would not have occurred without the Jewish court bankers. The present global domination of U$Srael also points to this. Jews are the great state builders. Therefore during the break-up of U$Srael the secessionist wave should make it possible to destroy statism in White countries unless dysgenic tendencies have degenerated Whites too much both intellectually and psychologically.
The genetic basis for liberty and statism
The big question is why the parasite is not totally killed off after each cycle? Why even after its own near destruction it always keeps on lingering? There are at least four explanations: Ideas, war, technology and race. Ideas are probably the biggest reason. After all, there has never been a clear anti-statist movement. One reason for this is that the intellectuals have been bought by the state. However, that cannot be the main reason because there has not been even one anti-statist Liberty Manifesto until very recently. And this despite the fact that the essence of the state, the monopoly on arbitration and the consequent parasitism is obviously absurd as is the state money machine. More important than bribery is the fact that the the intelligence of the intellectuals has been too low. There simply has not been enough intelligent men to develop rationalist philosophy and sciences. A few men were probably intelligent enough but they were bought, brainwashed or intimidated into silence. Especially the development of libertarian ideas have simply been crushed in the nub. This slowed down the development of economic and especially political science.
Furthermore, there seems to be racial differences in individualism and consequent anti-statism. Neither the Whites nor Blacks seem to have a tendency to create states though for opposite reasons. The Whites are too individualistic while the Blacks do not have a tendency to be organized in a bureaucratic sense. However, the blacks can be enslaved more easily and this might be one reason why among mixed races in the river cultures it was relatively easy to create states especially when the ruling class was composed of White conquerors. Among Mongoloid people individualism is so low that statism seems almost natural for them. Consequently the Chinese state has continued almost uninterrupted for thousands of years despite having also libertarian cultural tendencies such as Taoism.
It is the Whites who seem to be liberty minded and anti-statist by nature. Even the threat of war often did not lead to the development of states in Central and Northern Europe. In antiquity and well into the Middle Ages many ancient Germanic nations never developed states among their own kind. For example, Iceland had a stateless society for hundreds of years. The Germanic Holy Roman Empire never developed into a state. On the contrary, during the High Middle Ages it created an almost anarchic political order of thousands of politically independent and autonomous landowners and towns.
The Germanic nations were especially liberty minded because they had developed higher intelligence and low time preference in the colder Northern Hemisphere. It was obvious to them that aggression is wrong and parasitism is poisonous. The big question is not why human groups are anti-statist but why did they gradually develop states. The development of the state is not automatic but depends on free will and individual choices.