[T]he reason the right likes my solutions to political economy, despite being fairly progressive innovations of on classical liberalism, are because they disallow lying in the construction of exchanges. And the fact that progressives are dependent upon lies and conservatives desirous of truth telling should be enough of an insight for any moral man: progressivism feminine socialism is authoritarian, and conservative masculine aristocracy is egalitarian. Just true. So deal with it. Progressives are liars and thieves, and it’s that simple.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
The Right Is Happy With Truth and Trade. It’s The Left That Wants Lies and Takings
[T]he reason the right likes my solutions to political economy, despite being fairly progressive innovations of on classical liberalism, are because they disallow lying in the construction of exchanges. And the fact that progressives are dependent upon lies and conservatives desirous of truth telling should be enough of an insight for any moral man: progressivism feminine socialism is authoritarian, and conservative masculine aristocracy is egalitarian. Just true. So deal with it. Progressives are liars and thieves, and it’s that simple.
-
Empirical Evidence of the Superiority of Western Truthfulness
[T]he Chosen People is an argument to supremacy. Islamism is an argument to supremacy. Evidence is of european supremacy whether pagan or christian. Actually, its against christian mysticism, and in favor of pagan science, independence and testimony. If we look at RATES of evolution (development) instead of earliest development, it’s pretty obvious that the superior people, the superior system of government, the superior system of production of the arts and sciences, is european. A small backward people on the edge of eurasia outperform every civilization in history in both the prehistoric (british isles), the ancient (greco-roman-danubian), and modern (anglo-german) eras. This is merely empirical. “Who did it first” is just a dishonest framing. The more important question is, who consistently does it faster. And in the ancient and modern periods the philosophy of aristocracy (truth) has defeated every competitor. The only challenge came from the jews in both eras: christian mysticism extended Egyptian authoritarianism using babylonian mythos. And in the modern era, jewish pseudoscience: boaz, freud, marx, cantor, mises, Frankfurt, rothbard, and rand. The reason it worked in both eras: WOMEN and SLAVES united with JEWISH argument against us. The only challenge came from lies.
-
Empirical Evidence of the Superiority of Western Truthfulness
[T]he Chosen People is an argument to supremacy. Islamism is an argument to supremacy. Evidence is of european supremacy whether pagan or christian. Actually, its against christian mysticism, and in favor of pagan science, independence and testimony. If we look at RATES of evolution (development) instead of earliest development, it’s pretty obvious that the superior people, the superior system of government, the superior system of production of the arts and sciences, is european. A small backward people on the edge of eurasia outperform every civilization in history in both the prehistoric (british isles), the ancient (greco-roman-danubian), and modern (anglo-german) eras. This is merely empirical. “Who did it first” is just a dishonest framing. The more important question is, who consistently does it faster. And in the ancient and modern periods the philosophy of aristocracy (truth) has defeated every competitor. The only challenge came from the jews in both eras: christian mysticism extended Egyptian authoritarianism using babylonian mythos. And in the modern era, jewish pseudoscience: boaz, freud, marx, cantor, mises, Frankfurt, rothbard, and rand. The reason it worked in both eras: WOMEN and SLAVES united with JEWISH argument against us. The only challenge came from lies.
-
Why So Much Time And Effort On Anti-Racism? Self Correction.
[A]LL, My job is to come up with a solution. You either help me do that or you don’t. Bitching about other races and groups with competing strategies is just masturbation. I love my race and my kin and my culture because all men must love their tribe for it to persist in the great climb to godhood. But I see a world of aristocracies: of small nation states – extended tribes – trying to raise their gene pools – their kin – into godhood. This is my vision of the world. I am against multi-culturalism as a form of polylogism – the logically impossible, legally undecidable, and the means by which we increase demand for authority. It is counter rational, It is pseudoscientific. It is a lie. Plain and simple. There is a limited value to cultural assimilation of invention, and cultural assimilation of the best most aristocratic genes. Everything else is pollution of the genetic, normative, and material economies. It’s not subjective opinion but fact. So sorry if I am not a racist in the sense that I hate others. I merely seek an institutional solution whereupon on group CANNOT PREY UPON another, and must survive by merit only. I am not even so much of a separatist as requiring full assimilation in exchange for benefitting from a superior commons. It doesn’t help me or us if you whine about others. It helps if you get up and demonstrate, or punish, or even kill those who allow others to conquer us. But it does nothing to criticize others for wanting a better life at our expense. The state is a for profit self-serving enterprise at the expense of the families it preys upon. It is time to kill a lot of people. Those in the Academy, State, Media complex. Thank goodness rope is cheap, and guillotines are efficient. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy
—“There is little honor in picking on the weak and inferior, but there is still less in allowing them to be established as the standard of value, to accomplish the total inversion of virtues. It is not their enablers alone, who merit ridicule and criticism, though they do merit the lion’s share”—Eli Harman
-
Why So Much Time And Effort On Anti-Racism? Self Correction.
[A]LL, My job is to come up with a solution. You either help me do that or you don’t. Bitching about other races and groups with competing strategies is just masturbation. I love my race and my kin and my culture because all men must love their tribe for it to persist in the great climb to godhood. But I see a world of aristocracies: of small nation states – extended tribes – trying to raise their gene pools – their kin – into godhood. This is my vision of the world. I am against multi-culturalism as a form of polylogism – the logically impossible, legally undecidable, and the means by which we increase demand for authority. It is counter rational, It is pseudoscientific. It is a lie. Plain and simple. There is a limited value to cultural assimilation of invention, and cultural assimilation of the best most aristocratic genes. Everything else is pollution of the genetic, normative, and material economies. It’s not subjective opinion but fact. So sorry if I am not a racist in the sense that I hate others. I merely seek an institutional solution whereupon on group CANNOT PREY UPON another, and must survive by merit only. I am not even so much of a separatist as requiring full assimilation in exchange for benefitting from a superior commons. It doesn’t help me or us if you whine about others. It helps if you get up and demonstrate, or punish, or even kill those who allow others to conquer us. But it does nothing to criticize others for wanting a better life at our expense. The state is a for profit self-serving enterprise at the expense of the families it preys upon. It is time to kill a lot of people. Those in the Academy, State, Media complex. Thank goodness rope is cheap, and guillotines are efficient. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy
—“There is little honor in picking on the weak and inferior, but there is still less in allowing them to be established as the standard of value, to accomplish the total inversion of virtues. It is not their enablers alone, who merit ridicule and criticism, though they do merit the lion’s share”—Eli Harman
-
Testimonialism: More On Full Accounting and Parsimony
[I] talk about Parsimony (limits) pretty often, but I don’t spend enough time and effort on the obvious moral requirement of Full Accounting(full accounting of all costs: opportunity, real, normative, institutional, genetic and ‘godly’- in the sense of man’s achievement of godhood). THE TESTS OF TRUTHFULNESS – WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE
- Identity
- Internal Consistency
- External Correspondence
- Existential Possiblity
- Parsimonious
- Full Accounting
- Moral
Popper came close but he just supplied the darwinian idea. I think now that I am in the third year of work on this problem I’m getting pretty close to confidence that this list of warranties is the complete set that man is capable of providing, and is the complete set necessary for warranty against imaginary content: error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.
-
Testimonialism: More On Full Accounting and Parsimony
[I] talk about Parsimony (limits) pretty often, but I don’t spend enough time and effort on the obvious moral requirement of Full Accounting(full accounting of all costs: opportunity, real, normative, institutional, genetic and ‘godly’- in the sense of man’s achievement of godhood). THE TESTS OF TRUTHFULNESS – WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE
- Identity
- Internal Consistency
- External Correspondence
- Existential Possiblity
- Parsimonious
- Full Accounting
- Moral
Popper came close but he just supplied the darwinian idea. I think now that I am in the third year of work on this problem I’m getting pretty close to confidence that this list of warranties is the complete set that man is capable of providing, and is the complete set necessary for warranty against imaginary content: error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.
-
Existence: Natural Numbers, Natural Morality, Natural Law
(important concept) [A]ll conflicts are commensurable and decidable, therefore objective morality objectively exists. The counter proposition is that conflcits are not logically decidable by any means. When one says objective (necessary and natural) morality doesn’t exist, what one means instead, is that despite the existence of objective decidability, therefore objective morality, that no group in fact practices objective, necessary, natural, morality, and instead practices a portfolio of norms that they cast as moral, just as we cast natural (natural, necessary) law, legislation, and regulation as law when in fact only natural, necessary law is objectively extant law. The rest is the work of man. Natural numbers, natural morality, and natural laws exist out of necessity. All else is the arbitrary work of man for his local convenience.
—“If practicing “natural morality” will kill a man, or even merely diminish him in wealth, status, or some other measure, then it is just as natural that he will not practice it. This is the origin of conflict.”—Eli Harman
-
Existence: Natural Numbers, Natural Morality, Natural Law
(important concept) [A]ll conflicts are commensurable and decidable, therefore objective morality objectively exists. The counter proposition is that conflcits are not logically decidable by any means. When one says objective (necessary and natural) morality doesn’t exist, what one means instead, is that despite the existence of objective decidability, therefore objective morality, that no group in fact practices objective, necessary, natural, morality, and instead practices a portfolio of norms that they cast as moral, just as we cast natural (natural, necessary) law, legislation, and regulation as law when in fact only natural, necessary law is objectively extant law. The rest is the work of man. Natural numbers, natural morality, and natural laws exist out of necessity. All else is the arbitrary work of man for his local convenience.
—“If practicing “natural morality” will kill a man, or even merely diminish him in wealth, status, or some other measure, then it is just as natural that he will not practice it. This is the origin of conflict.”—Eli Harman