Thought you might be interested in this and would like to know what you think about it. There’s a nice image on distribution of religions in it too:
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 06:37:00 UTC
Thought you might be interested in this and would like to know what you think about it. There’s a nice image on distribution of religions in it too:
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 06:37:00 UTC
OPEN LETTER: CONTRA THE VIGOR OF PUBESCENCE
(I am not constructing a philosophy for losers. Sorry.)
You attack me for not agreeing with the sentimental religion of disaffected pubescent males longing for the romanticism of a bygone era?
And it would be nice to have more followers. But if that means followers are infantilized males shouting as coverage for lack of feminine attention, then that is an acceptable loss.
History provides us with the truth of man. Philosophy constitutes his attempts at construction of value systems with which to accommodate his place in history, and these philosophies are universally constructed in eras of class rotation. And class rotation is the product of economic and military success and failure – aesthetics productions are the result not cause of these transformations.
Works are the product of one’s age. Using the institutional technologies available. All great works whether military, artistic, technological, and intellectual arise from the middle class in times of change in celebration of the transfer of power.
I posted Durant’s criticism of Nietzsche yesterday and it’s rock solid. My own criticism is that aesthetics, arguments and religions justify reproductive strategies, and reproductives strategies reflect one’s gender and class. If one chooses the reproductive strategy of the masturbatory male lacking sufficient virility with which to attract women, then his choice of philosophy is codification of his reproductive strategy, class, and desirability.
That generation you venerate has passed. That era has passed. Philosophies are strategies for times of transition, given circumstances of transition. That time is past. We can no longer unite en masse under nationalist anti-modernity as did the nazi era (as aesthetically brilliant as it was.)
There is nothing incompatible between the overman and my work other than that the means of achieving our ultimate potential are a novel religion with which we must win a majority by conversion under your fantasy, and the systematic application of science and law by a minority willing to raise the cost of the status quo by violence in mine.
It may be true that you can resurrect a hokey 19th century religion. It may be true that traditionalists can resurrect medieval christianity. It may be true that classicists can resurrect pagan hero and nature worship. But it is more LIKELY true that we can continue to apply truthfulness in all walks of life, and create a competitor to jewish and islamic law, using natural law and truth telling, through which those more viscous philosophies gain their vigor.
The mistake you made was vanity, pride, and religious conviction in a fallacy. You called me out in public by attacking me when I asked you not to force me into that debate – knowing the result.
And by doing so you have both demonstrated the failure of the religion you devoutly worship as a means of obtaining self validity, and made it impossible for yourself to recant in front of your peers.
The mature man admits failure and passion, and the more mature man responds with understanding and forgiveness.
I am not sure you can admit failure, blame passion and youth – not because you are not intellectually capable of grasping the folly of your over-investment in a comic-book religion for sophomores (something all of us most do in order to transition from prior metaphysics to new ones), but because you would loose the esteem of your peers if you did.
This is wisdom. And your folly and pride will deprive you of it. Because my analysis of incentives means that the value you place on having friends who sympathize with your justification of your reproductive strategy, even if you and they err, and even if that strategy fails to advance your reproduction, is more important than achieving any existential result in this world.
On the other hand, I care only whether I give men of our age a means of achieving our ends using the tools and technologies of our time, by providing incentives to people of our time. To force the transofrmation of the most important institution in western history: property, judge, rule of law, jury, and senate. And to construct arguments in science rather than religion.
Good luck. I did the best I could afford to do with you. Not all investments pay returns.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 03:57:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i11923V04BTW: DURANT ON NIETZSCHE
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 19:12:00 UTC
De Monarchia
Liber Europae Reges Magni
De Philosophia Aristocratia
De Nobilitate et Scriptura
Viridis Bibliis Arianorum
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 13:32:00 UTC
YES I AM A PACIFIST
Of course I am a pacifist. Meaning that I see the highest purpose of great men is to pacify the universe and make an Eden of it.
The counterintuitive fact is that the pacification of that universe requires the incremental suppression of parasitism by our fellow man, and the continuous genetic pacification of our fellow man since he is the greatest obstacle to that Eden.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 10:43:00 UTC
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFENDER
So now I have offended six groups:
1) the local Critical Rationalists on four counts: that the method is not unique to science, that critical preference is theoretical not empirical, and that testimony is the only existentially possible truth, that popper’s arguments are cosmopolitan, not unique to science, and incomplete.
2) I’ve offended the offended the Libertines intentionally on the fallacies of argumentation, NAP/IVP, and Mises’ failure by confusing operationalism as a test of existential possibility with empirical investigation, plus a host of other issues.
3) I’ve offended the entire continental movement as an attempt at deceit by conflation, and having adopted the technique of the christians and gave the technique to the cosmopolitans: marxists, libertines, and neoconservatives, as well as the anglos: neo-puritans – who have devastated our culture with it.
4) And I’ve offended a Nietzschean because he could not grasp the difference between negative philosophy (law and epistemology) and positive philosophy (aesthetics), and because I had to criticize Nietzsche for having failed, like all other conservatives (aristocratics) have failed, to employ rationalism or narrative, when only science has succeeded in transcending the pseudoscience of the postmoderns and their predecessors in the enlightenment.
5) Strangely enough the traditional christians do get offended, but since I basically argue that (a) the church did some good, and (b) christianity’s love is pretty useful I tend to get by.
6) My (formerly many) jewish friends who object to my rather extensive attacks on the jewish enlightenment – as if my attacks on the german, french and anglo aren’t just as damning.
Just how it is.
We soldier onward.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 10:06:00 UTC
It’s true. FB is really not a good place for serious philosophy. I am not sure there is a good place for serious philosophy. But I’ll soldier onward. Sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 09:09:00 UTC
QUOTE OF THE DAY
—“It’s near criminal that the Nobel committee never awarded a Tullock-Krueger prize for rent-seeking.”– Michael Philip
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 09:08:00 UTC
FOR A NEW FAITH TO EMERGE, WE MUST KILL THE CURRENT ONES: LIBERALISM, DEMOCRACY, FEMINISM
I disagree that a new western ‘faith’ is possible without first making other faiths as impossible as Darwin made Christianity.
The chief faith today is postmodern pseudoscience. So I am killing that faith And doing a great gob of it.
I am not sure what the new faith looks like other than we must return to man and nature, men and achievements, and seek transcendence and to conquer the universe.
In no small part I make these arguments because every generation of aristocracy has failed to provide resistance against feminism and socialism and progressivism.
The only means of defeat is science. So I have constructed scientific morality.
What religion emerges from that defeat will be constrained by truth. I have some suspicions that such a truthful society will return to the production of high culture.
But that is for other men to achieve.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 09:02:00 UTC
THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE
The the scientific method is an organized process by which we separate subjective information from existential information. The purpose of the discipline of science is to construct hypotheses via free association combining observed phenomenon and imaginary phenomenon, launder them of imaginary content, to determine if a truth candidate survives that process of cleansing.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 08:58:00 UTC