Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Yes, Of Course I’ve Considered it…

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”— Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’. Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed. Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice. The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law. I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time. And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation. Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult. I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural. What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information. Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance. Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization. So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved. It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality. And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do. Which is what we have done. IN CLOSING So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for. I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.

  • Yes, Of Course I’ve Considered it…

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”— Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’. Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed. Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice. The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law. I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time. And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation. Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult. I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural. What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information. Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance. Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization. So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved. It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality. And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do. Which is what we have done. IN CLOSING So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for. I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.

  • In Retrospect: Hegel.

    I don’t remember who said it… I think it might have been Durant? That at the end of your journey through history and philosophy, you’ll find Hegel there waiting for you. Unfortunately, you cannot, from the reading of hegel, know that he is right. In retrospect, despite his pseudoscientific language, he was the closest of all. But I only know that, because of my use of scientific language.    

  • In Retrospect: Hegel.

    I don’t remember who said it… I think it might have been Durant? That at the end of your journey through history and philosophy, you’ll find Hegel there waiting for you. Unfortunately, you cannot, from the reading of hegel, know that he is right. In retrospect, despite his pseudoscientific language, he was the closest of all. But I only know that, because of my use of scientific language.    

  • The Central Works of Philosophy: John Shand’s List

    1  Plato: Republic 2  Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics 3  Lucretius: On the Nature of the Universe 4  Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Pyrrhonism 5  Plotinus: The Enneads 6  Augustine: City of God 7  Anselm: Proslogion 8  Aquinas: Summa Theologiae 9  Duns Scotus: Ordinatio 10  William of Ockham: Summa Logicae 1 René Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy 2 Baruch Spinoza: Ethics 3 G. W. Leibniz: Monadology 4 Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan 5 John Locke: An Essay concerning Human Understanding 6 George Berkeley: A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge 7 David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature 8 Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract 1 Immanuel Kant: Critique of Pure Reason 2 Johann Gottlieb Fichte: Foundations of the Entire Science of Knowledge 3 G. W. F. Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit 4 Arthur Schopenhauer: The World as Will and Representation 5 John Stuart Mill: On Liberty 6 Søren Kierkegaard: Philosophical Fragments 7 Karl Marx: Capital 8 Friedrich Nietzsche: The Genealogy of Morals 1. G. E. Moore: Principia Ethica 2. Edmund Husserl: The Idea of Phenomenology 3. William James: Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking 4. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 5. Martin Heidegger: Being and Time 6. Rudolf Carnap: The Logical Structure of the World 7. Bertrand Russell: An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth 8. Jean-Paul Sartre: Being and Nothingness 9. Maurice Merleau-Ponty: Phenomenology of Perception 10. A. J. Ayer Language, Truth and Logic 11. Gilbert Ryle: The Concept of Mind 12. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations 13. Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery 1.W. V. Quine: Word and Object 2. P. F. Strawson: Individuals 3. John Rawls: A Theory of Justice 4. Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia 5. Michael Dummett: Truth and Other Enigmas 6. Richard Rorty: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 7. Donald Davidson: Essays on Actions and Events 8. Saul Kripke: Naming and Necessity 9. Hilary Putnam: Reason, Truth and History 10. Bernard Williams: Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy 11. Thomas Nagel: The View From Nowhere 12. David Lewis: On the Plurality of Worlds 13. Charles Taylor: Sources of the Self 14. John McDowell: Mind and World

  • Reminder: I don’t hate.

    QUARTERLY REMINDER. Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting

    Interesting…


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-03 07:16:00 UTC

  • Um. Wiki is a monopoly, and acts like it.

    Jimmy Wales: No, access to information cannot be a right. And wikipedia has become politicized under the false cover of a monopoly under citation and NPoV, which merely deterministically justifies universalism, globalism, consumerism, and cultural marxism. An honest wikipedia would provide multiple points of view, and test them by investment, reciprocity or parasitism. wikipedia is immoral.

  • Um. Wiki is a monopoly, and acts like it.

    Jimmy Wales: No, access to information cannot be a right. And wikipedia has become politicized under the false cover of a monopoly under citation and NPoV, which merely deterministically justifies universalism, globalism, consumerism, and cultural marxism. An honest wikipedia would provide multiple points of view, and test them by investment, reciprocity or parasitism. wikipedia is immoral.

  • Choice Words

    —“The world is full of vast conspiracies of shared interests. The question is which one is consistently chosen as a target of their attacks.”—Igor Rogov —“Patriarchy is a giant conspiracy to ensure the long-term survival of one’s tribe.’— Steve Pender —Those who function by gossip and rallying will of course suppress all language that violates gossip, the same way that those of us who function by property and responsibility will of course suppress all action that violates property.— Curt Doolittle —Well, just as all mathematical expressions consists of context independent, scale independent, constant relations using positional naming, and algebraic expression consists of position-relative positional names. ie:Pure relations. Sometimes there are no such possible positional names, sometimes one, and sometimes more than one positional name that satisfies the description expressed in the algebraic description  So again, I am trying to get past the error of the set-logic thinkers who over-extended their technology, by re-operationalizing and de-platonizing mathematics.— Curt Doolittle. —Heroes = External order and personal change vs Anti-heroes = External chaos and personal stability.—Curt Doolittle —I mean, you have how many Alexanders, Caesars, Khans, Tammerlanes, Napoleons, Rommels, MacArthurs, to choose from and you pick some japanese pubescent dick-girls as heroes? WTF is wrong with you? Man up.—Curt Doolittle —pleasure = consumption ; joy = production—Curt —“”If violence isn’t the answer, ensure you are asking the right question” – Moi paraphrasing Curt Doolittle (If inadvertently quoting then priority goes to Curt!)”—Jeff Odgis