Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • YES CHRISTIANITY CAN SURVIVE SOVEREIGNTY 1) We cannot outlaw analogy, poetry, pa

    YES CHRISTIANITY CAN SURVIVE SOVEREIGNTY

    1) We cannot outlaw analogy, poetry, parable, myth, literature, and history, because they are the only possible means of pedagogy. We can however outlaw analogy, poetry, parable, myth, literature, and history that encourages the violation of natural law. Education and dispute resolution are two different things. Education must be meaningful, ethical and moral, dispute resolution must be true, ethical, and moral.

    2) If you do not attempt to use analogy, poetry, parable, myth, literature, and history, it in legislation and law, then Christianity is compatible with natural law. We already do not (and rarely have) allowed analogy, poetry, parable, myth, literature, and history in legislation and law.

    3) the seventh-day mandate is to limit the state, and limit employers, and limit slave owners from exhausting the population.

    4) –All men are sinners from birth–

    All men are rational at birth. It is through training and discipline that we limit their actions to those that are BOTH rational and productive, rather than merely rational.

    I don’t mind counter-signaling because it just provides opportunities to demonstrate and correct ignorance and a lack of understanding.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-28 11:59:00 UTC

  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION = SOVEREIGNTY = MARKET FASCISM It’s just not obvious. If yo

    WESTERN CIVILIZATION = SOVEREIGNTY = MARKET FASCISM

    It’s just not obvious.

    If you start with Sovereignty as your method of decidability then the only possible method of human interaction is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange. And if you’re limited to that form of human interaction, then the only possible method of negotiating is truthfully, and the only method of cooperating at any scale is to create markets in everything: consumption, reproduction (marriage), production, commons, dispute resolution, and rule.

    Whether you call this construction and preservation of sovereignty or a mandatory market closed to alternative methods of rule or even criticism of this method of rule, the difference between method of decidability, or the institutions of decidability under that method of decidability, is merely tautological.

    Sovereignty deterministically produces markets in everything. And as a consequence we produce conditions of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-28 10:47:00 UTC

  • STOP BLAMING THE TRIBE OF JEWISH MEN FOR WHAT IS A UNIVERSAL FEMALE PROBLEM OR Y

    STOP BLAMING THE TRIBE OF JEWISH MEN FOR WHAT IS A UNIVERSAL FEMALE PROBLEM OR YOU WILL SOLVE THE WRONG PROBLEM.

    —“It’s not the +Cathedral+ it’s the (((Synagogue)))”—-Danny Bogdan Polishchuk

    It’s not really true.

    It’s an alliance between the NE/Anglican Puritans, The Cosmopolitans, and the Feminists.

    We can’t blame it all on (((them))).

    Rothbard tried to blame it all on the Puritans.

    Alt-Righters try to blame it all on the jews .

    But the problem is Women and the Jews have the same reproductive strategy, the same intuitions, and employ the same tactics. The major difference being that women tend not to select eugenically, and jews have nearly industrialized eugenic female evolution in their men at least. Just as we have industrialized over millennia the eugenic evolution of ALL of our classes.

    THE PRINCIPLE INSIGHT: NOT OTHERS, BUT WOMEN.

    Why is it we feel the compulsive need to make a war between groups of men, that is instead, a war between women and men made possible by the transformation of the houses of parliament from one-man-one-family-one-vote, to one individual-one-vote, thereby transferring the compromise between individual men and women in a market for sex, reproduction, care and insurance, into a war of organized violence between the sexes.

    Look at Jews as all women (they pretty much are) and stop looking at them as men. Then look at the data. It’s single women, the underclass, and jews as females, that are the problem.

    Basically, it’s women and the underclass against men and families.

    And we let it happen.

    THE PRIMARY REASON

    So I hope you and others take a hard look at the primary reason that we don’t act: that acting means restoring our domestication of women so that they cannot ally with out-group members against us, thereby taking down our genes, our culture, and our civilization.

    Until you understand the material problem, that democracy gave violence by proxy to women, who are, by nature, against us, then you will try to cure the wrong problem. The problem isn’t jews. The problem is that women’s reproductive strategy, of which all jews are members. They are the ultimate expression of the female unleashed from the civilizing influence of the male.

    Spare the rod, spoil the beast.

    Spare the rod, spoil the child.

    Spare the rod spoil the woman.

    Spare the rod spoil the immigrant.

    Spare the rod spoil the opponent.

    Spare the rod spoil the enemy.

    Children do not know what they do any more than women do.

    Women do not know what they do any more than we do.

    Jews do not know what they do any more than women do.

    SCIENCE:

    We capture and herd women, capture territory, capture resources. Then we divide the spoils. Everything else is just good manners to make it easier and more pleasant.

    I am all for good manners and all. But in the end, evolution isn’t kind to us. The red queen keeps running whether we take a break or not. We either dominate and win, or we let others dominate and win.

    UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

    Science – the pursuit of truth – is not kind to us. The question is whether we out Gun, Germ, Steel, Science, and Govern others or whether they do the same to us.

    The problem we face is not others. It is failing to grasp that the ‘other’ is the female reproductive strategy living among us with unmarried women, undomesticated women, and undomesticated men.

    Women need civilizing more so than men, For the principle reason that violence is far easier to civilize than deception. Women were despised in most of history because of their impulsivity and deceit. WE have tried through education to civilize them in ways we had not civilized them in the past.

    Those who govern can only do so from having domesticated each other through the reciprocal control of marriage.

    Assuming we have any vote at all, then it CAN only come from one marriage one vote.

    Because marriage is the first ‘business’ we enter into.

    Business and industry the second.

    Finance and economy the third

    Commons the fourth

    And rule the fifth.

    Marriage is the first organization that demonstrates your ability to cooperate at high cost for common good. Without this demonstration of your capability, we have no evidence that you should contribute to the commons. We have only your false promise and wishful thinking. And that’s what the evidence of a century has told us: it was false promise and wishful thinking.

    Individuals adhere to rule of law.

    markets demonstrate ability to cooperate with peers.

    Families demonstrate reproductive cooperation between genders.

    Commons demonstrate common investment between families.

    This is why the west invented empiricism.

    BECAUSE WE LIVED IT EVERY DAY.

    “show me, don’t promise me”

    That’s empiricism.

    CLOSING

    Jews are just the expression of the female – the ‘Amazons’ we were searching for have always been among us. But they do not employ violence. They employ rallying, shaming, gossip, mysticism, religion, pseudoscience, and deceit. Which is a much harder form of parasitism to suppress by common law, than violence and theft.

    If we restore rule of law, and we restore truth to the informational commons, then the female strategy of deception, rallying and shaming will again be impossible.

    Testimonial truth, Propertarian ethics, market government: markets in everything.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 10:08:00 UTC

  • Weaponization of the feminine reproductive strategy of intuiting, resisting, dis

    Weaponization of the feminine reproductive strategy of intuiting, resisting, displays of rejection, ridiculing, criticizing, gossiping, rallying, and shaming, all of which impose costs (increase frictions) on the status anticipate for organizing to concentrate capital of all kinds, so that we cannot concentrate it, through aggressive eugenic selection. In other words, they manipulate our high trust society by imposing costs on the status signals a heroic civilization uses in order to form high risk and costly organizations.

    Women ‘let through’ only those things they agree with, and they rally and shame against anyting they don’t agree with.

    the problem is that what they agree with is almost always bad for the men.

    This is the Jewish strategy as well, and it was highly influential under the ancient empire, and the modern empire, when a combination of new media in the modern, and discounted and safe transport in the ancient world made preachers and letters possible.

    In modernity we not only enfranchised women and jews but we broke the constraint of debate-between peers by the use of cheap mass communication.

    We created an amplifier for lies, pseudoscience, and mysticism, consumable by the masses, and we did not regulate the use of that amplifier (media) to that which was truthful, material, and scientific.

    Why? Because in our ancient tradition, when only voices, letters, and books (all costly) could be met with equal voice, letter, and book, only the aristocracy could afford to speak, and only aristocracy was afforded such speech, and between the violence on could incurr via duel or assassination, one was reasonably careful about what one said.

    By enfranchising the underclasses, enfranchising women and then jews (all of whom vote as women, and supply argumentative weaponry to women and the underclasses) and giving them discount on communication, without regulating that communication to the true, we let them use technology to create sufficient lies, while we ourselves maintained our ancient aristocratic prohibitions, knowing that we could incur violence.

    WE CREATED THE DOUBLE STANDARD by not continuing to enforce, by violence the previous standard of truthfulness that had been enforced by violence for 5000 years.

    THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE

    Raise the cost of lying, fraud, and deceit by enforcing the demand for truth and science in political discourse. And we raise the cost through the application of violence.

    The left cannot survive the truth, which is why they invented so many lies.

    We cannot admit the truth (at least we couldn’t before): that we have domesticated the world at the point of a spear, sword, bayonet, bullet, shell, and missile – against it’s interests. And we are continuing to domesticate the world by forcing primitives into the market much against their will.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 07:53:00 UTC

  • Property, Family, Clan, Tribe, and Nation are unnatural to women. They are the m

    Property, Family, Clan, Tribe, and Nation are unnatural to women.

    They are the means by which we domesticated them.

    And they rebel against them whenever given the opportunity.

    We evolved to kill competitors to capture, herd, and domesticate women so that we could control our reproduction.

    Women are universalist for the simple reason that they are always captors, and so they seek the most secure captor.

    Why does this matter? Because we are exceptionally good at domesticating males – they’re much more dangerous in the short term. But we forget that while we developed many institutions to domesticate males, we created just as many to domesticate women.

    It is also true that the purpose of monogamy was to domesticate undesirable males.

    This asymmetry between women and men and marriage is the institutional problem we have not yet solved.

    Many more men are undesirable than women are undesirable.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 14:37:00 UTC

  • NOT BEATING THE DOG, WOMAN, PROLE, INVADER I don’t beat a dog for licking its as

    NOT BEATING THE DOG, WOMAN, PROLE, INVADER

    I don’t beat a dog for licking its ass. It’s a dog. I train it to stop doing it in my presence.

    I don’t beat a woman for short sighted solipsistic moralism. She’s a woman. I ask her to stop doing it in my presence.

    I don’t beat a prole for his impulsivity. It’s a prole. I demand by threat of force, that he stop doing it in my neighborhood.

    I don’t beat a minority here for pursuing its interests. It’s a minority with competing interests. I demand by force of exit, imprisonment, or death it to stop doing it in my territory.

    I don’t beat my fellow warriors for letting dogs, women, proles, and minorities act uncivilized it in our nation. They’re fellow warriors. Instead, I criticise them for their laziness in suffering the licking of asses, the solipsism of women, the impulsivity of proles, and the conquest by minorities of our nation.

    Rule at high cost, and profit from it. Or be ruled at your cost, and suffer from it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 10:13:00 UTC

  • WHY IF WE CANNOT COOPERATE THEN WHY CAN THE NON-RATIONAL VOTE? 1 – Analogies are

    WHY IF WE CANNOT COOPERATE THEN WHY CAN THE NON-RATIONAL VOTE?

    1 – Analogies are not truths, they are meaningful (educational and informative) but they are not true.

    2 – Natural law is blind to race, tribe family, gender, habit, norm, law, tradition, religion. Either you are a thief and a fraud and a free rider, or you engage in productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to productive externalities.

    3 – Adults reason and argue. Children moralize. Subhumans opine. Animals feel. Insects react. Bacteria merely lives or dies.

    If we cannot engage in argument, then we cannot cooperate truthfully, ethically, morally, productively. One tries to inform the ignorant, educate the child, domesticate by control or enslavement the subhuman and animal. And limit or exterminate the insect and bacteria.

    There is no reason because without reason there cannot be, to confuse reason with moralization, opinion, feelings, reactions, and mere life.

    For this reason, if one cannot reason then why must we cooperate, and if we cannot cooperate then why can children, sub-humans and animals, vote?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-22 09:54:00 UTC

  • “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”— (probably impor

    —“WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSAL MORAL GRAMMAR?”—

    (probably important)

    Well, while I agree that for our level of intellectual capacity that we practice an {actor, verb, noun} grammar, and that such a grammar, similar to logic but evocatively rather than critically allows us to speak and transfer experiences by association, in increasingly complex sets, which the audience consistently re-sorts to produce something sensible tot hem, I also think the presentation is pseudoscientific, and that all human emotions(self) and moral intuitions (others) are reducible to changes in the state of inventory of one asset or another, across a very broad set of assets from the informational, to the habitual, to the normative, to the institutional, to the physical, to kin, to body and life.

    The universe is telling us something very clearly: it’s very simple. As part of the universe, the human mind is a very simple thing, which achieves the appearance of complexity through sheer numbers and layers of neurons. We are part of the physical universe. We are bound by its laws. The most basic of those laws is that we must conserve energy to persist our lives, our kin, and our offspring, while at the same time transforming the universe’s current condition into one that is our benefit.

    Our problem in understanding our minds, is not discovering complexity, but discovering simplicity, by removing our imaginary content, error, bias, justification, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, and deceit from our ideas – each of which is produced by free association. Albeit, the mathematics (measurement) of that free association appears to be as difficult for us to measure as is the subatomic universe.

    Nature does not need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism in order for us to act. We need to reduce memory to verbal symbolism to perform an inexpensive means of communicating complex memories.

    We need to reduce memory to a model only in so far as we wish to understand our limits of communication. And we need to understand the limits of our communication in order to eliminate error bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and overloading, justification, and deceit from those communications.

    We cannot necessarily increase the density of information except through habituation (practice). Yet we can reduce the error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, justification, and deceit from it. Which appears to be the only remaining purpose of philosophy that is not possible to produce by other, superior means.

    The Universe is Simple.

    We Imagine by free association.

    We test for possibility by ‘wayfinding’

    We launder possibility by criticism.

    We use criticism to perform due diligence against:

    1 – Ignorance and Error,

    2 – Bias, Wishful Thinking, Suggestion, Moral Loading and;

    3 – Overloading, Justification, Obscurant Mysticism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, and;

    4 – Information hiding and outright Deceit.

    We perform due diligence by testing for consistency (determinism):

    1 – categorical (identity / properties)

    2 – logical (internal consistency / verbal / sets)

    3 – relational (relational consistency / mathematical / logical instruments )

    4 – empirical (external correspondence / physical instruments )

    5 – existential (existential possibility / operational language )

    6 – moral (volitional possibility / subjective testing of rational voluntary exchange)

    7 – fully accounted, parsimonious and limited (that we have fully accounted for that which we speak of and that we include nothing that we do not speak of.

    If we have performed this due diligence, and warranty that we have done so, (‘skin in the game’) then it is quite difficult to speak falsely.

    Meaning != Truth. Meaning = Justification of prior knowledge. That is all we can say.

    It says nothing about the truth of any proposition.

    This is the central failure of philosophical inquiry: justificationary meaning over critical truth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 09:00:00 UTC

  • DO INDIVIDUALS IN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES EARN THEIR STATUS? So are you saying tha

    DO INDIVIDUALS IN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES EARN THEIR STATUS?

    So are you saying that generation after generation of underclass membership is unearned? Generation after generation of working class membership is unearned? Generation after generation of middle-class membership is unearned? Generation after generation of upper class is unearned? Generation after generation of Aristocracy is unearned?

    The ever-present grinding of (a) genetic regression to the mean, (b) economic competition (c) political competition , (d) military competition makes preservation of assets almost impossible.

    Are you rationalizing or are you judging on the evidence. Becuase the evidence is that (a) classes are genetic in origin, (b) there is significant rotation between neighboring classes, (c) that the middle class contains most of the genetic virtue of the population, with aristocracy working aggressively through reproductive selection to preserve genetic, material, territorial, social, and political capital.

    So if you have any example of any extant aristocracy that is not holding its own through merit then that would be a further empirical test. But your opinion otherwise is merely justification.

    FAMILIES CREATE ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES OVER GENERATIONS.

    few wealthy families survive. few businesses survive, few civic organizations, and even few nations survive multiple generations of competition. Those families, businesses, civic organizations and nations that survive more than three generations do so because of their ability to compete.

    In other words, a natural aristocracy (emphasis on natural), is evidence of excellence, unless you can find (Rothschilds) an immoral means of achieving it.

    NO SPECIAL PLEADING

    and one example does not invalidate a distribution, just as one example does not validate a distribution. Outliers do not determine general rules. If we look at the history of aristocracy it is the most successful political order in human history, and democracy is merely a method of distributing the spoils of technological or military windfalls (athenian silver mine comes to mind.)

    WHY?

    Because once you are self sustaining the only signals you can produce of value are those that improve the commons (arts). The germans created the high point in europe for the simple reason that many princedom’s competed for signals and in doing so financed the arts and sciences.

    FALLACY OF THE BRITISH ARGUMENT AGAINST ARISTOCRACY

    The fallacy of your argument is in attributing merit to the individual rather than the family and rather to the lineage. Aristocracy is a product of lineage. Individualism is merely an excuse for failing to produce a lineage capable of accumulating genetic, material, territorial, social and political capital. In other words, your argument is a (common British) excuse by failed peoples to attribute merit to individuals rather than to organizations, and to families. In other words, it’s the most common repetition of the most common British moral fraud: lowlife false virtue signaling.

    INCENTIVES: ARISTOCRACY DEMONSTRATES LONGER TIME PREFERENCE AND THE ACCUMULATION OF COMMONS.

    Whereas democracy demonstrates the tragedy of the commons writ large.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 09:33:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE WE NOT BETTER OFF KILLING, DISPOSSESSING OR ENSLAVING YOU? The fact that

    WHY ARE WE NOT BETTER OFF KILLING, DISPOSSESSING OR ENSLAVING YOU?

    The fact that I don’t kill you, enslave you, or dispossess you, and instead cooperate with you for mutual benefit, does not include the presumption that I will sacrifice for you. If I must sacrifice for you then I am better of killing, enslaving, or dispossessing you.

    You presume too much. contribution to commons, and insurance against vicissitudes of nature, are not the same as redistribution allowing you to increase your consumption and reproduction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 14:30:00 UTC