Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Monopoly State Education?

    Q&A: —“What are your thoughts on universal public education being provided by the state.”— GREAT QUESTION WHEREAS (1) Education provides both offensive and defensive benefits. So (a) Offensively, it increases the possibility of productivity (a commons). And (b) Defensively it reduces crime(loss), insurance(restitution) and welfare (prevention) costs. (Humans are really expensive things.) While we probably teach largely the wrong things today, and that we teach them poorly, (not enough repetition of basic operations), that does not mean that we cannot teach the right things. After Defense (external), and Law and order(internal), education is probably the most important offensive and defensive capability a group can add to the commons. So I am pretty sure education needs to be mandatory in order to avoid externalizing costs of failing to educate (prevention) on fellow shareholders (citizens), due to loss, restitution. ( Same with driving a vehicle without insurance. Or driving aggressively. You’re exporting risk onto others. ) Failing to educate is just like failing to respect property. It’s just more indirect. Now, if you have the right of exit, and your offspring have the right of exit, and you leave the market (territory), that’s not the case. But then you lose the benefits of being a member of the market (territory). So it’s your choice. It’s pretty hard to find a market that will allow entry of an uneducated person. It’s just going to force costs on shareholders (citizens) (2) So if education is both a necessary good, and a moral obligation, then the question is only (a)whether universal provision by the state is a necessary or preferable, and (b) whether the monopoly provision of it by the state is necessary or preferable. Well first we have to answer the externality question. Does universal provision by the state solve the problem of the costs of loss, restitution, and prevention? Well yes. It does. Does the scale of that provisioning convey any price benefits? Actually no. Because the bureaucracy consumes a disproportionate amount of the funds, without any measurable positive impact, and arguably negative. Does universal education using the same curriculum have positive or negative consequences. Well the answer is that any education must provide some minimum: reading, writing, basic math, basic personal accounting, basic principles of contract, basic principles of the economy. Basic principles of natural law, basic principles of physical laws. Note that I’ve included no mythology in that list. No justificationism. Does universal education need mythology? Well I think that teaching anything antithetical to natural and physical law, antithetical to contract, accounting, mathematics, and reading (the common tongue), is something that exports costs onto others through the propagation of falsehoods. Can I teach my own children mythology at home, or in religious school? Of course you can. If it is taught as spiritual, as faith, as psychology, but not in conflict with physical, natural, contactual, mathematical, literacy, or rhetorical, grammatical, and logical truth. There are no ancient texts that cannot be translated into ratio-scientific language as necessary and possible traditions of the time. There are no normative family and cultural traditions that cannot likewise be explained. There is no harm in prayer, ritual, and faith, even if there is harm in conflating spiritual(experiential) and truthful(testimonial). It’s very hard to argue with the sermon on the mount. And it’s not hard to state that them miracles are fairy tales meant to educated us on how we should aspire to behave toward one another. CLOSING So like anything, when we want to produce a private good (education) for common goods (costs of loss, restitution, and prevention), then the market will succeed at providing some goods (private education, church education, public education) just as it will succeed at providing other goods (private health care, church health care, state health care), and many other goods (private investor banking, commercial banking, credit unions, and state treasury support). So the problem we have had in the past, is not the failure to understand this problem, but the failure to require truth, while preserving faith. Because man does not live by truth alone unless he lives in a large primitive tribe where he is saturated by information supplied by peers and there is no meaningful information available to him that is not shared by those peers. Even in those circumstances we require faith in order to ease the various sufferings, and to cause the community to unite in celebration of the service of the common good. Ergo, we must warranty all speech, products and services against error, bias, wishful, thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit. And we must warranty the minimum (not ultimate) services that an individual must possess in order not to be a burden on others such that he invokes moral hazard, and by invoking moral hazard, creates the incentive in the commons to abandon perfect-care of the commons. This is a profoundly important issue: preservation of the incentive to preserve and expand the commons. And as long as one warranties minimum provision, no falsehood, and treats myths as necessary goods as long as they do not violate the natural and physical and contractual and logical law, then there is no reason we cannot provide public (insured education), private education(market provided education), and community education (church, etc), My suggestion, as always with regard to the professions, is (a) that I don’t believe anyone that is not a grandmother or grandfather should teach anything to anyone. Otherwise we have a person without life experience conveying the necessities of surviving life’s experiences. (b) that it’s the teachers who are paid, not organizations, and that the teachers contribute some part of their fees to the maintenance of the organization. And that organizations that desire capital investment can lend against future earnings. And that we can only lend against future earnings if the citizenry is to insure the loan. These are the terms by which teachers can teach, schools can form. Not in the interests of the school owners, but in the interest of the teachers and the students. I think all education should be paid for as deductions from future earnings (payroll fees). And current costs covered from the treasury. Why? Because it’s an investment that produces guaranteed returns, if we keep honest statistics on the performance of different degree programs and their classes. (Early childhood ed is a very bad investment, right behind Sociology). Then universities and schools will not charge money for the modern equivalent of “indulgences” which they give people paper in exchange for participating in nonsense for years, all at the public expense. In university, paying teachers directly and separating teaching and researching staff, and paying them accordingly. (the way oxford and Cambridge were started) We can let the market regulate education by using the courts to punish people who teach untruths contrary to natural, physical, contractual, and logical laws. If we did this in just one generation we would change the world for the better nearly as much as we changed the world with greek reason, British science, and enlightenment literacy. Truth is as important an innovation as were literacy, reason, and science. It’s just unfortunate that it took us this long to discover what it means. So that’s my position: Private(wealthy), civic(middle), and public(lower) institutions for the purpose of education, paid for out of future earnings, teaching the minimums, requiring warranty, and separating spirituality and myth from action and truth. What will rapidly occur is that government schools will rapidly improve else the stigma close them, and as usual the wealthy will innovate and the rest benefit. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Monopoly State Education?

    Q&A: —“What are your thoughts on universal public education being provided by the state.”— GREAT QUESTION WHEREAS (1) Education provides both offensive and defensive benefits. So (a) Offensively, it increases the possibility of productivity (a commons). And (b) Defensively it reduces crime(loss), insurance(restitution) and welfare (prevention) costs. (Humans are really expensive things.) While we probably teach largely the wrong things today, and that we teach them poorly, (not enough repetition of basic operations), that does not mean that we cannot teach the right things. After Defense (external), and Law and order(internal), education is probably the most important offensive and defensive capability a group can add to the commons. So I am pretty sure education needs to be mandatory in order to avoid externalizing costs of failing to educate (prevention) on fellow shareholders (citizens), due to loss, restitution. ( Same with driving a vehicle without insurance. Or driving aggressively. You’re exporting risk onto others. ) Failing to educate is just like failing to respect property. It’s just more indirect. Now, if you have the right of exit, and your offspring have the right of exit, and you leave the market (territory), that’s not the case. But then you lose the benefits of being a member of the market (territory). So it’s your choice. It’s pretty hard to find a market that will allow entry of an uneducated person. It’s just going to force costs on shareholders (citizens) (2) So if education is both a necessary good, and a moral obligation, then the question is only (a)whether universal provision by the state is a necessary or preferable, and (b) whether the monopoly provision of it by the state is necessary or preferable. Well first we have to answer the externality question. Does universal provision by the state solve the problem of the costs of loss, restitution, and prevention? Well yes. It does. Does the scale of that provisioning convey any price benefits? Actually no. Because the bureaucracy consumes a disproportionate amount of the funds, without any measurable positive impact, and arguably negative. Does universal education using the same curriculum have positive or negative consequences. Well the answer is that any education must provide some minimum: reading, writing, basic math, basic personal accounting, basic principles of contract, basic principles of the economy. Basic principles of natural law, basic principles of physical laws. Note that I’ve included no mythology in that list. No justificationism. Does universal education need mythology? Well I think that teaching anything antithetical to natural and physical law, antithetical to contract, accounting, mathematics, and reading (the common tongue), is something that exports costs onto others through the propagation of falsehoods. Can I teach my own children mythology at home, or in religious school? Of course you can. If it is taught as spiritual, as faith, as psychology, but not in conflict with physical, natural, contactual, mathematical, literacy, or rhetorical, grammatical, and logical truth. There are no ancient texts that cannot be translated into ratio-scientific language as necessary and possible traditions of the time. There are no normative family and cultural traditions that cannot likewise be explained. There is no harm in prayer, ritual, and faith, even if there is harm in conflating spiritual(experiential) and truthful(testimonial). It’s very hard to argue with the sermon on the mount. And it’s not hard to state that them miracles are fairy tales meant to educated us on how we should aspire to behave toward one another. CLOSING So like anything, when we want to produce a private good (education) for common goods (costs of loss, restitution, and prevention), then the market will succeed at providing some goods (private education, church education, public education) just as it will succeed at providing other goods (private health care, church health care, state health care), and many other goods (private investor banking, commercial banking, credit unions, and state treasury support). So the problem we have had in the past, is not the failure to understand this problem, but the failure to require truth, while preserving faith. Because man does not live by truth alone unless he lives in a large primitive tribe where he is saturated by information supplied by peers and there is no meaningful information available to him that is not shared by those peers. Even in those circumstances we require faith in order to ease the various sufferings, and to cause the community to unite in celebration of the service of the common good. Ergo, we must warranty all speech, products and services against error, bias, wishful, thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit. And we must warranty the minimum (not ultimate) services that an individual must possess in order not to be a burden on others such that he invokes moral hazard, and by invoking moral hazard, creates the incentive in the commons to abandon perfect-care of the commons. This is a profoundly important issue: preservation of the incentive to preserve and expand the commons. And as long as one warranties minimum provision, no falsehood, and treats myths as necessary goods as long as they do not violate the natural and physical and contractual and logical law, then there is no reason we cannot provide public (insured education), private education(market provided education), and community education (church, etc), My suggestion, as always with regard to the professions, is (a) that I don’t believe anyone that is not a grandmother or grandfather should teach anything to anyone. Otherwise we have a person without life experience conveying the necessities of surviving life’s experiences. (b) that it’s the teachers who are paid, not organizations, and that the teachers contribute some part of their fees to the maintenance of the organization. And that organizations that desire capital investment can lend against future earnings. And that we can only lend against future earnings if the citizenry is to insure the loan. These are the terms by which teachers can teach, schools can form. Not in the interests of the school owners, but in the interest of the teachers and the students. I think all education should be paid for as deductions from future earnings (payroll fees). And current costs covered from the treasury. Why? Because it’s an investment that produces guaranteed returns, if we keep honest statistics on the performance of different degree programs and their classes. (Early childhood ed is a very bad investment, right behind Sociology). Then universities and schools will not charge money for the modern equivalent of “indulgences” which they give people paper in exchange for participating in nonsense for years, all at the public expense. In university, paying teachers directly and separating teaching and researching staff, and paying them accordingly. (the way oxford and Cambridge were started) We can let the market regulate education by using the courts to punish people who teach untruths contrary to natural, physical, contractual, and logical laws. If we did this in just one generation we would change the world for the better nearly as much as we changed the world with greek reason, British science, and enlightenment literacy. Truth is as important an innovation as were literacy, reason, and science. It’s just unfortunate that it took us this long to discover what it means. So that’s my position: Private(wealthy), civic(middle), and public(lower) institutions for the purpose of education, paid for out of future earnings, teaching the minimums, requiring warranty, and separating spirituality and myth from action and truth. What will rapidly occur is that government schools will rapidly improve else the stigma close them, and as usual the wealthy will innovate and the rest benefit. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Analysis Of The Strategies Of The Ukrainian And Russian Peoples And A Prediction Of The Future.

    —Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?— 1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now. 2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation. 2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians. 4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty. 5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity. 6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region. The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern. Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian. WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA? Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter. Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t. Without access to water russia cannot be a great power. WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER? They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it. Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable. So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status. So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law. She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites. Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow. IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle. THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS. (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to) BACK TO UKRAINE. A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration. So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP. Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.

  • Analysis Of The Strategies Of The Ukrainian And Russian Peoples And A Prediction Of The Future.

    —Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?— 1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now. 2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation. 2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians. 4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty. 5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity. 6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region. The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern. Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian. WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA? Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter. Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t. Without access to water russia cannot be a great power. WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER? They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it. Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable. So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status. So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law. She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites. Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow. IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle. THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS. (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to) BACK TO UKRAINE. A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration. So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP. Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.

  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.) 1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments. 3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law. 4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism. 5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law. 6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain. 8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law. 11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded. 13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time. 14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law. 20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW. 22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia. 23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying 28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language. 30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies. 33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women. 38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek. 43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER. 46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law. 50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading. 52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique). 54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth. 55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON. 58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ. 62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse. I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.) 1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments. 3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law. 4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism. 5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law. 6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain. 8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law. 11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded. 13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time. 14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law. 20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW. 22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia. 23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying 28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language. 30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies. 33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women. 38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek. 43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER. 46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law. 50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading. 52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique). 54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth. 55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON. 58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ. 62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse. I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

  • On Our New Church

    OUR NEW CHURCH: LETS FRAME THIS QUESTION OF THE CHURCH CORRECTLY (important) Myths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.) There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins. I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism, That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series of Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought. Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization. The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin. It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence. This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia. Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us. Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advanced FASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth. It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies. The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free. Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west. No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap. Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor. The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev. ( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )

  • On Our New Church

    OUR NEW CHURCH: LETS FRAME THIS QUESTION OF THE CHURCH CORRECTLY (important) Myths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.) There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins. I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism, That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series of Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought. Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization. The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin. It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence. This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia. Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us. Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advanced FASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth. It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies. The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free. Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west. No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap. Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor. The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev. ( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )

  • “Why is neo-progressivism so reliant upon the re-appropriation of Marxist doctri

    —“Why is neo-progressivism so reliant upon the re-appropriation of Marxist doctrine and Critical Theory?”— 1) Conservatism must speak in historical, moral, allegorical, and religious language because if stated ratio-scientifically it’s reducible to ‘eugenics in everything’, just as all of western civilization has been since the Kurgan invasions. So conservatives do not lie they just do not speak the truth. 2) Neo-Liberalism is just an attempt to turn america into the levant or south america so that an upper managerial caste can form and profit from administration of a vast underclass, just as the cosmopolitans did in eastern Europe before migrating to the states. They cannot say this. And there is no way to speak truthfully. Since they failed at pseudo-rational marxist religion, pseudoscientific economics and social science, and just gave up advocacy and started attacking western civilization at every level (cultural marxism / postmodernism / the frankfurt school). Democracy creates incentives to lie. Rule of law (constitutionalism) creates incentives to tell the truth. But conservatives don’t tell the truth, and neo-liberals just lie. Humans are vastly unequal and our evolution has been 5x that of the difference between humans and chimpanzees over the past 30k years alone. These differences are largely visible as differences in rates of maturity, depth of maturity, and sexual dimorphism, and the relative sizes of the lower and upper classes. This means that conservatism is true but a large domestic empire is impossible. It means that progressivism is false, and that a large domestic empire will produced colored casts very much like india with little or no rotation. Everyone lies. The only solution is to break up the empire and continue the BIG SORT.

  • Enfranchising : (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not full

    Enfranchising: (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not fully integrated into:

    • (i) Christian ethics
    • (ii) Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal application, strict construction
    • (iii) the absolute nuclear family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and commons
    • (iv) individual economic responsibility

    without : (d) giving each a new house of parliament/government. The english system of multiple houses created a **market** for the construction of commons between the classes. Creating majoritarian single-house democracy created** majority tyranny**, and put the lowest classes with the largest numbers in control of government and has destroyed western civilizations’ historical dependence upon empiricism in under a century. This required we basically develop propaganda, ideology, and deception in order to rule underclasses by vote. This single decision, made in the euphoria of the proceeds of the industrial revolution, caused the destruction of western civilization.