Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • OUR TRIFUNCTIONALISM by Daniel (or Dan) McCoy Georges Dumézil was a twentieth-ce

    OUR TRIFUNCTIONALISM

    by Daniel (or Dan) McCoy

    Georges Dumézil was a twentieth-century comparative mythologist like Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung. Dumézil’s primary contribution to Indo-European studies was his theory of “trifunctionalism,” the idea that a particular arrangement of three societal “functions” lay at the heart of Indo-European life and thought. This arrangement manifested itself most straightforwardly in the social hierarchy, which consisted of three classes that corresponded to the three functions. However, as the word “function” implies, the three classes were distinguished not just according to differing quantitative amounts of power, but also qualitatively in terms of the “functions” that each of the three groups served within society. The Indo-Europeans’ gods, too, were organized into this trifunctional structure.

    What, then, are these three functions?

    The first function is that of sovereignty, and corresponds to the highest social class – that of rulers, priests, and legal specialists. This function is divided into two aspects, one “magical” and the other “juridical.”[2] The former “consists of the mysterious administration, the ‘magic’ of the universe, the general ordering of the cosmos. This is a ‘disquieting’ aspect, terrifying from certain perspectives. The other aspect is more reassuring, more oriented to the human world. It is the ‘juridical’ part of the sovereign function.”[3]

    The Indo-Europeans’ gods of the first function tend to include one god who falls into each of these two categories. One is a “magician-creator” who rules “by virtue of [his] creative violence,” while the other is a “jurist-organizer” who rules “by virtue of [his] organizing wisdom.”[4] The two types of sovereign gods form an “antithesis,” but complement one another rather than being in conflict.[5]

    The second function “carries the trait of physical force in all its manifestations, from energy, to heroism, to courage.” Its “insatiable champions… vanquish demons and save the universe.”[6] In human society, the second function is the class of warriors, who carry out the orders of the first class and fight on behalf of their people. The gods of the second function are warriors whose intellectual abilities are inferior to those of the first, but who possess the necessary strength to actually put the decisions of the intellectual gods into action.

    The third function “is the generative function. It is the domain of the healers, of youth, of luxury, of fecundity, of prosperity; also the domain of the healing gods, the patron deities of goods, of opulence – and also of the ‘people,’ as opposed to the small number of warriors and kings.”[7] The third function’s human social class consists of the farmers, herders, and other “common people” engaged in productive physical labor, who provide the goods necessary for the sustenance of themselves and of the rest of society. Its gods are those who preside over fertility, abundance, and peace. They tend to be simple but wealthy and fun-loving.

    For Dumézil, “The Indo-European vision of a smoothly functioning world required an ‘organization’ in which the representatives of the first function commanded, the second fought for and defended the community, and the third (the greatest number of them) worked and were productive. In their eyes, it was in this hierarchy that one found the harmony necessary to the proper functioning of the cosmos, as well as that of the society. It’s an Indo-European version of the ‘social contract.’”[8]

    Although a similar social organization can be found in various non-Indo-European societies, what makes the Indo-European concept distinct is just how foundational and pervasive it was in their worldview, theology, cosmology, mythology, and political philosophy. It touched every aspect of their way of life and their outlook on life.[9]

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-31 14:38:00 UTC

  • WORK ON CHRISTIANITY I work under the principle that the laws of nature, the nat

    https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/going-into-depth-on-trifunctionalism-vs-competing-civilizations/MY WORK ON CHRISTIANITY

    I work under the principle that the laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the evolutionary necessity of transcendence are the same whether we state them in Theological, Philosophical, and Scientific language.

    So whether you intuit, think, and speak in the Christian, Deist, or Naturalist language, and whether you choose to adhere to physical laws, the natural law of man, and the necessity of evolutionary laws out of faith, reason, or science, is irrelevant to the individual or to the polity, or to mankind unless you selfishly demand the rest of the world conform to your way of thinking, speaking.

    On the other hand, if you do not live in accordance with the physical, natural, and evolutionary then you work against yourself, your polity, your people, and mankind – and when you do so, you work against the Christian God, the deist god, or the condition of our people past present and future.

    In my work, to defend against the enemies of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, I must put these laws in a constitution in the language of the law, and science is the language of the law. Because we need people to think across the spectrum of intuitive, rational, and empirical thought so that we can solve intuitive, rational, and empirical questions, for intuitive, rational, and empirical minds. And we cannot demand people intuit, think, and speak in exclusively intuitive, rational, or empirical language. All we can do is demand that people behave according to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. We cannot force people to have faith, reason, or the burden of the sciences, nor to abandon faith, reason, and the utility of the sciences. We can only write the law such that those who ACT contrary to the laws of nature, of man, and of evolutionary transcendence, can be prosecuted by the law, in the language of the law, if they transgress. Because the law consists only of the means of resolving disputes over action – not of intuition, feeling, or thought.

    REASON FOR CHRISTIAN AGITATION

    Over the past few years I have worked very hard on comparative religion, and have come to understand why we desire it and how it fulfills those desires by a spectrum of means from the rational to the emotional.

    I was trying to solve a number of problems:

    1. The means by which judaism, christianity, and islam are taught and argued are the same means by which marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and the denial of the nature of mankind are taught and argued. So I was searching for a legal means to prevent the use of this method of teaching and arguing while preserving the good of christianity. This resulted in the same answer Thomas Jefferson came to when he compiled The Jefferson Bible. This Jefferson bible presents us with a Jesus who is ‘pure’ and free of dogma. And I discovered that while this is possible it is not tolerable. And because it is not tolerable it is impossible.

    I care only about the generations of our european religions. Including prehistoric natural, ancient heroic, and medieval Christian. And I care about preserving all three generations of them because of one of our unspoken secrets: european trifunctionalism. When christians use this method of teaching and arguing against me or my work it makes me very angry – because I understand that this method is the means by which our civilization has been destroyed by the postwar jewish movement against western civlization. And I this threat is very real, very serious, and we are almost lost.

    So between my investigation into how to eliminate the abrahamic method of teaching and arguing, and between my frustration with the frequent use of this method by christians who were agitated by my investigation, I created a great deal of friction between the faithful, philosophical, and empirical Christians.

    2. I want to outlaw false religions that seek to destroy christianity, our philosophy, our science, our law, our civilization and our people. In particular, neigher Judaism nor Islam are religions – they are means of warfare from within masquerading as a religion. Early Christianity was likewise a means of warfare from within – we merley managed to ‘civilize it’ over the centuries after it was introduced to europe.

    3. I want to restore the religion to its political competition to the state, and restore its responsibility for birth, age of maturity, marriage, family and – at least – early education, and death. The state has proven too fashionable and religion’s value is in defense against the fashions and folly of the age.

    These three challenges are the reason for the conflict we have created between those of us who practice *empirical christianity* in the natural law, and those that practice spiritual and theological christianity.

    I advocate that we speak faith in matters of faith – the spirit, and law in matters of law – the material. And that if we attempt to cross those lines we must engage in deceit. And deceit is neither moral under the natural law, or moral under christian ethics.

    So we must continue our prehistoric practice of Trifunctionalism, which is the continuous balance of power between the Military, Law, and Faith.

    And in short, deliver unto God and Caesar each as his due.

    There is no place for theology in court.

    There is no place for court in faith.

    ABOUT EUROPEAN TRIFUNCTIONALISM

    https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/going-into-depth-on-trifunctionalism-vs-competing-civilizations/Updated Mar 31, 2020, 1:50 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-31 13:50:00 UTC

  • SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF.

    SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE

    That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for the audience. And JF has to keep the audience engaged. Between my long expositions and jf’s audience representation it required a little cat herding on my part. That said, I think we got there.

    SUMMARY:

    (a) we are born with a distribution of moral preferences (Demand for treatment from others, and resistance to demands from other)s,

    (b) we exercise our moral preferences in a market competition for cooperation wherein we discover cooperation (sexual, social, economic, political, military) with people that satisfy our moral preferences,

    (c) groups of people increase in a division of labor and as they do so converge on moral norms (requirements for cooperation) that allow them to cooperatively succeed in their geographic, demographic, economic, institutional, and military conditions – and some of these they institute as laws (punishments for violations)

    (d) across human groups we converge on the same underlying rule within each of those different markets (e) that rule is reciprocity that preserves cooperation and prevents retaliation, within the limits of proportionality that cause members to defect.

    (e) but moral rules are only useful in creating and preserving cooperation and the outsized returns on cooperation,

    (f) and cooperation must be more beneficial than parasitism(free riding, black markets, rent seeking, corruption etc), and predation (conquest).

    (g) all human organizations of all kinds seek the minimum morality, maximum free riding, rent seeking, and corruption until there is insufficient free capital to incentivize adjustment to shocks, and the civilization collapses

    (h) so there is no moral rule outside of the utility of cooperation because ‘moral’ can only mean ‘within the limits of reciprocity and proportionality among those of us cooperating’. There is no morality in war.

    (i) the only universal moral rule is reciprocity – do not impose costs, including risks, directly or indirectly upon the demonstrated interests of others in your group.

    (j) there are no possible via positiva universal moral statements. Anything that is not immoral (reciprocal) is moral. People who claim otherwise are engaging in an act of fraud by claiming their preference must be paid for by others irreciprocally. They claim debts or injustice when there is none.

    SERIES:

    Evil < Criminal < Unethical < Immoral < Amoral > Moral > Ethical > Virtuous > Righteous

    CLOSING

    As such, JF was correct at the personal level in that all individuals demonstrate variation in moral demand of others;;

    And SM was half right at the socio-political level, and half right at the universal level, but stated the via positiva preference for a good instead of via negativa prohibition on the bad.

    In this sense both parties, adopting ideal types, rather than the use of series, talked past each other.

    P-law makes use of disambiguation through “operationalism, competition, and serialization’, and relies on the logic of incentives, supply and demand.

    We convert psychological , social, legal and political concepts into economic terms to take advantage of the minimization of error that results, at the expense of more reasoning and less intuiting.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 13:27:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER. (in res

    PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER.

    (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)

    —“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks

    If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err.

    PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 14:32:00 UTC

  • NO WE CANNOT RETURN TO COMMODITY MONEY A return to commodity money can’t be done

    NO WE CANNOT RETURN TO COMMODITY MONEY

    A return to commodity money can’t be done. It privileges investors at the expense of ordinary people, and managing the supply of money is too valuable for an economy. No economy can compete without it. And there are other vehicles for storing capital – including commodity money, real estate, commodities (how oil functions today). Commodity Money has value external to it being used as money. Currency only has value as commodity money substitute. Asking a country not to use currency (shares of stock in the economy) is as ridiculous as telling companies that they can’t issue public shares of stock, nor release additional shares of stock. Like all things, libertarian ideas were attempts to westernize jewish diasporic ethics of the pale that depended upon specializing in extractive usury, and using the proceeds to construct rent seeking, and baiting into hazard.

    (Falsification of Libertarian Dogma: “What right do you have to the appreciation of the purchasing power of a currency without contributing to the production of that value?” And “What right do you have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a currency?” And “Why does an lender have right to price stability at the expense of the rest of the marketplace?” Those are the three demands that drive the (((usury))) philosophy we call’ libertarianism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 08:01:00 UTC

  • “BYE BYE FED.” TRUMP DID IT. IT”S BEAUTIFUL. Like I said. “In the next crisis th

    “BYE BYE FED.” TRUMP DID IT. IT”S BEAUTIFUL.

    Like I said. “In the next crisis these solutions are deterministic”

    Like I said. “Idiots predict timing. But processes are deterministic.”

    FROM BLOOMBERG

    —“In just these past few weeks, the Fed has cut rates by 150 basis points to near zero and run through its entire 2008 crisis handbook. That wasn’t enough to calm markets, though — so the central bank also announced $1 trillion a day in repurchase agreements and unlimited quantitative easing, which includes a hard-to-understand $625 billion of bond buying a week going forward. At this rate, the Fed will own two-thirds of the Treasury market in a year.

    But it’s the alphabet soup of new programs that deserve special consideration, as they could have profound long-term consequences for the functioning of the Fed and the allocation of capital in financial markets. Specifically, these are:

    CPFF (Commercial Paper Funding Facility) – buying commercial paper from the issuer. PMCCF (Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility) – buying corporate bonds from the issuer. TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) – funding backstop for asset-backed securities. SMCCF (Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility) – buying corporate bonds and bond ETFs in the secondary market. MSBLP (Main Street Business Lending Program) – Details are to come, but it will lend to eligible small and medium-size businesses, complementing efforts by the Small Business Association.

    To put it bluntly, the Fed isn’t allowed to do any of this. The central bank is only allowed to purchase or lend against securities that have government guarantee. This includes Treasury securities, agency mortgage-backed securities and the debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. An argument can be made that can also include municipal securities, but nothing in the laundry list above.

    So how can they do this? The Fed will finance a special purpose vehicle (SPV) for each acronym to conduct these operations. The Treasury, using the Exchange Stabilization Fund, will make an equity investment in each SPV and be in a “first loss” position. What does this mean? In essence, the Treasury, not the Fed, is buying all these securities and backstopping of loans; the Fed is acting as banker and providing financing. The Fed hired BlackRock Inc. to purchase these securities and handle the administration of the SPVs on behalf of the owner, the Treasury.

    In other words, the federal government is nationalizing large swaths of the financial markets. The Fed is providing the money to do it. BlackRock will be doing the trades.

    This scheme essentially merges the Fed and Treasury into one organization. So, meet your new Fed chairman, Donald J. Trump.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 23:35:00 UTC

  • LESSONS LEARNED FROM THIS MONTH’S CRISIS There is nothing brilliant to be learne

    LESSONS LEARNED FROM THIS MONTH’S CRISIS

    There is nothing brilliant to be learned from the virus other than the fact that the government and bureaucracy failed again, by regulating during a stable market such that they created fragility (as always) during a panic market – thereby eliminating the european advantage (OODA LOOP) of dynamic adaptation to catastrophes crises, shocks, and changes.

    (see p on the european group strategy of markets in everything)

    We learned that the FDA and CDC followed the Department of Education into a failure of their core mission – because all bureaucracies expand work to fill available time, and expand rent seeking and privilege to the point of fragility. We will likely fail again to learn the lesson that regulation without clauses for crisis variation is less effective than threat of punishment. (see p on adaptive government)

    We learned that high corporate taxes, regulations, and unions drove production of strategic industries overseas so that they cannot be mobilized for non-market use in a crisis. (see p on full accounting by rule of law rather than free trade)

    We learned that once mobilized the private sector can adapt more rapidly than the public sector because it is NOT hierarchical.

    (see p on multiple economies rather than monolithic economy)

    We learned that the democratic party will do anything for power, just as the republican party will do anything to deny the left power – and we learned as we did in the impeachment that the democratic elites are underclass, jewish or female and the republican elites are middle class european or male.

    (see p on individual accountability of legislators)

    We learned that almost no one (other than the president business leaders, financial leadership) grasps that if the USA falls into depression that the whole world will collapse like a stone, and that we are fulfilling the cyclical predication that it will result in world scale warfare as states seize opportunities in duress that they could not seize in a period of stability and wealth creation.

    We learned that the press remains the enemy of the american people and that this crisis will possibly be their last gasp.

    (see p on accountability of the press in public speech)

    We learned that the Chinese as always practice face regardless of costs and we pay for it.

    (see p on foreign accountability for public speech in matters of the commons)

    We learned that globalization is over.

    (see p on universal nationalism)

    We learned that this disease will most likely be with us like the seasonal flu until there is a vaccine, but that unlike the seasonal flu, if we survive it, we are scarred by it.

    We learned that we will be in some sort of crisis through August just in time for the hate-meter to break the scales in the fall election cycle.

    And we learned that the Overton window is in a whirlpool that none of us can predict.

    (See p constitution for a western renaissance)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-26 12:57:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM IS EVOLVING INTO PROPERTARIANISM (SOVEREIGNTARIANISM) “Freedom an

    LIBERTARIANISM IS EVOLVING INTO PROPERTARIANISM (SOVEREIGNTARIANISM)

    “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”

    —“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer

    —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse

    The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational).

    The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures.

    The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means.

    What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political.

    I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat.

    That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands.

    They do it TOGETHER.

    There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law.

    Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism.

    There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance

    Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-26 12:30:00 UTC

  • We have to get the solution complete enough to demand, during period where peopl

    We have to get the solution complete enough to demand, during period where people seek a solution, and it must be advocated by public advocates that can comprehend why we need to restore the constitution and separate under the original intention of the constitution.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-18 18:01:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240337599480377344

    Reply addressees: @SgtD_isBack @RealJamesWoods

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1240337026098106371

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SgtD_isBack @RealJamesWoods Yes. But does he want to change from activist to leader? In other words, once he stakes a claim on a SOLUTION he’s risking his influence as a CRITIC. The only person I know that will do that is Ann. The problem is converting attention driving critics to solution driving leaders.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1240337026098106371

  • I’ve had three influenzas from china in my lifetime: 76, 95, 13. This one is the

    I’ve had three influenzas from china in my lifetime: 76, 95, 13. This one is the most dangerous.

    China is face before truth. The west is truth before face.
    Solve the problem in china and save the world from the oldest most fertile disease factory. Face is lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-10 04:07:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237228664439308288

    Reply addressees: @shanlonwu

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237227593419706368

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @shanlonwu Well let’s be serious, most diseases evolve in china for well understood reasons including import of exotic animals, poor sanitation, endemic filth, poor regulation, high corruption, density, and questionable ethics. And the rather obvious difference between JP and CN kitchens.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1237227593419706368