(FB 1541786158 Timestamp) once males had tools, and particularly spears it was possible for females to rally males to constrain alphas – and females could gain some control of reproduction, – and contractualism could improve among males. Her argument that females were abused is a moralism – meaningless. evolution doesn’t care. groups of males possess territory and females in competition with other males who desire to take both. females can obtain ingroup status and influence more safely than outgroup. humans developed pairing off and serial monogamy out of safety since males will kill over access to females (reproduction) more so than any other incentive. agrarianism changed everything and gave us marriage and property. as well as customs and laws. we are in a post agrarian period and reverting to serial monogamy in lower classes and maintaining monogamy in the upper. this has drastically increased single motherhood, lower male loyalty to offspring, decreased household size and eliminated the middle class. women’s intuitions are cumulatively decivilizing (experiential rather than consequential) under monopoly democracy, so without creating separate houses of government for males and females, we should continue to decline into the south american model with women’s entry into the voting pool the cause.
Form: Mini Essay
-
WHY THE MIDDLE MUST RULE
(FB 1541782649 Timestamp) WHY THE MIDDLE MUST RULE by John Mark The Middle is only population segment with natural incentives to succeed honestly. The top likes to steal (corruption) cuz they can (they have the power to do so unless the middle punishes them for it). The bottom wants/tries to steal because they are too low-IQ to succeed much honestly. The middle is capable enough to succeed honestly but not powerful enough to have the opportunity to gain much by stealing/corruption. Thus the middle must rule, and restrain the bottom and top. Actually the law (natural law of reciprocity, Curt’s work and new constitution) must rule, but it will be primarily enforced by the middle whose incentives line up most with natural law.
-
Stomping on The Bunnies of Your Self Worth
(FB 1541953973 Timestamp) STOMPING ON THE BUNNIES OF YOUR SELF WORTH (important if your self worth can tolerate it) —“Religion is what you do every day . doctrine and dogma are your expressions of your mental interpretations of your belief system.”— Ken Duggan Well, again,that’s a falsehood. A religion consists of a false presumption or more, a false promise or more, a set of narratives within those falsehoods, a set of rituals that demonstrate your investments in them, and a group strategy produced by all of the above. One can theorize (science and history), philosophize (reason and ideals), or fictionalize (theology and myths). A scientist doesn’t lie about that distinction. Both philosophers and theologians do. The reason you resort to religion is because the painful truth of your market value to others is too low to rely on philosophy (reason and ideals) or science science and the real). This illusion of self worth, social worth, market worth, is the ‘payment’ you receive in the form of mindfulness, in exchange for investing in training your intuition to calculate in falsehoods. Because in reality – few of us have much worth other than that we do no harm. And the benefits of the market created by doing no harm exist for us despite the fact that we have little or no value other than doing no harm. If that does not crush your ego, I don’t know what will. But that is the undeniable, painful, undesirable truth. Most people are dead weight on Mankind and The Planet, and the Universe.
-
Jordan Peterson’s Strategy Explained for The Hard (aristocratic, Martial, Judicial) Right
(FB 1541950854 Timestamp) JORDAN PETERSON’S STRATEGY EXPLAINED FOR THE HARD (ARISTOCRATIC, MARTIAL, JUDICIAL) RIGHT Peterson preserves his ability to maintain a low intensity conflict, under the illusion that it is merely a low intensity conflict, as a defensive means of CONTINUING a low intensity conflict for a long period, and thereby accumulating attrition upon the enemy by continuous, incremental, cumulative means. THE RIGHT’S INTERPRETATION OF HIS ACTIONS The Aristocratic (Truth Telling Warrior) and Judicial (Truth Telling Natural Law) and Defensive Function (truth as extension of disgust, purity, loyalty) of both Martial and Judicial Aristocracy (“The Right”) objects to this technique – but in doing so, illustrates why Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Darwin, Nietzsche, and Military Grand Strategy are necessary courses of study: so that we do not confuse the moral, ideal, and eternal with the scientific, the real, and the temporal: we must retain REASON and AGENCY because of the PARTICULAR CASE, and not resort to HABIT and INTUITION because of the GENERAL standards of measure we rely upon for our group strategy. THE CORRECT CRITICISM OF PETERSON (AND HIS PEERS) My complaint against Peterson is consistent: (1) Truth proper is enough for western civilization because it is the source of the uniqueness of western civilization, and (2) his claim that wisdom (choice) is the same as truth (decidability) in order to (3) preserve his malinvestment in middle eastern literature (intuitionism) instead of exclusively western literature (reason), because (4) he practices his method of cognitive behavioral therapy (stoicism), by using storytelling (providing the objectivity of the observer) as a means of suggestion (which does succeed), instead of action ( demonstration), and self authority. And he does this because (5) he is artful in the technique of manipulation by suggestion using narrative analogy, and possess moral intent – but (6) failing to grasp that the entirety of the problem facing western civilization is that by not forbidding that technique of suggestion, we leave open the MAJORITY USE OF IT, by those who have possessed immoral intent: the abrahamists, marxists, feminist, and postmodernists. Because (7) we evolved to be suggestable by mothers using the feminine speech pattern, and it is the weaponization of that speech pattern under Abrahamism, Marxism, postmodernism, feminism – what we call ‘religious thought’ that has exploited the weakness not only in the modern Marxist, Postmodernist, Feminist era, but also in the ancient Zoroastrian, Abrahamic (jewish, christian, islamic) era, that brought about the dark ages, leaving ONLY THE FAR EAST (by design) and sub-saharan africa (by cost of access) insulated from the exploitation of this vulnerability. THEREFORE Think of Peterson as tying some number of the enemy down in the the narrows (Thermopylae) while we (the army and navy) martial our intellectual (strategic) and physical (revolt, civil war). They cannot afford to lose this battle with him. (and they are losing it). But it is up to us to defeat them, crush the army of deceit (Abrahamic, Marxist, Postmodernist, Feminist) and to restore Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Rule of Natural Law, and Markets in Everything that result from all of the above, with TOTAL DENIAL OF THE ENEMY of the field of exploiting our people’s weakness to suggestion by ‘want of the comforting and desirable narrative of our mothers that calms us in times of stress’. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541902625 Timestamp) THE MARKET WILL SUPPLY THE ANSWER IF YOU CREATE IT. MARKETS NOT PLANS. GOALS NOT TASKS. Excuse me for reveling in it a bit, but you know, it seems like Bill’s group has percolated a set of arguments in form of traditional wisdom on top of the analytic content, and that this is the ‘market’ providing leadership by consequence rather than design. It is not what I would have intended, but it is what the majority of men need. I had hoped to work with those few young men that fell prey to the easy temptations of authoritarianism, to create a cadre of very analytic judges like myself – because it is the intellectuals I want to fight on intellectual terms in the open field of public debate. And I suspect I must learn something from that failure. That ‘the dark side’ of simplicity is too tempting for the impatience of young men, too inexperienced at the conflict of men of achievement, to have the patience to conduct intellectual warfare rather than the duels of the young men seeking quick status rather than accumulated capital. That failure aside, It seems the scientist and engineer in me has produced what I desired. But that the talent of these men has produced what the market needs. The market will produce leaders. They merely need the weapons with which to conduct the current war, rather than the last. The leaders of the revolution will come from those that do not seek quick personal accolades, in internet duels, but COMBINED ARMS in producing that spectrum of ideas necessary for the spectrum of packs of men to understand, execute, and bring in to fruition.
-
Jordan Peterson’s Strategy Explained for The Hard (aristocratic, Martial, Judicial) Right
(FB 1541950854 Timestamp) JORDAN PETERSON’S STRATEGY EXPLAINED FOR THE HARD (ARISTOCRATIC, MARTIAL, JUDICIAL) RIGHT Peterson preserves his ability to maintain a low intensity conflict, under the illusion that it is merely a low intensity conflict, as a defensive means of CONTINUING a low intensity conflict for a long period, and thereby accumulating attrition upon the enemy by continuous, incremental, cumulative means. THE RIGHT’S INTERPRETATION OF HIS ACTIONS The Aristocratic (Truth Telling Warrior) and Judicial (Truth Telling Natural Law) and Defensive Function (truth as extension of disgust, purity, loyalty) of both Martial and Judicial Aristocracy (“The Right”) objects to this technique – but in doing so, illustrates why Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Darwin, Nietzsche, and Military Grand Strategy are necessary courses of study: so that we do not confuse the moral, ideal, and eternal with the scientific, the real, and the temporal: we must retain REASON and AGENCY because of the PARTICULAR CASE, and not resort to HABIT and INTUITION because of the GENERAL standards of measure we rely upon for our group strategy. THE CORRECT CRITICISM OF PETERSON (AND HIS PEERS) My complaint against Peterson is consistent: (1) Truth proper is enough for western civilization because it is the source of the uniqueness of western civilization, and (2) his claim that wisdom (choice) is the same as truth (decidability) in order to (3) preserve his malinvestment in middle eastern literature (intuitionism) instead of exclusively western literature (reason), because (4) he practices his method of cognitive behavioral therapy (stoicism), by using storytelling (providing the objectivity of the observer) as a means of suggestion (which does succeed), instead of action ( demonstration), and self authority. And he does this because (5) he is artful in the technique of manipulation by suggestion using narrative analogy, and possess moral intent – but (6) failing to grasp that the entirety of the problem facing western civilization is that by not forbidding that technique of suggestion, we leave open the MAJORITY USE OF IT, by those who have possessed immoral intent: the abrahamists, marxists, feminist, and postmodernists. Because (7) we evolved to be suggestable by mothers using the feminine speech pattern, and it is the weaponization of that speech pattern under Abrahamism, Marxism, postmodernism, feminism – what we call ‘religious thought’ that has exploited the weakness not only in the modern Marxist, Postmodernist, Feminist era, but also in the ancient Zoroastrian, Abrahamic (jewish, christian, islamic) era, that brought about the dark ages, leaving ONLY THE FAR EAST (by design) and sub-saharan africa (by cost of access) insulated from the exploitation of this vulnerability. THEREFORE Think of Peterson as tying some number of the enemy down in the the narrows (Thermopylae) while we (the army and navy) martial our intellectual (strategic) and physical (revolt, civil war). They cannot afford to lose this battle with him. (and they are losing it). But it is up to us to defeat them, crush the army of deceit (Abrahamic, Marxist, Postmodernist, Feminist) and to restore Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Rule of Natural Law, and Markets in Everything that result from all of the above, with TOTAL DENIAL OF THE ENEMY of the field of exploiting our people’s weakness to suggestion by ‘want of the comforting and desirable narrative of our mothers that calms us in times of stress’. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1541902625 Timestamp) THE MARKET WILL SUPPLY THE ANSWER IF YOU CREATE IT. MARKETS NOT PLANS. GOALS NOT TASKS. Excuse me for reveling in it a bit, but you know, it seems like Bill’s group has percolated a set of arguments in form of traditional wisdom on top of the analytic content, and that this is the ‘market’ providing leadership by consequence rather than design. It is not what I would have intended, but it is what the majority of men need. I had hoped to work with those few young men that fell prey to the easy temptations of authoritarianism, to create a cadre of very analytic judges like myself – because it is the intellectuals I want to fight on intellectual terms in the open field of public debate. And I suspect I must learn something from that failure. That ‘the dark side’ of simplicity is too tempting for the impatience of young men, too inexperienced at the conflict of men of achievement, to have the patience to conduct intellectual warfare rather than the duels of the young men seeking quick status rather than accumulated capital. That failure aside, It seems the scientist and engineer in me has produced what I desired. But that the talent of these men has produced what the market needs. The market will produce leaders. They merely need the weapons with which to conduct the current war, rather than the last. The leaders of the revolution will come from those that do not seek quick personal accolades, in internet duels, but COMBINED ARMS in producing that spectrum of ideas necessary for the spectrum of packs of men to understand, execute, and bring in to fruition.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542044411 Timestamp) Authoritarians (Absolutists) Suffer from the same problem as do Marxists: “Well it didn’t work here and here, but that’s because I would do it the RIGHT way. When the entire problem is, that an absolutist can in fact know what is wrong, but cannot know what is right or best broadly enough to govern. Knowledge is not commutable between disciplines. Ergo, absolutism fails for the same reason communism and socialism fail: Hayekian Knowledge at Scale. So A perfect government consists of SPECIALIZING in one’s domain of interest: Self-Interest. The self interest of the monarchy is his CAPITAL: Aesthetics (The Arts and Aesthetic Commons); Institutions (means of producing prosperity), Demographics (quality of those he rules), and Military (Power to deny usurpation). But the market that preserves each of those systems of capital formation (aesthetic, economic, human, and defensive) is created by the LAW (judges and courts) whose sole purpose is to prevent usurpation of the capital production of each of classes (Artistic, Economic, Familial, and Martial). This is not a bourgeois political bias to the production of commons suitable to the population, it is merely SCIENCE of dividing the scope of what is decidable among those that can do so. Ergo, Monarchy is the judge of last resort in all matters, and it is in his monumental interest to control the arts, and therefore the people VIA the arts. To raise new funds the monarchy can direct its income from TERRITORIAL RENTS the same way the NOBILITY can raise new funds by investing in COMMERCIAL PROFITS. But neither may impose upon the other – although the judiciary and military may choose otherwise in time of war (dictatorship).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542044411 Timestamp) Authoritarians (Absolutists) Suffer from the same problem as do Marxists: “Well it didn’t work here and here, but that’s because I would do it the RIGHT way. When the entire problem is, that an absolutist can in fact know what is wrong, but cannot know what is right or best broadly enough to govern. Knowledge is not commutable between disciplines. Ergo, absolutism fails for the same reason communism and socialism fail: Hayekian Knowledge at Scale. So A perfect government consists of SPECIALIZING in one’s domain of interest: Self-Interest. The self interest of the monarchy is his CAPITAL: Aesthetics (The Arts and Aesthetic Commons); Institutions (means of producing prosperity), Demographics (quality of those he rules), and Military (Power to deny usurpation). But the market that preserves each of those systems of capital formation (aesthetic, economic, human, and defensive) is created by the LAW (judges and courts) whose sole purpose is to prevent usurpation of the capital production of each of classes (Artistic, Economic, Familial, and Martial). This is not a bourgeois political bias to the production of commons suitable to the population, it is merely SCIENCE of dividing the scope of what is decidable among those that can do so. Ergo, Monarchy is the judge of last resort in all matters, and it is in his monumental interest to control the arts, and therefore the people VIA the arts. To raise new funds the monarchy can direct its income from TERRITORIAL RENTS the same way the NOBILITY can raise new funds by investing in COMMERCIAL PROFITS. But neither may impose upon the other – although the judiciary and military may choose otherwise in time of war (dictatorship).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542053782 Timestamp) THE ECONOMICS OF GENDER —“the Hermetic principle. Gender exists within everything. Male, female, hard, soft, light, dark. The similarities between his comparisons are characteristics of gender.”–Bradley Morgan Um.. how would you state that scientifically: I can, in that the computational efficiency (calculation of successful specialization) of genders (two of them) defeated all other permutations and the additional calculative variation of additional genders seems to NOT provide enough additional value to compete with two genders. There is an argument that male and female cognitive structures in humans produce a spectrum from extremes of either end to a balance, and that this allows us to calculate the exploitation of a wider variety of opportunities than rigid specialization would. This is possibly the optimum method of evolutionary progress because we do not require the cost of a third or more gender, but we can still produce adaptive responses and express them anywhere between the extremes.