(FB 1542230800 Timestamp) THE INSTITUTE AS A DEGREE ISSUING “INSTITUTION” Regulations in the United States require only a business license and the payment of taxes, and do not require a business issuing degrees to possess accreditation prior to the conduct of operations. The reason being that the accreditation process takes a long time – usually years – and accrediting an operating organization is less failure prone. That does not mean the criteria for accredited organizations can be ignored, just that the startup costs and time of issuing degrees in the Philosophy of Natural Law (whether in the context of ‘theology’, philosophy, or law. The value of accreditation is that it gives access to student loans, and therefore a broader range of students, a broader range of classes, and a larger pool of professors. There are a great number of advantages to conducting business as a THEOLOGICAL rather than purely academic institution and we are still exploring that choice. This allows us to explicitly require physical, emotional and intellectual training for satisfaction of degree requirements. Furthermore, the positioning of Natural Law as a Religion has additional benefits. So again, we are working through it. Because it is not so much that you would use such a degree for career purposes (any more than any philosophy degree). As such we WILL BE ISSUING DEGREES. Anyway. More as thoughts evolve on this matter.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542213632 Timestamp) JOHN MARK: MEASURING OTHERS’ PROGRESS IN THE JOURNEY That spectrum/journey is the journey from hope in the ability to teach/shame/influence people into acting in a responsible and beneficial (reciprocal) manner (in accordance with natural law), to realizing that only the law (violence or threat of it) can do that. Now that I see it, I see it everywhere. So often I see people saying things like “The solution is for people to realize that (xyz)…” or “The solution is we have to teach people that (xyz)…” I recognize instantly that they are not far enough along on the spectrum/journey. –John Mark — He’s Referring to this — THE ARISTOCRATIC (RESPONSIBILITY) SALES FUNNEL All of the people who start out edgy, tend to move back up the sales funnel (wider audience) because they perceive they are doing more good with wider reach, by driving more people into the sales funnel. Everyone has to move thu the ‘sales funnel’ from well meaning fool to man of agency. I did it and it sure seems like most other men do. “Nice Person” > Social Democracy > Classical Liberalism > Libertarianism > anarcho capitalism > Neo Reaction > Propertarianism > (some version of , fuck it, let’s just impose it.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542290125 Timestamp) Mesopotamian (Semitic) literature is underclass the same way that greek literature is upper class and roman literature (and english for that matter) is middle class. River lands and Forests are wonderful. Deserts suck. People are ignorant, dirty, superstitious poor, and tribal. Disease is rampant. Violence endemic. Thieving heroic. There is a vast difference between the wealthy and the poor. This is not so true in western civilization for geographic and demographic reasons. Just as it was not true in east asia. Just as it was less true in india. So while western lit is heroic (early european, aryan european, greek, roman… all of these are heroic literatures. They are not the submissive literatures of the mesopotamians and the egyptians. Whatever happens along the euphrates and the nile, we can certainly see in Gobekli Tepe and in all of the cities in the near east. Submission. This is not the literature of the hittites (anatolians), old europeans (balkans), There is a relationship between the russian steppe people, the mongols, and the turkic raiders, in levels of development and harshness of nature, but also an influence and more genetic similarity with the other post-ice-age peoples of europe, which were more influential via the scandinavians, pole-germans, germans, and even french. The church came into slavic peoples without being able to create an extractive political order as they were in europe. The bad people were the boyars, not the church. Where europeans took out their anger on the church and the aristocracy, americans did it on the aristocracy, europe in general, but were fully protestant and lacking central church political power, so without need to rebel against. During the period where east slavic people would have rebelled they had ‘better enemies’ to rebel against than the church. SO they did. Not very difficult really once you understand it but it has been very hard for me to understand it for some reason. So, the literature of suffering seems to be a continental thing, where the scandinavians are just pagan in spirit still. Germans are nauseating sometimes because of it. Russians nihilistic. And americans (and brits) have no cognizance of it whatsoever. Because we believe the world is under our control if we want it to be. So I am hostile to the submissive narratives for our people. Tragedy is a better substitute (and a western invention by the way), and tragedy calls upon us to fight together, not just suffer.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542289756 Timestamp) THREE IMPORTANT IDEAS: (1. I’m not the same as my online persona, 2. I’m restoring violence to the discourse in order to teach the law, and 3. the law I have written recasts libertarians as the judges of the commons.) Stellar conversation with James Fox Higgins this morning. 100 minutes. Can’t wait to share it whenever he releases it. I learned a few things that I need to get across to the audience.
- Um. Please be respectful just to maintain my incentive to invest heavily in being available, but do no not be afraid of me. I am very conscious of what I am doing. When I argue online i’m acting as a judge and prosecutor on one hand, and a disciplinarian of rowdy boys on the other. I am more accommodating as a CEO and even more so as an ordinary guy in conversation. My online personality is my JOB. It is not ME. I am very different in my roles as conversationalist, CEO in business, theoretician-professor, and Prosecutor-Judge.
I am very consciously restoring violence to the discourse, and a lot of my persona and positioning is to do so. Obscuring the fact that violence to force people into markest is the origin of that order we call civilization. It’s not that I enjoy or advocate violence, It’s that upon entry of women in the the political and commercial arena we overly-softened the fact that it is violence alone that creates it, and that the non-violent are RIDERS on that order created by that violence. Conversely, a very small number of men can easily alter the status quo – and have, for millennia.
One of the reasons I set out to destroy the libertarian movement is to restore it to leadership of the conservative movement, by eliminating the attraction of the pacifist narrative of the rothbardian (common property marxist) message. In other words, I worked to deny libertarians the field of ideology and return them to the field of law. Biologically and socially, libertarians serve as the JUDICIAL minority between feminine consumptive, and male conservative genetic interests, by insuring that trade is remained. I WROTE THE BOOK OF LAW TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT POSSIBLE. Ergo, I need to drive libertarians into roles as JUDGES of the LAW, under european high trust “commons” law, not semitic low trust “ghetto” law. And that is what my work does: I wrote THE LAW. The one law of reciprocity from which western civilization evolved and out-competed other civilizations in rates of adaptation and innovation.
Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542306429 Timestamp) THE GENETIC – DENIERS AND PLOMIN’S UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH (important sequence of arguments) There are reasons why so many people in the postwar, postmodern, feminist, and underclass movements are rigid deniers of our indifference from breeding of any other domesticated animals, and the similar differences in trait expression. We know those reasons. The fact that people believe the ‘nurture’ fallacy correlates with all other similar social cognitive biases and related fallacies, because people actively select for these falsehoods because their genes encourage and force them to. Even if confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the pseudosciences of Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Derrida et all, they will admit the science but deny its application in order to defend their genetic drives. We can easily measure these differences in brain structure with female biased brains favoring this “herd-prey illusion” and male brains favoring the purely empirical “pack-hunter” bias. Evolution gave us those genetic biases for obvious reasons given the distribution of reproductive responsibilities. Genese do not exist in isolation, no, however: (a) modification of genetic disposition is endocrine and developmental it does not modify the genome (b) In the nature-nurture debate it’s 80% nature, and the rest adaptation to circumstances that FAVOR that nature. (c) Nurture can only HARM but not improve the individual (d) Education only falsifies tests but over time all of us grow into (form to) our genes. (e) The most important decision you can make for your children is who you mate with, since regression to the mean is impossible to avoid without controlled breeding (what europeans did for the past 1300 years until 1960) (f) This is contrary to mother’s instincts (they intuit everything through amplified perception because they must given the fragility of young, and high pre-modern child mortality rates) and contrary to the instincts of feminized males, but it is incontrovertible in the data. This amplified perception begins in puberty, and is the source of the overwhelmingly common female mental illness when women are not supplied with sufficient child rearing responsibilities in order to burden the cognitive-emotional load. (g) These facts are impossible for the pseudoscientists and sophists (created by Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Derrida et al) in the marxist, postmodern, feminist movements to accept because it means (correctly) that: i) man was not oppressed but domesticated like every other animal and plant, and that those who are on the left are still incompletely domesticated. ii) classes are natural reflections of necessity given the abilities of the individuals to both process information and suppress animal impulses, the most common of which is gratification-delay, iii) no marxist, postmodern, feminist revolution is possible because the competence structure necessary for the preservation of human standards of living cannot tolerate any other distribution than the Pareto. iv) the optimum possible social order requires continuation of the Truth over Face of western civilization that requires we all understand our sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value (our ‘status’) is genetically determined, and that we can only create small homogenous ethnocentric polities that due to kin selection are biased to the highly redistributive. But that you are stuck with your ‘status’ at birth unless you are overwhelmingly lucky to match extreme effort with extreme luck. So no, Plomin tries very hard to mollify the Genetic-Denialist movement but the data is in and incontestable – Genetic determinism is what it is and we are no different from breeds of dogs, and the differences between individuals as well as groups is the same as the difference between breeds of animals, or in the case of great apes, that we are effectively as different a series of species as are bonobos and chimpanzees. This is totally intolerable to the feminine-marxist-postmodernist-feminist dysgenic religion of pseudoscience, sophism, and denialism, invented by boas, marx, freud, adorno, and derrida etc as a counter-revolution against Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, Maxwell, Poincare, and the second, german, scientific revolution. The eugenicists were right and the chinese will get there first and they will win the war – unless we end the pseudoscience, sophism, denial, and deceit of the left cult of equality.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542288731 Timestamp) THE COMING CIVIL WAR (from elsewhere) The Left Demonstrates. The Right Wars. Demonstration is cheap and incautiously undertaken. War is expensive and cautiously undertaken. The Right are simply waiting for an excuse to make an example of ANTIFA. When that happens it will be the means by which this cold civil war turns hot. The Right wants that war. As soon as possible. And ANTIFA is the excuses they need to start it. In any civil war it requires one tenth of one percent of men to fight, and between one and three percent of men to assist them. There are 30M dedicated, conservative men on the Right with nearly all of the weapons and ammunition. A significant portion have military experience, or are, or were police. 70% of the military and police will defect to the Right either outright or by holding their posts and offering feigned resistance. The right will act during the winter, and cut the power and data, the fuel transport, the food transport, and the rails. No ATM’s, no EBC cards, no heat, no fuel, no food, no water. The rest is setting fires, and letting the cities fall under their own weight. There are only two cities capable of any degree of non-normative policing and those are NY and DC. There are a total of 2M military personnel, and another 1M government personnel. Never has an empire been more fragile. Any civil war will be a slaughter. And it’s coming. Soon.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542290125 Timestamp) Mesopotamian (Semitic) literature is underclass the same way that greek literature is upper class and roman literature (and english for that matter) is middle class. River lands and Forests are wonderful. Deserts suck. People are ignorant, dirty, superstitious poor, and tribal. Disease is rampant. Violence endemic. Thieving heroic. There is a vast difference between the wealthy and the poor. This is not so true in western civilization for geographic and demographic reasons. Just as it was not true in east asia. Just as it was less true in india. So while western lit is heroic (early european, aryan european, greek, roman… all of these are heroic literatures. They are not the submissive literatures of the mesopotamians and the egyptians. Whatever happens along the euphrates and the nile, we can certainly see in Gobekli Tepe and in all of the cities in the near east. Submission. This is not the literature of the hittites (anatolians), old europeans (balkans), There is a relationship between the russian steppe people, the mongols, and the turkic raiders, in levels of development and harshness of nature, but also an influence and more genetic similarity with the other post-ice-age peoples of europe, which were more influential via the scandinavians, pole-germans, germans, and even french. The church came into slavic peoples without being able to create an extractive political order as they were in europe. The bad people were the boyars, not the church. Where europeans took out their anger on the church and the aristocracy, americans did it on the aristocracy, europe in general, but were fully protestant and lacking central church political power, so without need to rebel against. During the period where east slavic people would have rebelled they had ‘better enemies’ to rebel against than the church. SO they did. Not very difficult really once you understand it but it has been very hard for me to understand it for some reason. So, the literature of suffering seems to be a continental thing, where the scandinavians are just pagan in spirit still. Germans are nauseating sometimes because of it. Russians nihilistic. And americans (and brits) have no cognizance of it whatsoever. Because we believe the world is under our control if we want it to be. So I am hostile to the submissive narratives for our people. Tragedy is a better substitute (and a western invention by the way), and tragedy calls upon us to fight together, not just suffer.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542289756 Timestamp) THREE IMPORTANT IDEAS: (1. I’m not the same as my online persona, 2. I’m restoring violence to the discourse in order to teach the law, and 3. the law I have written recasts libertarians as the judges of the commons.) Stellar conversation with James Fox Higgins this morning. 100 minutes. Can’t wait to share it whenever he releases it. I learned a few things that I need to get across to the audience.
- Um. Please be respectful just to maintain my incentive to invest heavily in being available, but do no not be afraid of me. I am very conscious of what I am doing. When I argue online i’m acting as a judge and prosecutor on one hand, and a disciplinarian of rowdy boys on the other. I am more accommodating as a CEO and even more so as an ordinary guy in conversation. My online personality is my JOB. It is not ME. I am very different in my roles as conversationalist, CEO in business, theoretician-professor, and Prosecutor-Judge.
I am very consciously restoring violence to the discourse, and a lot of my persona and positioning is to do so. Obscuring the fact that violence to force people into markest is the origin of that order we call civilization. It’s not that I enjoy or advocate violence, It’s that upon entry of women in the the political and commercial arena we overly-softened the fact that it is violence alone that creates it, and that the non-violent are RIDERS on that order created by that violence. Conversely, a very small number of men can easily alter the status quo – and have, for millennia.
One of the reasons I set out to destroy the libertarian movement is to restore it to leadership of the conservative movement, by eliminating the attraction of the pacifist narrative of the rothbardian (common property marxist) message. In other words, I worked to deny libertarians the field of ideology and return them to the field of law. Biologically and socially, libertarians serve as the JUDICIAL minority between feminine consumptive, and male conservative genetic interests, by insuring that trade is remained. I WROTE THE BOOK OF LAW TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT POSSIBLE. Ergo, I need to drive libertarians into roles as JUDGES of the LAW, under european high trust “commons” law, not semitic low trust “ghetto” law. And that is what my work does: I wrote THE LAW. The one law of reciprocity from which western civilization evolved and out-competed other civilizations in rates of adaptation and innovation.
Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
(FB 1542389587 Timestamp) FOR NEWBS: UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM AS THE EXTENS
(FB 1542389587 Timestamp) FOR NEWBS: UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM AS THE EXTENSION OF THE SCIENCES Propertarianism Consists of The Formal Logic of Natural Law: Psychology, Sociology, Politics, Group Evolutionary Strategy, as An Completion of The Laws of Nature. Originally I called it “capitalismv3” until I realized how erroneous that title was: I was doing the law, and economics only a part of it. Then I moved to calling it propertarianism. Then, once I understood what I was doing, I correctly labeled it Natural Law. The problem is that “Natural Law” has a long history of appropriation like “liberalism” and false criticism like “national socialism”. And is framed as a philosophical justification(excuse) rather than a scientific decidability (truth). And we had already built a brand around Propertarianism. So, we keep the ‘Brand’ Propertarianism for the simple reason that it was the ‘propertarians’ that I evolved the work out of, and the brand awareness is such that it’s hard to change at this point – and while it is only partially descriptive (referring to the unit of measure in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics and group strategy) , and could equally be called Testimonialism (truthful speech), or Vitruvianism or operationalism (universal system of measurement system by demonstrable human actions), or The Law of Conscious Beings (Any coopertting being must work by this set of decisions to survive), we retain Propertarianism and Natural Law out of situational convenience. , However, as this image illustrates, we have just COMPLETED the SCIENCES by expanding the scientific method into the social and psychological sciences. PROPERTARIANISM = THE NATURAL LAW. You should understand this then as the Application of the scientific method to the social sciences. and as such that we are learning a SCIENCE that will take you YEARS TO MASTER not a philosophy that you can read a book and add to your catalog of frames. PHYSICAL LAW OF TRANSFORMATION (INVOLUNTARY) EVOLVES INTO THE NATURAL LAW OF COOPERATION (VOLUNTARY) AS AN EXTENSION OF THOSE SAME LAWS. We can state these fundamental laws, Logically, Empirically, or operationally. Unfortunately, in the twentieth century, due to the ‘mathification’ of physics, and the ‘idealism’ of mathematics, due to the lack of a ‘model’, information has been LOST, that on the re-operationalizatoin of physics (undiscovered fundamental-wave, subatomic-particle, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient-cognizant, rational-calculable-computable), Psychology (Acquisitionism), Sociology (cooperation), law (decidability, organization), accounting-finance-economics (information, units of measure, measurements), is necessary to obtain the same benefits between sentient (feeling, evaluating, responding), aware (remembering, comparing), conscious (choosing), calculating (reasoning, calculating, computing) objects, as those objects that cannot detect and respond to changes in state. In other words, due to a lack of a model, the model-less-ness of mathematical idealism has worked through logic, and physics, and now into philosophy, ethics, and politics. just as theology did in the ancient world – producing similar ignorances. The Operational Movement (restoration of the model ) failed in the early part of the 20th century, and the postwar reaction against darwin (which is the model like it or not) and turing (which is the model, like it or not) because of eugenics (which is the optimum method of progression of human existence like it or not – just as was physics in the 17th-20th centuries, like it or not).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542306429 Timestamp) THE GENETIC – DENIERS AND PLOMIN’S UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH (important sequence of arguments) There are reasons why so many people in the postwar, postmodern, feminist, and underclass movements are rigid deniers of our indifference from breeding of any other domesticated animals, and the similar differences in trait expression. We know those reasons. The fact that people believe the ‘nurture’ fallacy correlates with all other similar social cognitive biases and related fallacies, because people actively select for these falsehoods because their genes encourage and force them to. Even if confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the pseudosciences of Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Derrida et all, they will admit the science but deny its application in order to defend their genetic drives. We can easily measure these differences in brain structure with female biased brains favoring this “herd-prey illusion” and male brains favoring the purely empirical “pack-hunter” bias. Evolution gave us those genetic biases for obvious reasons given the distribution of reproductive responsibilities. Genese do not exist in isolation, no, however: (a) modification of genetic disposition is endocrine and developmental it does not modify the genome (b) In the nature-nurture debate it’s 80% nature, and the rest adaptation to circumstances that FAVOR that nature. (c) Nurture can only HARM but not improve the individual (d) Education only falsifies tests but over time all of us grow into (form to) our genes. (e) The most important decision you can make for your children is who you mate with, since regression to the mean is impossible to avoid without controlled breeding (what europeans did for the past 1300 years until 1960) (f) This is contrary to mother’s instincts (they intuit everything through amplified perception because they must given the fragility of young, and high pre-modern child mortality rates) and contrary to the instincts of feminized males, but it is incontrovertible in the data. This amplified perception begins in puberty, and is the source of the overwhelmingly common female mental illness when women are not supplied with sufficient child rearing responsibilities in order to burden the cognitive-emotional load. (g) These facts are impossible for the pseudoscientists and sophists (created by Boas, Marx, Freud, Adorno, Derrida et al) in the marxist, postmodern, feminist movements to accept because it means (correctly) that: i) man was not oppressed but domesticated like every other animal and plant, and that those who are on the left are still incompletely domesticated. ii) classes are natural reflections of necessity given the abilities of the individuals to both process information and suppress animal impulses, the most common of which is gratification-delay, iii) no marxist, postmodern, feminist revolution is possible because the competence structure necessary for the preservation of human standards of living cannot tolerate any other distribution than the Pareto. iv) the optimum possible social order requires continuation of the Truth over Face of western civilization that requires we all understand our sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value (our ‘status’) is genetically determined, and that we can only create small homogenous ethnocentric polities that due to kin selection are biased to the highly redistributive. But that you are stuck with your ‘status’ at birth unless you are overwhelmingly lucky to match extreme effort with extreme luck. So no, Plomin tries very hard to mollify the Genetic-Denialist movement but the data is in and incontestable – Genetic determinism is what it is and we are no different from breeds of dogs, and the differences between individuals as well as groups is the same as the difference between breeds of animals, or in the case of great apes, that we are effectively as different a series of species as are bonobos and chimpanzees. This is totally intolerable to the feminine-marxist-postmodernist-feminist dysgenic religion of pseudoscience, sophism, and denialism, invented by boas, marx, freud, adorno, and derrida etc as a counter-revolution against Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, Maxwell, Poincare, and the second, german, scientific revolution. The eugenicists were right and the chinese will get there first and they will win the war – unless we end the pseudoscience, sophism, denial, and deceit of the left cult of equality.