Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ATTACKING THE 20th CENTURY: NATIONAL SOCIALISM WON. In other words China impleme

    ATTACKING THE 20th CENTURY: NATIONAL SOCIALISM WON.

    In other words China implemented National Socialism. Reeducation camps and all.

    —“Is it the word National as in Nationalist or is it Socialism as in Socialist ? I’m trying to understand if this is an attack on President Trump for saying he is a nationalist or an attack on the Socialist democrats ?”—@jonn_schulz

    It’s an attack on our understanding of the 20th century. China has implemented the National Socialist (NSDAP/NAZI) social, economic, and political model: one man rule, nationalism, state capitalism, spending, remilitarization, censorship, digital conformity, reeducation camps.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 12:19:00 UTC

  • ZERO TOLERANCE. THE WHITE LAW IS ABSOLUTE – INCLUDING IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH

    ZERO TOLERANCE. THE WHITE LAW IS ABSOLUTE – INCLUDING IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.

    —“… but the church did [x good thing], right?”—

    (Regarding the prohibition on cousin marriage)

    Oh yeah. Sure. But the reason they did so was to break up the great aristocratic families, so that they in turn could appropriate their land incrementally and cheaply. Which led to half the capital in europe being dead assets of rent seekers against the interests of our people. So it’s not that the church was doing good. It’s that it produced a good by doing an evil. Even then, it’s the corporation under manorialism that produced the good since we were an homogenous peoples in europe along atlantic, germanic, finnic, southern, and slavic lines: the children of the Aryan Conquest of Europe.

    Again, deflating the church into Content Taught (ideas), Method of Teaching (sophism (ABRAHAMISM)), and Governance by Teachers (action), and Consequences (externalities) – as a governor the church consisted of men who governed reasonably well.

    A broken clock is right twice a day. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did good things as well, marxists, postmodernists, and feminists each contributed at least one non-bad idea. Jews and Gypsies did things that weren’t entirely destructive or evil.

    They church was terrible for western civilization compared to the greco-roman civilization. The church was imposed by violence upon our people via an underclass revolt started by the jews (justifiably), and as an act of war by the underclass old europeans (remains of the greek empire). Hellenic greece was european until Alexander’s conquest infected us – and him. But there is and was nothing western about the eastern empire. There was and is nothing european about the church. The uniqueness of western civilization is our natural religion, natural law, law of nature, law of men, and markets in everything that rose from them. Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Natural Law and Markets In Everything, producing truthful speech, reason, logic, empiricism, science, and now – Testimonialism (complete science).

    So no, I do not look at the great evil that is the semitic revolt and conquest of our people by that plague we call the abrahamic cults, as a replacement for our ancient unique order that is the envy of all humanity. I do not ‘forgive’ a dark age, the destruction of the great civilizations, and a billion deaths.

    I have one purpose: to rediscover, write down for eternity, that which is uniquely ours, which has dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of all it’s primitivism – including that ocean of semitic evils – and to exterminate every remnant of those evils from our people, lands, histories, and even memories – if not (with the help of the far east (our only peers)) from this earth.

    Is that clear enough?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 11:48:00 UTC

  • NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS (repost) a) legit criticisms of my work,

    NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS

    (repost)

    a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not.

    It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism.

    The correct criticisms of my work are:

    1 – it’s not published (while it’s all up on line, it’s not in book format, or edited, or published, so fellow professionals can’t justly criticize it – that’s true).

    2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.)

    3 – The propertarian project consists of multiple components. I conflate (not on purpose) (a) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with (b) political advocacy (market government) with (c) the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism.

    4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. I will work on that after the technical work is done.

    5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it *is* actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.

    6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision.

    7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst.

    But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.

    And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions.

    Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context.

    In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 08:02:00 UTC

  • WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY? —“Curt; Are you opposed to slavery?”— Um. “Opposed” is a

    WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY?

    —“Curt; Are you opposed to slavery?”—

    Um. “Opposed” is an opinion. My opinion is irrelevant. My job is the Law. This is how I understand The Law:

    If you mean voluntary or indentured servitude in its many forms, then no, it’s within the law. It’s just a contract. In fact I would advocate for its restoration since it’s just a good way of absorbing labor and taking good care of our people who are less able. I mean, room, clothing, board, healthcare is expensive enough and paying someone to maintain a household unnecessarily isn’t good. There are plenty of people for whom household management is not a preference but a burden.

    If you mean civic-slavery (military service) then of course I advocate it – and I don’t think militaries can function otherwise.

    If you mean prisoner-slavery (putting prisoners to work on the commons) then yes, of course, I advocate as much of it as possible. On the other hand the law recommends a return to as much capital punishment as possible.

    But If you mean chattel slavery (what most people think of) the Law would say that it is always harmful to your people and their genome (unless you sterilize them), it is is too expensive for the meagre returns, and it violates the one law, with which we must force those able to transcend to do so, rather than leave them as undomesticated wild animals so to speak.

    In general, chattel slavery is bad. It’s worse if its with aliens. It’s much worse if it’s with devolutionary aliens. And it’s much, much worse if it’s common whatsoever. The externalities are some of the worst possible.

    Slavery was an agrarian utility that is no longer of any utility.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 19:29:00 UTC

  • MORE ON DE-PROPAGANDIZING “CAPITALISM” (required reading) 1. Trade has always ex

    MORE ON DE-PROPAGANDIZING “CAPITALISM”

    (required reading)

    1. Trade has always existed (generating exchange)

    2. Markets have almost always existed (generating prices).

    3. Capitalists have existed as long as there have been markets (generating means of production).

    4. Northern Europeans (Venetians less so. Saxons largely, the Hansa in particular, the English systematically, the Dutch first at political scale), developed rule of law – which is why they escaped the church with the reformation.)

    5. Capitalism consists of rule of law consisting nearly entirely of markets, and socialism of rule of men eliminating or vastly reducing markets – but all polities have some mixed economy and must do so. The problem is that the state is superior at investing in some commons, but the private sector is far better at allocating and maximizing the returns on capital.

    6. So capitalism and socialism only evolved once the industrial revolution came into play – and the socialists demanded control over production. Capitalism then was the name they used for ‘market bias under rule of law’ , and socialism ‘state bias under rule of men’.

    So any statement about when was capitalism invented, is rater ‘stupid’ really. The answer is very simple: capitalism was the ‘jewish’ view of markets, and socialism the ‘jewish’ view of the state. And suckers bought into this false dichotomy. The question is and always will be the utilities of the state monopoly vs the private sector market. And as it stands, the lesson is quite clear: when it is simple and you know how to do it, but it’s risky and expensive, the state can provide startup capital and market protections. Once that investment is running, it can be ‘sold’ to the private sector who can then maximize its potential.

    The USA has mastered the art of moving this high risk investment into the private sector, but this has had the effect of hollowing out predictable sectors of the economy. So it appears that once again, there are those things it is better for the state to produce (labor-consuming and strategic companies, that are less speculative and produce slower longer returns), and things that it is better for the private sector to produce (IQ consuming and highly speculative things with shorter higher returns.)

    CONVERSELY

    The flood river and irrigation valleys of the fertile, crescent, pakistan-india, and china, could produce state-capital easily, just as the west could produce private-capital easily. The west and east homogenous peoples higher trust. The center tribal heterogenous people lower trust.

    It’s not complicated. You do what you can with the people and geography you have.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 12:10:00 UTC

  • THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A EUROPEAN IDENTITY (worth repeating) (edited) All that is

    THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A EUROPEAN IDENTITY

    (worth repeating) (edited)

    All that is required to claim one is a Christian is to have adopted the teachings of Christianity:

    THE UNIVERSAL IDENTITY: THE VIA-NEGATIVA

    1. Do not covet (envy)

    2. Do not lie, cheat, gossip, or conspire.

    3. Do not rape, adulter, or prostitute.

    4. Do not murder, steal, or harm.

    THE CHRISTIAN IDENTITY: THE VIA-POSITIVA

    1. The eradication of hatred from the human heart.

    2. The extension of kinship love to non-kin.

    3. The extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    4. The commitment to personal acts of charity for those who are in need.

    THE ARYAN EUROPEAN IDENTITY

    1. Demand and Do: Sovereignty and Reciprocity,

    2. Demand and Do: Truth and Duty

    3. Demand and Do: The Law and Markets

    4. Demand and Do: Insure the Good, Punish the Wicked.

    THE HEATHEN EUROPEAN IDENTITY

    1. The laws of nature are binding on all of existence; and;

    2. Nature is sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and;

    3. To leave the universe changed for the better – a Garden – for having lived in it.

    4. To die a good death in the service of my people.

    THE TRANSCENDENCE OF MAN INTO GODS.

    Through the continuous competition between trial and error, as we calculate perfection one thought, word, and deed at a time.

    “ONE DROP RULE”

    For kin, the One Drop Rule.

    That this is the optimum ingroup evolutionary strategy is simply a matter of logic and evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 11:39:00 UTC

  • THE UNIQUENESS OF THE GRAMMARS by Bill Joslin (new, important idea) The developm

    THE UNIQUENESS OF THE GRAMMARS

    by Bill Joslin

    (new, important idea)

    The development of various grammars of disambiguation defines the uniqueness of the west.

    A culture of martial raiders requires explicit technologies for maintain peaceful coexistence among dangerous people, as well as requires truthful reporting of battle situations for raiding to be successful.

    This leads to social value on truth – truthful reporting (reliability) and honest interactions to prevent in-group conflict (honesty). The result being the innovation of OATH (proto-contract) and competency (meritocracy). This I see as the initial step (or early) step toward disambiguation. Disambiguation of reporting on intention and ability.

    Incremental stages of growth for European peoples can be seen as the progress of disambiguation.

    Common law : Disambiguation of accountability and disambiguation of reciprocal consequences (punishment fit the crime)

    Contract: Disambiguation of terms of agreement and limits to commitment (Trade)

    Institutionalization of Law : Disambiguation of the application of power over a polis i.e. rule (isolation of discretionary rule)

    Science: disambiguation of external causal relations

    (Propertarianism – disambiguation of human action and human conflict)

    Disambiguation provides a commensurable measure in evaluating “western identity” for what belongs or doesn’t belong, or what needs to be corrected and how.

    So when Abrahamists conflate religion and western civilization (christianity, Jewish contribution, secular islam), or Aesthetics (spiritualists) propose that aesthetics undergirds civilization, or linguists propose language as the means to calculate power and distribution (GA) etc… all while stating they are “for the west”, I get confused and a bit uppity.

    Introduction of ambiguity is not what we do – its what we’ve been taught by those who’d see us gone or enslaved.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 10:18:00 UTC

  • THE UNIQUENESS OF THE GRAMMARS by Bill Joslin (new, important idea) The developm

    THE UNIQUENESS OF THE GRAMMARS

    by Bill Joslin

    (new, important idea)

    The development of various grammars of disambiguation defines the uniqueness of the west.

    A culture of martial raiders requires explicit technologies for maintain peaceful coexistence among dangerous people, as well as requires truthful reporting of battle situations for raiding to be successful.

    This leads to social value on truth – truthful reporting (reliability) and honest interactions to prevent in-group conflict (honesty). The result being the innovation of OATH (proto-contract) and competency (meritocracy). This I see as the initial step (or early) step toward disambiguation. Disambiguation of reporting on intention and ability.

    Incremental stages of growth for European peoples can be seen as the progress of disambiguation.

    Common law : Disambiguation of accountability and disambiguation of reciprocal consequences (punishment fit the crime)

    Contract: Disambiguation of terms of agreement and limits to commitment (Trade)

    Institutionalization of Law : Disambiguation of the application of power over a polis i.e. rule (isolation of discretionary rule)

    Science: disambiguation of external causal relations

    (Propertarianism – disambiguation of human action and human conflict)

    Disambiguation provides a commensurable measure in evaluating “western identity” for what belongs or doesn’t belong, or what needs to be corrected and how.

    So when Abrahamists conflate religion and western civilization (christianity, Jewish contribution, secular islam), or Aesthetics (spiritualists) propose that aesthetics undergirds civilization, or linguists propose language as the means to calculate power and distribution (GA) etc… all while stating they are “for the west”, I get confused and a bit uppity.

    Introduction of ambiguity is not what we do – its what we’ve been taught by those who’d see us gone or enslaved.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 10:16:00 UTC

  • THE NEXT SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION (worth repeating) This persistent ‘error’ in the

    THE NEXT SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

    (worth repeating)

    This persistent ‘error’ in the soft (projected) ‘sciences’, is, as far as my work goes, the central problem of thought in the 21st century. We are still trying to overcome the monopoly authoritarianism of Boas, Marx, Feud, Adorno et all, Derrida et al, and the feminists et al that sought to take advantage of the democratic novelty to obtain power.

    And the 21st century, beginning within the next decade, will consist largely of the transformation of the soft sciences into hard sciences reflecting groups rather than individuals – because the ‘individualism'(ideal) movement has failed. We evolved as a division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, and advocative labor across the generations, among members of kin groups functioning as an intertemporal network of ‘calculation’ of choices.

    The reason people are unhappy is the attempt to create ‘complete’ individuals instead of ‘complete’ kin groups.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 09:44:00 UTC

  • The Great Intellectual Challenge of the 21st Century Do You Have A Healthy Perso

    The Great Intellectual Challenge of the 21st Century

    Do You Have A Healthy Personality? Researchers Think They Can Tell You

    regarding: https://psyarxiv.com/prdnf/

    I am almost positive that the very idea of such a normative personality is yet another example of the freudian attempt at enforcing conformity.

    As far as I know big 5/6 + IQ personalities cluster in three groups, around what we’d conventionally call conservative male, ascendent male, and female stereotypes (that research is out this year).

    As far as I know the range of personality variations – including what we consider anti-social personalities – are useful to KIN GROUPS, and that the ‘industry’ is still ‘stuck’ in that bias of the industrial, freudian, monopoly-of-conformity of individuals and ‘individualism’ as an excuse for mandated conformity, rather than the historical division of perception, cognition, and labor and social (hierarchical) tripartism of kin groups.

    This persistent ‘error’ in the soft (projected) ‘sciences’, is, as far as my work goes, the central problem of thought in the 21st century. We are still trying to overcome the monopoly authoritarianism of Boas, Marx, Feud, Adorno et all, Derrida et al, and the feminists et al that sought to take advantage of the democratic novelty to obtain power.

    And the 21st century, beginning within the next decade, will consist largely of the transformation of the soft sciences into hard sciences reflecting groups rather than individuals – because the ‘individualism'(ideal) movement has failed. We evolved as a division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, and advocative labor across the generations, among members of kin groups functioning as an intertemporal network of ‘calculation’ of choices.

    The reason people are unhappy is the attempt to create ‘complete’ individuals instead of ‘complete’ kin groups.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-27 19:38:00 UTC