Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN The Oath Of Transcendent Man A Pagan, A Christian,

    THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN

    The Oath Of Transcendent Man A Pagan, A Christian, An Aryan, A Warrior, A Man Transcendent

    (REPOST)

    A PAGAN

    I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

    As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

    A CHRISTIAN

    I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 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 dedication to acts of interpersonal charity for those whose need I observe myself.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

    AN ARYAN

    I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

    A WARRIOR

    I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

    As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

    And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Sovereignty

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 20:07:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENCE OF CHRISTIANITY (REALLY) —-“What is the overall message of the bib

    THE SCIENCE OF CHRISTIANITY (REALLY)

    —-“What is the overall message of the bible?”—

    (“Salvation”)

    It is:

    “If you submit (abandon) your reason, and surrender (abandon) your will to the commands of an evil omnipotent and omniscient fictional character, and imitate the life of another very benevolent and charitable fictional character, that you will find salvation (be saved) in a non existent afterlife, after you die.”

    Scientifically:

    Now scientifically speaking, christianity is reducible to:

    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, imprisonment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    And this turns out to be the optimum strategy for producing persistent high trust cooperation. It’s just counter intuitive since we evolved very aggressive altruistic punishment.

    And functionally:

    More than 1/3 if not 1/2 of people are lack the agency both internal and environmental, and or the intelligence, and or the resources to contrive a means of successfully competing in market civilization, when ones self worth and status are determined by by that success.

    As such providing an alternative method by which people of limited agency, ability, and resources can develop virtuous behavior, and personal mindfulness, and therefore happiness with their self image, through merely extension of kinship love, forgiveness, and charity is a successful strategy. Moreover, the externalities produced in a market civilization by large numbers of these people constructs the trust necessary for prosperity in a market civilization.

    And Politically:

    Despite lacking agency, ability, knowledge, education, and resources, people are able to use ‘faith’ and the ‘christian strategy’ to defend against threats to their strategy, their self image, and the good they do to society, are impervious to corruption, to persuasion, to coercion, and to abandonment of that strategy (hence why intelligence agencies love to hire christians).

    The problem is that there is an ever declining percentage of the population willing to use this strategy by faith, even if there is an ever expanding population willing to use this strategy if stated as scientifically as I have here.

    So while a demand for ‘church’ remains, a demand for the primitivism of semitic underclasses, has been replaced by a demand for the advance reason of european middle classes.

    The already devoted are irrelevant. It’s those who are not open to devotion that don’t need a religion of faith, but a religion of reason, that need mindfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 19:58:00 UTC

  • COUNTER SIGNALING NAXALT: WE ARE COMPATIBLE OPPOSITES —“…all women are diffe

    COUNTER SIGNALING NAXALT: WE ARE COMPATIBLE OPPOSITES

    —“…all women are different…”—

    A distinction without a difference. It is almost as impossible to have a scientific conversation with women about philosophy, economics, politics, and war as it is for a man to have a conversation about relationships, carrying a baby, nursing and how ‘beautiful and special’ her lower 80% munchkin is.

    Seriously. Even the fact that one would say such a thing is evidence – because that statement is an instance of NAXALT. It means you’re empirically blind: that there is no normal distribution and in particular that the vast majority are indifferent.

    I expect a woman to love me, care for me, and try to make me better and happier than I am. And women are in general, if you are worth having as a mate, pretty good at it – and often even if you aren’t worth having as a mate.

    The best relationship for a man to have with a woman is where you listen to her, fulfill her wants and needs, try to help her be all she can be, listen to her insights into people she has spoken to, cherish each other and the time together, but never take her opinions beyond those wants, needs, relationships, and your relationship more seriously than you do the impulsive fascinations of your golden retriever has with disgusting smells.

    Just as all but a minority of men are empathically blind, all but a minority of women are morally blind. They have to be. Or they would never bear and raise children – 80% of which are of necessity in the bottom 80%. Female puberty produces marginal insanity for good reason. You’d have to be insane to care for babies, toddlers, and dependent children. Female marginal insanity is an evolutionary adaptation necessary for our survival.

    The fact that this was common knowledge in all cultures until the Victorians tried to corral the newly liberated lower classes, advertisers found women spent 70% of world income, and feminists tried to take power from white men, is merely a blip in the stream of history.

    I love women but I know I am blind to the things women are not, just as I know women are blind deaf and dumb to anything they cannot feel.

    And I hate that I even have to write about such things, because it’s the lies that these things are not both true and obvious that cause the difficulties in our relationships.

    (A simple experiment: Watch the View for a week and observe how women can make excuses to justify anything that will bring about consensus no matter how false, impossible, or outright stupid. It doesn’t matter the topic. Just watch the absurd excuses they will make to generate consensus on a status quo. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 13:30:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31543373_10156337078467264_87776141

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31543373_10156337078467264_8777614105805586432_o_10156337078462264.jpg IF YOU CAN’T CALCULATE IT, IT’S JUST AN EXCUSE

    This is part of a list of interview questions an interviewer took from reading just one article. And that’s just one. That’s not on any of the other major topics I cover.

    And scanning that list, you don’t have to wonder why I say “It requires a great deal of knowledge to hold discussions on any of these topics” and very, very, few people have the requisite knowledge to do so.

    Yet we are all convinced of the value and veracity of our opinions. You don’t find people claiming knowledge of anything calculable, but you find people claiming knowledge of everything intuitable.

    Hence why I’ve made speech, ethics, morality, politics, and law, commensurable and operationally calculable, so that we can end the cognitive bias that every idiot’s opinion is worth anything other than the choice of his favorite flavor of ice cream.

    We make excuses. That’s what thinking and reasoning do. If you aren’t calculating you’re making an excuse. Because you can’t do otherwise. You evolved to make excuses, not to calculate. Intuition substitutes what you can’t calculate. In this way evolution provides us with the confidence to act probabilistically, despite our profound fallibility – and we don’t give up except by suicide.James SantagataIf we are talking Psychohistory in Asimov’s Foundation series, is Doolittle the Mule? – Claire.May 08, 2018 12:37pmCurt DoolittlelolzMay 08, 2018 1:28pmCurt DoolittleI had to look that up…May 08, 2018 1:29pmJames Santagatalol. It was compliment, just to clarify. :DMay 08, 2018 1:54pmCurt Doolittlelol… i still had to look it up…. ;)May 08, 2018 1:55pmNicholas Arthur CattonJust going through the first interview.

    I actually think there lot of value came of the dislocated nature of this conversation. It made for more diverse range associations, and Propertarianism by analogous description by Curt than is usual in a more methodically curated conversation.

    If Clare is willing to accept that she may not get clearer on the topic herself, she is surely giving other prop fans insight and angles and associations that arent the standard. It broke beyond the preaching to converted and had the live flavour or an AMA.

    It was Good stuff.May 09, 2018 5:50pmCurt Doolittlewell saidMay 09, 2018 7:13pmIF YOU CAN’T CALCULATE IT, IT’S JUST AN EXCUSE

    This is part of a list of interview questions an interviewer took from reading just one article. And that’s just one. That’s not on any of the other major topics I cover.

    And scanning that list, you don’t have to wonder why I say “It requires a great deal of knowledge to hold discussions on any of these topics” and very, very, few people have the requisite knowledge to do so.

    Yet we are all convinced of the value and veracity of our opinions. You don’t find people claiming knowledge of anything calculable, but you find people claiming knowledge of everything intuitable.

    Hence why I’ve made speech, ethics, morality, politics, and law, commensurable and operationally calculable, so that we can end the cognitive bias that every idiot’s opinion is worth anything other than the choice of his favorite flavor of ice cream.

    We make excuses. That’s what thinking and reasoning do. If you aren’t calculating you’re making an excuse. Because you can’t do otherwise. You evolved to make excuses, not to calculate. Intuition substitutes what you can’t calculate. In this way evolution provides us with the confidence to act probabilistically, despite our profound fallibility – and we don’t give up except by suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 10:48:00 UTC

  • A PRIEST IS THE ENEMY OF CIVILIZATION I prefer we return to a prohibition on pri

    A PRIEST IS THE ENEMY OF CIVILIZATION

    I prefer we return to a prohibition on priests, and a requirement that citizens, especially leading citizens, lead the rituals. As far as I know this is the optimum social model and priests are a threat to civilization.

    I prefer the rotation of ceremony among the population, regardless of age and gender.

    I prefer the protestant method with a male judge (moderator) and the community ‘speaking their minds’. This produces the optimum debate.

    The problem with female judges (moderators) is that women (really) cannot divorce themselves sufficiently (produce agency) and this is why men and women eventually prefer working for men whenever there is any differences in the group.

    I find it almost impossible just to listen to a female judge in court for the same reason I can’t tolerate a female speaker on theoretical instead of empirical (where women excel) content.

    This is because I am extremely sensitive to logical errors, and ‘cheats’ and women simply cannot reach male levels of speaking the uncomfortable truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    And it is this willingness to speak the truth regardless of its impact on the hierarchy, and the risk to one’s self for having said it, that is the origin of the uniqueness of the west.

    Priests are as evil as pseudoscientists, bureaucracy and democracy.

    Never again.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 18:18:00 UTC

  • While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.

    1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.      

  • While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.

    1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.      

  • One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.

    The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.

  • One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.

    The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.

  • The Origins of Numbers

    (And the two part key) To create a record that represented “two sheep”, they selected two round clay tokens each having a + sign baked into it. Each token represented one sheep. Representing a hundred sheep with a hundred tokens would be impractical, so they invented different clay tokens to represent different numbers of each specific commodity, and by 4000 BC strung the tokens like beads on a string.[7] There was a token for one sheep, a different token for ten sheep, a different token for ten goats, etc. Thirty-two sheep would be represented by three ten-sheep tokens followed on the string by two one-sheep tokens. To ensure that nobody could alter the number and type of tokens, they invented a clay envelope shaped like a hollow ball into which the tokens on a string were placed, sealed, and baked. If anybody disputed the number, they could break open the clay envelope and do a recount. To avoid unnecessary damage to the record, they pressed archaic number signs and witness seals on the outside of the envelope before it was baked, each sign similar in shape to the tokens they represented. Since there was seldom any need to break open the envelope, the signs on the outside became the first written language for writing numbers in clay. An alternative method was to seal the knot in each string of tokens with a solid oblong bulla of clay having impressed symbols, while the string of tokens dangled outside of the bulla.[8] Beginning about 3500 BC the tokens and envelopes were replaced by numerals impressed with a round stylus at different angles in flat clay tablets which were then baked.[9] A sharp stylus was used to carve pictographs representing various tokens. Each sign represented both the commodity being counted and the quantity or volume of that commodity.