Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Struggle Between Science And Myth

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

  • THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MYTH Mythical decidability is more influential

    THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MYTH

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top.

    —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”—

    This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative.

    European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’.

    But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative.

    But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it?

    Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us.

    Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view).

    Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly.

    Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group.

    Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors.

    and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age.

    For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services.

    Anyway.

    I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-15 11:54:00 UTC

  • Actually, I Can’t Be Wrong (About This). Sorry.

    (Note: this version is updated to correctly include operations/actions) Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony. TRUTH 4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements). 3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states). 2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations. 1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error. DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations]) 5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time) 6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium) 7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – operations (actions) 4 – physics (action-limiting forces) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) INFORMATION Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states). CONSTANT RELATIONS Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time). RELATIONS Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations. In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary. Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution). Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas. ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice) You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Actually, I Can’t Be Wrong (About This). Sorry.

    (Note: this version is updated to correctly include operations/actions) Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony. TRUTH 4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements). 3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states). 2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations. 1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error. DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations]) 5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time) 6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium) 7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – operations (actions) 4 – physics (action-limiting forces) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) INFORMATION Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states). CONSTANT RELATIONS Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time). RELATIONS Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations. In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary. Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution). Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas. ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice) You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • ACTUALLY, I CAN’T BE WRONG (ABOUT THIS). SORRY. Information. Decidability. Due D

    ACTUALLY, I CAN’T BE WRONG (ABOUT THIS). SORRY.

    Information. Decidability. Due Diligence. Testimony.

    TRUTH

    4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context). Meaning closure of the constant relations between states (statements).

    3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that is informationally complete (closed). Analytic truths are tautological, with the difference between tautological, and tautology, being deductive necessity. (due to constant relations between states).

    2) Truthfulness (Scientific) exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one has performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in one’s testimony in all the dimensions of possible constant relations.

    1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

    DIMENSIONS WE CAN PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST

    1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)

    2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)

    3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)

    4 – operational possibility – (equivalent of change [operations])

    5 – rational choice (volition) – (equivalent of time)

    6 – reciprocity (ethics, morality) (equivalent of equilibrium)

    7 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)

    MATHEMATICAL DEFINITIONS OF DIMENSIONS

    1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)

    2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)

    3 – area (defined by constant relations)

    4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)

    5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)

    6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))

    7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)

    8 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

    GRAMMARS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS (LOGICS) FOR THE DIMENSIONS

    We can speak in descriptions including (at least):

    1 – operational (true) names

    2 – mathematics (ratios)

    3 – logic (sets)

    4 – physics (operations)

    5 – Law (reciprocity)

    6 – History (memory)

    7 – Literature (allegory (possible))

    8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )

    8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)

    8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)

    8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)

    8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)

    8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

    INFORMATION

    Sets of constant relations between states (all facts must exist within the context of a theory (rules of states).

    CONSTANT RELATIONS

    Constant Change and Constant persistence, of Constant relations between states (time).

    RELATIONS

    Memory, and mind consists of a hierarchy of neurons that constitute a neural economy, that rewards constant relations, and starves inconstant relations.

    In other words, given that all testimony depends upon incomplete knowledge (a subset of reality), and that all general rules of arbitrary precision are of necessity incomplete, then testimony and therefore law is flasificationary, logics are falsificationary, not justificationary.

    Truth exists only as performative via-negativa warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias and deceit. However, a proof constitutes nothing other than possibility (survival from verbal prosecution).

    Too much for this audience but maybe it will give you ideas.

    ie: constant relations > logic(internal consistency) > math science(measurement -ratio-consistency) > physics(empiricism) > law(testimony) > economics (resources) > group evolutionary strategy (utility) > Philosophy (choice)

    You don’t understand. I CAN’T BE WRONG.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-14 10:01:00 UTC

  • Philosophy Is Done: It Is Left With Choice. Truth Is The Purvey Of Science (Due Diligence Of Testimony).

    —” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”— Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort). And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule). Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation). As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort). Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions. And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity. Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example). Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery. Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means. The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history. I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods). Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good. However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference. And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.

  • Philosophy Is Done: It Is Left With Choice. Truth Is The Purvey Of Science (Due Diligence Of Testimony).

    —” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”— Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort). And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule). Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation). As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort). Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions. And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity. Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example). Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery. Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means. The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history. I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods). Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good. However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference. And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.

  • PHILOSOPHY IS DONE: IT IS LEFT WITH CHOICE. TRUTH IS THE PURVEY OF SCIENCE (DUE

    PHILOSOPHY IS DONE: IT IS LEFT WITH CHOICE. TRUTH IS THE PURVEY OF SCIENCE (DUE DILIGENCE OF TESTIMONY).

    —” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”—

    Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort).

    And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule).

    Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation).

    As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort).

    Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions.

    And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity.

    Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example).

    Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery.

    Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means.

    The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history.

    I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods).

    Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good.

    However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference.

    And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-13 22:53:00 UTC

  • Every Kin Group Seeks Supremacism

    EVERY KIN GROUP’S CONSERVATIVES(MALES) ADVOCATE SUPREMACISM
     
    (a) White Supremacism – like Jewish supremacism, Russian Supremacism, Muslim Supremacism, Hindu Supremacism, Chinese Supremacism, and Japanese supremacism, is a demonstration of kin selection. However white supremacism is by our intellectual, scientific, technological, normative, social, and political rates achievement in both the ancient and modern worlds, and our lack of similar rapid advancement in the Abrahamic Dark Age.
     
    (b) We have known that man has continuously whitened in the northern climates for years – just as he has continuously darkened in african climes.
     
    (c) We have known for years the process of ‘whitening’ began 20k years ago – and has been reversing since white people internlinked the world through rapid transportation during the age of sail.
     
    (d) We have known for the past few years that the Yamna expansion did not integrate but replaced prior generations of proto europeans with modern european-indo-iranians.
     
    (e) we are discovering through genetic analysis that our superiority is biological: we have succeeded at greater pedomorphic evolution by variation in endocrine expression during in utero, ex utero, and later development, and the lifelong expressions of that pedomorphism – which is why we have lower testosterone, are more tolerant, less clannish, and are the highest trust people on earth, and the only people to develop a high trust, territorial, capital intensive, commons-intensive, civilization. Period.
     
    And all kin groups, whether tribe, nation, or race, seek their superiority as an expression of evolutionary necessity –
    without which groups would not identify opportunities to exploit and evolve to seize them.
     
    The Marxist-postmodern pseudo-scientific century is over. Man is no different from any other animal in that breeds express genetic traits. And all we see between abrahamic and western arguments, is the scientific western male evolutionary, and the rhetorical female devolutionary expressions of those genes.
     
    What has happened is that while it has taken seventy years of hard work, despite active suppression of academic research SCIENCE has proven us right, and we are armed with that science. And that is the reason we are winning.
     
    Because western man originated science, and remains scientific if for no other reason than his origins are technological: expansion through the combination of horse, wheel, bronze, language, and truthful (empirical) testimony.
     
    No More Dark Ages. The First Abrahamic equalitarian counter-enlightenment caused a thousand year dark age and so far 500M lives.
     
    The Second Abrahamic Egalitarian Counter-Enlightenment begins with Rousseau, to Kant and the Continental School, to Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, and the Frankfurt School, and back to the french for the Postmodern and Feminist School – with nothing but Counter-evidence, Counter-history, Counter-Truth, Counter-Reason, and outright propagandism and lying.
     
    We will succeed at defeating the Second Abrahamic Dark Age, in its marxist-communist pseudoscientific, postmodern-equalitarian pseudo-rational, and Islamic theological (magical) school.
     
    We will do so by demonstrating our SUPERIORITY in Truth, Reason, Science, Technology, Law, Institutions, Norms, and traditions. Because in the end our tradition is truth and correspondence with reality – and that, and our genes, are our competitive advantage. An advantage unequalled among the tribes, nations, and races.
     
    Curt Doolittle,
    The Propertarian Institute,
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Every Kin Group Seeks Supremacism

    EVERY KIN GROUP’S CONSERVATIVES(MALES) ADVOCATE SUPREMACISM
     
    (a) White Supremacism – like Jewish supremacism, Russian Supremacism, Muslim Supremacism, Hindu Supremacism, Chinese Supremacism, and Japanese supremacism, is a demonstration of kin selection. However white supremacism is by our intellectual, scientific, technological, normative, social, and political rates achievement in both the ancient and modern worlds, and our lack of similar rapid advancement in the Abrahamic Dark Age.
     
    (b) We have known that man has continuously whitened in the northern climates for years – just as he has continuously darkened in african climes.
     
    (c) We have known for years the process of ‘whitening’ began 20k years ago – and has been reversing since white people internlinked the world through rapid transportation during the age of sail.
     
    (d) We have known for the past few years that the Yamna expansion did not integrate but replaced prior generations of proto europeans with modern european-indo-iranians.
     
    (e) we are discovering through genetic analysis that our superiority is biological: we have succeeded at greater pedomorphic evolution by variation in endocrine expression during in utero, ex utero, and later development, and the lifelong expressions of that pedomorphism – which is why we have lower testosterone, are more tolerant, less clannish, and are the highest trust people on earth, and the only people to develop a high trust, territorial, capital intensive, commons-intensive, civilization. Period.
     
    And all kin groups, whether tribe, nation, or race, seek their superiority as an expression of evolutionary necessity –
    without which groups would not identify opportunities to exploit and evolve to seize them.
     
    The Marxist-postmodern pseudo-scientific century is over. Man is no different from any other animal in that breeds express genetic traits. And all we see between abrahamic and western arguments, is the scientific western male evolutionary, and the rhetorical female devolutionary expressions of those genes.
     
    What has happened is that while it has taken seventy years of hard work, despite active suppression of academic research SCIENCE has proven us right, and we are armed with that science. And that is the reason we are winning.
     
    Because western man originated science, and remains scientific if for no other reason than his origins are technological: expansion through the combination of horse, wheel, bronze, language, and truthful (empirical) testimony.
     
    No More Dark Ages. The First Abrahamic equalitarian counter-enlightenment caused a thousand year dark age and so far 500M lives.
     
    The Second Abrahamic Egalitarian Counter-Enlightenment begins with Rousseau, to Kant and the Continental School, to Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, and the Frankfurt School, and back to the french for the Postmodern and Feminist School – with nothing but Counter-evidence, Counter-history, Counter-Truth, Counter-Reason, and outright propagandism and lying.
     
    We will succeed at defeating the Second Abrahamic Dark Age, in its marxist-communist pseudoscientific, postmodern-equalitarian pseudo-rational, and Islamic theological (magical) school.
     
    We will do so by demonstrating our SUPERIORITY in Truth, Reason, Science, Technology, Law, Institutions, Norms, and traditions. Because in the end our tradition is truth and correspondence with reality – and that, and our genes, are our competitive advantage. An advantage unequalled among the tribes, nations, and races.
     
    Curt Doolittle,
    The Propertarian Institute,
    Kiev Ukraine