Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • (read this) The Ancient Civilization of Greece and Rome culminated under Roman P

    (read this)

    The Ancient Civilization of Greece and Rome culminated under Roman Paganism, Roman Stoicism, and Roman Law.

    Christendom consists of Steppe Orthodoxy, Mediterranean Catholicism, North Sea Protestantism, Anglo/German Puritanism, French/Ango Postmodernism. With the masculine at the start of the spectrum, and feminism at the end of it.

    All of christendom has restored some aspect of aristotelianism (science) and stoicism (virtues). But most have preserved some Semitic deceptions, out of habit, indoctrination, familiarity, or ignorance of alternatives.

    All of christendom has preserved some aspects of our paganism – particulary in celtic, germanic, slavic, lands – if only in our mythos of pedagogy, hearth, and home. Masculinity survives. It survives most strongly in america which has preserved the militia the longest, and succeeded in defeating the state, rather than defeating the church. This is a lesson for mankind for all eternity. America preserved her churches and her militia longest, by defeating the state, not empowering it or taking it over. Just as anglo saxon man and Classical man would not tolerate the state’s imposition on the militia.

    But once we depart the masculine entirely we find the Jewish philosophy.

    The Jewish Counter-Enligthenment arrived in the form of Jewish cosmopolitanism in the works of Boaz’s restatement of jewish (feminine) history, Marx’s restatement of jewish (feminine) ethics, sociology, and history, freud’s restatement of jewish (feminine) ethics, and Mises restatement of jewish (feminine) economics, as well as the Frankfurt School’s restatement of jewish (feminine) aesthetics.

    If we want to discover social science and the articulation of western civilization’s strategy of truthfulness: it’s Aristotle and Zeno culminating in the Roman Stoics, Defeated by the Eastern Empire under Constantine through Justinian.

    The truth (stoicism) was Restored by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, DaVinci,Newton, AND Machiavelli Bacon, Locke, Hume, Smith.

    THEN the near defeat by the Abrahamic Counter-Enlightenment IN COMPETITION WITH the second scientific and industrial revolution (social sciences) by Maxwell, Poincare, Darwin, Spencer, Hayek, and Nietzsche.

    DEFEATED again by the combination of the Jewish (feminine) Abrahamic Counter-Enlightenment, and the French (feminine) counter enlightenment: Postmodernism.

    Meanwhile the German (protestant) Counter-Enlightenment (pious, or submissive, masculine) had little consequence, because of Kant and subsequent continental philosophers continuing the conflation of experience, existence, and goodness, instead of truth.

    At present, very, very, very, reluctant Jewish social scientists, cautious anglo american cognitive scientists, evangelic british historians and archaeologists, romantic russian archaeologists, a very select group of pragmatic other european scientists, and now (thankfully) competitive chinese scientists, have, at least since the 1980s used science (once again) to defeat the lies of the Abrahamists, whether jewish, french, feminist, or feminist-apologists using feminine strategy of gossip (betas, journalists, writers, artists, teachers, and professors).

    The primary challenge we face today is immigration. Because it is fairly certain the the scientific problem will be answered, and the entire feminine argumentative artifice be overthrown, within the next thirty years.

    So our primary challenge is to repatriate vast legions, or lock them in ghettos again, or overthrow our governments and kill as many as we can until they leave, so that the science can confirm what men know by intuition.

    You cannot fix stupid. You cannot clean genes. And the prosperity of a people is not a matter of opinion and choice but one of incentives produced by a militia of sovereign men in the service of a common enemy, where the common enemy is the universe, and the half humans that surround us, and prevent our conquest of both.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 10:29:00 UTC

  • THE PAST AND PRESENT PROBLEM: WE WON. —“What Stoics were lacking is the defini

    THE PAST AND PRESENT PROBLEM: WE WON.

    —“What Stoics were lacking is the definition of inspiration, the driving force, the Light that draws men closer to the ultimate goal”. — Igor Rogov

    In other words, they failed to identify Transcendence as a spiritual replacement for resistance against the tyranny of the east (war).

    They confused living in correspondence with the laws of the physical world, with the defeat of the dark forces of the barbarians, the un-sovereign peoples, the lies of the fictionalists (idealists/supernaturalists), the combination of our own ignorance, error, bias and deceit, the defeat of regression to the mean in any group, and the universal war against time, scarcity, and a hostile universe.

    They failed to turn their via-negativa (defense) into a via positiva (transcendence). The defeat of the east, the defeat of the self, the defeat of the universe: transcendence.

    The problem was that once the ancients ‘won’ the lost their source of inspiration: defense against the evils of the east.

    THIS IS THE CURRENT PROBLEM AS WELL.

    For heroic man, for who truthful speech (meaning scientific speech), meaning virtuous speech, display and action, what is the reason for sacrifice to the commons (Rather than conspicuous consumption) once we’ve ‘won’?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 09:40:00 UTC

  • WHY DOES UKRAINE NEED EUROPE? OLIGARCHS. Ukraine was always a tax-toy of other s

    WHY DOES UKRAINE NEED EUROPE? OLIGARCHS.

    Ukraine was always a tax-toy of other states.

    Ukraine was subject to horrors under the Soviets.

    Ukraine has been subject to predation and poverty under post soviet oligarchs.

    The Ukrainian government and judiciary is OWNED by the oligarchs – and organized crime (the fantasy of libertarians).

    If the Ukrainian Government tries to take over oligarchs, it is too weak, and Ukraine will fall into civil war, so that the Russians have an excuse to conquer them again, and deprive them of their potential for a high trust society, sovereignty, and nationhood.

    NATO MEANS DEFEAT OF OLIGARCHS AND NATIONHOOD.

    Nato + European integration means defeat of the Oligarchs.

    Defeat of the oligarchs allows Rule of law.

    Rule of law allows credit and risk.

    Credit allows risk via entrepreneurship.

    Entrepreneurship creates prosperity.

    Prosperity saves the Ukrainian people from:

    1) predation by the jews of old

    2) predation by the soviets of the 20th century.

    3) predation by the oligarchs of post soviets.

    And eliminates all value of a Russian conquest.

    PUTIN FAILED. HE COULD HAVE:

    0) Called the Nato leaders personally and told them his plan.(not asked permission)

    1) Burned Yanukovich on a stake for his crimes against the people.

    2) Provided discount gas to ukraine for a 99 year lease on the black sea coastal territories.

    3) Secured the Ukrainian banks that were not already under Russian ownership (few of them)

    4) Crushed the Ukrainian Oligarchs “at the request of the ukrainian people”

    5) Withdrawn back to russian.

    6) Restored the territory, population, trade routes, manufacturing base, and military bases necessary for continued russian restoration of orthodox empire.

    7) Caused russia to be forgiven of past sins under the soviets.

    AND AS A RESULT PUTIN COULD HAVE:

    8) been a fucking world hero, and perhaps the greatest leader of the 21st century.

    9) Removed all necessity for the preservation of NATO.

    10) Saved the world from any nearby chance of another world war.

    Yeah. So. It’s still possible.

    WHY ISN’T HE DOING IT?

    Stupid.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 09:35:00 UTC

  • THE HUMILITY OF REFERENCES TO THE GODS When we say “the gods only know” we mean

    THE HUMILITY OF REFERENCES TO THE GODS

    When we say “the gods only know” we mean that we don’t know.

    When we say, “the gods work in mysterious ways” we mean that there is much about life, the universe, and everything that is unfathomable; and always will be, to limited minds.

    When we say “the gods sit in judgement of the righteous and unrighteous” we mean that consequences cannot be evaded; even if, at times, they may perhaps be shifted or deferred.

    When we say “the gods command it” we mean that the divine commandments have withstood the test of time; unlike those who foolishly neglected, altered, or abridged them.

    These are all useful heuristics for humility.

    In contrast, the arrogance, hubris, and recklessness of the so-called “skeptic” can be nearly without limit.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 14:09:00 UTC

  • PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE Entrepreneurship in the UK and Germany feels

    PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE

    Entrepreneurship in the UK and Germany feels very much like 1000 overzealous virtue-signal conformists are trying to strangle you at all times – as if the damage they do by their virtue signaling and constraints does not somehow cause one thousand times as much damage to the people and the economy as any entrepreneurial error or fraud has any potential of doing.

    And all those poor european morons thing that by preventing someone from taking some small advantage doesn’t stifle all the advantages that are possible save the outliers.

    There is a reason the stock market and research in consumer goods are in the USA, that bond market and banking are in the London, that engineering is in Germany, and that military is in Russia.

    PERCEIVED RISK AND FEAR OF FAILURE

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 11:03:00 UTC

  • THE THREE SETS OF IDEAS, AND WHY I EXPECT CRITICISM There is a great difference

    THE THREE SETS OF IDEAS, AND WHY I EXPECT CRITICISM

    There is a great difference between 1) the set of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism – which I am fairly certain solves the unification of the fields of philosophy and science, and 2) the Western group evolutionary strategy of Sovereignty which I’ve explained by USING that set of ideas. And 3) my particular solution to constructing a condition of sovereignty today via constitutionalism as a means of eliminating the second abrahamic defeat of the west.

    And I am aware that those that cannot grasp any of those systems cannot also grasp that they are three different things, and that one’s criticism of the second and third says nothing about the first. Or that the first, as far as I know, survives all possible criticism.

    Under Testimonialism, no single dimension of a fully accounted truth proposition is closed, and therefore no logical or mathematical, or ethical paradoxes exist. And while I originally, intuited ‘something wrong’ with mathematics ( for which one of my closest friends, a mathematician was frustrated) I was swayed by these kinds of nonsense mathematical arguments myself.

    At present I understand that we can only close a dimension of reason (logic and mathematics for example) by appeal to the next dimension. And that in the end even Testimony (a full accounting of all the dimensions) cannot be closed (Critical Rationalism) – for no other reason that any description we can give relies upon incomplete knowledge of a universe with what appears to be non distillable causal density.

    So I take it as ‘a cost of doing business’ when people criticize me, or criticize my work, because I understand how very few people grasp Acquisitionism+Propertariainsm+Testimonialism. (What I call Propertarianism, but which I should probably call Testimonialism). And I accept that my use of Propertarianism to express western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy (and the strategy of all other groups and civilizations) is offensive. And I understand that people may not like or desire to live in a nation-state where truthful speech in the commons is a legal obligation.

    So I understand when people both conflate the three different projects, and construct criticisms, or express skepticism, or disapproval or ridicule: they are simple people. But as simple people they assist me in improving my argument until those who are a bit less simple may grasp it with effort, and those who are not simple are attracted to what they intuit are answers to problems that I have solved.

    I conduct my work in public specifically so that I can attract (worthwhile) criticism, and therefore produce a work more thoroughly tested than i could by merely talking to myself about it so to speak.

    So it’s quite alright. I know the difference between myself and all but a few as we struggle on the edge of human understanding.

    That said, I am extraordinarily cognizant that i’ve completed and explained the success of the scientific method and unified philosophy and science. And if only a handful of people understand that, then that’s fine with me.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 05:10:00 UTC

  • Are There Any Good Arguments For White Supremacy Without Being Racist?

    If somehow acknowledging racial differences is ‘racism’ then no because you can’t even ask the question, and so you cant answer it either

    If ‘racism’ refers to treating an individual by the average properties of his race then that is a legitimate criticism of an illogical behavior.

    If ‘racism’ refers to criticism of the reproductive, cultural, political strategies of a competing group, rather than criticism of one’s inability to defend against the harm caused you by that group, then that’s illogical also.

    If ‘racism’ refers to a preference for nationalism or separatism in order to reduce conflicts between groups and improve the conditions of either by creating norms and institutions more suitable for each group’s differing wants and needs, then criticizing that is not rational.

    White ‘supremacy’ in nearly every field is simply a fact – although the reason for white success (the high cost of truth even if it may disrupt the dominance hierarchy, and therefore resulting in reason, debate, argument, common law, science, medicine, engineering, technology etc.

    White genetic supremacy does not appear correct. all racial groups both evolved in different geographical conditions and in doing so produced different levels of neoteny. With asians most, whites next, mixed colors next, and blacks last. The reason being that whites and asians have been in homogenous groups a long time, under agrarianism and have succeeded at selecting for neoteny. And secondly, because of the pressures of agrarianism and the winter seasons, the asians and western europeans have more successfully reduced the sizes of the ‘troublesome’ (underclass) population leaving almost the entire population descendent from the genetic middle class. Every other race and subrace has dominated warmer climates where the rate of maturity as a means of surviving a higher disease gradient requires earlier maturity and deeper maturity and therefore limited selection for neoteny.

    The superiority of europeans appears to be the result of a rather small set of noble families never exceeding a few hundred thousand in total population combined with a middle class majority population who expanded downward.

    So because europeans and asians lived in homogenous groups that were somewhat insulated from sun belt density of diverse and nomadic pastoral peoples, they were able to genetically select (not so much evolve) for superior populations. The differences between china and europe are largely that china started earlier. THe muslims were not able to cause a thousand year dark age in china like they were in Europe by collapsing the four major ancient civilizations and reducing them to sub 85IQ averages. But the west is faster than china in both teh ancient and modern worlds because of its institutions of ‘truthfulness’ instead of ‘face-saving’, which allowed the west to advance more quickly in both ancient and modern eras.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-good-arguments-for-white-supremacy-without-being-racist

  • THE PROPERTIES OF RELIGIONS SATISFY A SET OF NECESSARY DEMANDS Most people don’t

    THE PROPERTIES OF RELIGIONS SATISFY A SET OF NECESSARY DEMANDS

    Most people don’t understand the term religion because they define religion as monotheism and supernaturalism rather than the demands of the human psyche once outside of tribal life, that are satisfied by religion – rituals and regularities that provide the kind of saturation that tribal life provides the always-uncertain-mind.

    The tribal mind is constantly receiving feedback from other members in the group. But as scale and division of labor increase this turns into ‘noise’. Because it is noise it is incalculable (impossible to order and rationalize). Because it is incalculable it creates uncertainty and frustration. Uncertainty and frustration that for a time can be satisfied by increased consumption provided by increases in the division of knowledge and labor. But eventually ends on confusion and loneliness (or what marx called ‘alienation’).

    Gods, demigods, saints, and heroes provide a unit of measure by which complex sets of phenomenon can be judged across family, clan, tribe, and cultural lines. They provide decidability and therefore the reduction of conflict, a standard of norms, and the production of trust and certainty through repetition, and the elimination of effort of game-theoriizing which failed the human mind by the second or third order.

    Sports, Festivals, Holidays, Feasts and Rituals provide trust by evoking the pack response which is one of the most pleasant feelings humans can experience. Repetition eliminates differences. Costly rituals eliminate defection (loss avoidance).

    Private rituals and prayers and recitation and meditation provide mindfulness.

    So at every level, political, social, and personal, that which we call ‘religion’ creates the equivalent of the pack at increasingly large scales.

    And humans like all pack and herd animals, are gregarious toward the pack.

    And that is the purpose of religion.

    To create gregariousness toward the pack.

    And therefore a forgiving and tolerant and gregarious pack despite our ever increasing differences in a division of knowledge and labor.

    In propertarian terms: to decrease opportunity and transaction costs including the physical, emotional, and intellectual.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 17:27:00 UTC

  • A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1)

    A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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): 2017-06-09 14:03:00 UTC

  • WHAT ANSWER DOES THE RIGHT HAVE? It’s not exactly like the Right has a portfolio

    WHAT ANSWER DOES THE RIGHT HAVE?

    It’s not exactly like the Right has a portfolio of philosophers to choose from. Who is there? A bunch of failures who took stylistic clues from christian literature and mixed it with Lovecraft’s occultism? A century and a half of Abrahamic apologists still hopeful that what defeated us in the previous era, what we escaped from, and what the Abrahamists are using to attack us once again, will somehow – like generals fighting the last war – succeed this time despite failing us over and over again in the past?

    What strategy? What plan? What demands? What institutions? What will you change as meaningfully as what rescued us from Supernatural Abrahamism the last time (empiricism) and what can rescue us from SuperRational and Pseudoscientific Abrahamism this time (marxism/socialism/postmodernism/feminism)?

    What military tactics that were required in the age of arrows, in the age of cannon, in the age of rifles, in the age of armor, are now possible and necessary in the current age under the ending of the peace of westphalia where the fragility is not the army, but the infrastructure, and the illusion of power and rule? By what means can the people overthrow the state and restore nation and sovereignty and militia?

    If you are weak. I understand. But you are irrelevant. All that matters is a solution that it is possible to implement, a set of incentives by which to award the common people for changing the status quo, a set of demands to impose upon the state, a strategy for forcing their submission, command and control by which to act, and a minority of men ready to destroy that upon which the current order depends.

    Does anyone out there have anything other, than cunning words?

    No. I know so. Don’t bother pulling wishful thinking out of your backside.

    Rule or be ruled. Rule by force or be ruled by force. Rule by distributed dictatorship of the militia of sovereign men, denying rule to all others. Or be ruled by any one of the alternatives, all of which render you a freeman, serf or slave.

    The strong do not look for approval, permission, or cooperation of the weak. We act, regardless of the approval, or permission, or cooperation of the weak.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 12:54:00 UTC