Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE PROPERTARIAN TAKE ON WESTERN HISTORY (important concept) Let’s note that in

    THE PROPERTARIAN TAKE ON WESTERN HISTORY

    (important concept)

    Let’s note that in propertarianism we don’t have to resort to the terms ‘good’ or ‘bad’ just true (moral) and false (immoral). If you work from the via-positiva, you are stuck with the impossible presumption of knowing the ‘good’. If you work from via-negativa, we only need to know know the bad. If you work from sovereignty over property-in-toto we can empirically test the bad, leaving only the good to survive the ‘battle’. (The origins of trial by combat are rational in this context).

    And if you grasp that the only method of cooperating under sovereignty over property-in-toto is productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer limited to productive externalities, then no ‘commands’ in ‘legislation’ exist: only contracts for exchanges. In some exchanges we are seeking merely reciprocal burden of the costs of the production of commons. In others we are seeking behavior in exchange for financing. In others we are seeking behavior in exchange for subsidy.

    What Roman empire and the church provided was an insurer that monarchies(rulers) adhered to natural law – at least in commerce. In a world where monarchs could be readily replaced by advantage-seeking-peers if they broke natural law, and were given license by the church – the militias (people) would not defend their kings. This limited monarchies to an incremental evolution of christian natural law monarchies, culminating in the late medieval period as enlightened monarchs.

    We blew it. We took a very long time to develop government without a state (rule of law), in sufficient scale across our civilization, that sovereignty reserved for the aristocracy, was nearly achieved at scale. By ‘jumping the gun’ with the enlightenment, and seizing power from the aristocracy and church, the anglos and french let loose the undomesticated animal man in the lower classes to undo that sovereignty that the aristocracy had spent 3500 years developing through the incremental suppression of parasitism, producing the incremental domestication, and incremental rise of animal man through slave, serf, freeman, lesser nobility, nobility, and aristocracy. Because by achieving aristocracy one has transcended parasitic man to sovereign brotherhood of non-parasitic humans.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 08:10:00 UTC

  • (I don’t think of it as marxist terms by the way. The west has always practiced

    (I don’t think of it as marxist terms by the way. The west has always practiced the model of aristocracy, nobility, burgher, freeman, serf, slave, and ‘other’. All that changes is the distribution of power between aristocracy(military), nobility (managerial), and clergy (administrative). What’s ‘Novel’ is the expansion of the ‘burgher’ s (merchants) and the transfer of the clerical class and revenues from the clergy to what we consider the middle class. )

    —“Results from these three research methods suggests that in the United States today approximately 15 to 20 percent are in the poor, lower class; 30 to 40 percent are in the working class; 40 to 50 percent are in the middle class; and 1 to 3 percent are in the rich, upper class.”—-

    I use Paul Fussel’s book “Class” as the best overall analysis to date.

    Prior to the enlightenment, 50% of europe’s lands were in the hands of the church and rented out for profit. The monasteries produced goods and functioned as the ‘big corporations do today’, The clergy, because it maintained a near monopoly on literacy, fulfilled much of the clerical labor force – at least as far as government went.

    With the enlightenment and the printing press (a) the clergy no longer had a monopoly (similar to today’s academy/state/media complex is losing it’s monopoly on the control of information, and (b) the revolutions deprived the church of its means of income, and (c) private industry could concentrate capital and invest and the church could not.

    When Darwin dealt a death blow to the only income stream related to the church (a channel to the divine), the academy ‘left the parent’s home’ so to speak and took over teaching the ‘new religion of sciences’ so to speak.

    Unfortunately, the truth was only appealing to the upper classes. So once the academy found the lies of the cosmopolitans to serve as a product for the ascendent middle, working, and lower classes, they stepped in and replaced the church as the propagandists and ‘priests’ of the new state.

    What has happened, primarily since (a) the failure of the great society program, and (b) the fall of world communism, the expansive corruptoin of all socialist polities, and (c) the incremental erasure of the (((cosmopolitan pseudosciences))) strangely enough, in no small part by (((a group of intellectuals))) who are nearly forced to admit that given the record of democratic voting, the economic and political record, the results of cognitive, genetic, and archeological science, that the conservatives (aristocracy) was right all along.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 17:34:00 UTC

  • PREFACE: In my view all people can be domesticated by the common natural law if

    PREFACE: In my view all people can be domesticated by the common natural law if that law provides sufficient suppression of innovative means of parasitism. And that our philosohpers and scientists failed to develop that method of legal suppression for a variety of reasons – most of which had to do with incentives at the time.

    JEWISH PERSECUTION WORLDWIDE

    Sol – the problem for jews is that they want to preserve their separatism and avoid contributing to the host commons, and instead, to live parasitically off it. This is the same strategy as the gypsies but at a much more indirect method. To do this the jews have made a habit of working with the central government against the interests of the people. The fact that this service could not be provided until the templars, and that the templars were crushed by it, left open an opportunity for the jews to seize that function in society as it emerged. Both the church and the Nobility thought it ‘dirty’ work.

    The problem is, that eventually, a shock occurs, and the people who have contact with what they see as licensed predators (sort of how we see the IRS and Collection Agencies today), take out their anger and steal the property of those who have allied with the state against them. (Just as the jews have done in this country).

    i can’t remember the name of the book. I should but I always forget it. But it’s written by a jew, and he recommends that jews end this cycle of parasitism and alliance with the states against the people, and realize that they are not so much victims but deserving of what has happened to them – it’s a problem of their own making.

    This is my position as well. The jewish group evolutionary strategy is successful, but it has lead to a specialization in literacy, and a weakness in numbers, and physicality. Sot hat the jewish people require host civilizations to provide the protection of property while they engage in profitable but continuously antagonizing extractions from the people and their commons. Israel is an interesting experiment because it will demonstrate whether jews can convert from parasitic consumption of commons, to the expensive production of commons. If so, judaism will start looking a lot like presbyterianism.

    Separate but among cannot work unless one pays heavily into the commons. But jews choose primarily those occupations that are not productive and parasitically consume the commons – those that make use of asymmetric information.

    (in other words, having a lot of jewish doctors, physical scientists, and accountants is one thing, but having a lot of jewish bankers, financiers, advertisers, marketers, public intellectuals, artists, propagandists, lawyers, politicians, is a very bad thing because it creates too great a hazard (as we can see from Mr Krugman) such that the cognitive bias favor of creating additional hazards but escaping accountability for them, can be sated in the course of one’s duties. Without the law to take away the benefit-of the doubt, we cannot ‘train’ their cult to behave as high trust individuals in a high trust society – in great numbers.

    I dunno. I am pretty fond of reformed jews and I don’t see much of a difference between them and our classical liberal bourgeoisie except for our western predilection for (masculine) contribution to the ACCUMULATIVE commons and the jewish (female) predilection for contribution to the CONSUMPTIVE commons.

    All people can be domesticated by sufficient law constructed to take advantage of incentives to prosecute parasitic behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 15:29:00 UTC

  • I certainly think everything I say is compatible with the words of jesus of naza

    I certainly think everything I say is compatible with the words of jesus of nazareth. I think the babylonian myths coopted in the bible are one set of origin stories (babylonian, greek, roman, french(carolingian), germanic, nordic, anglo-arthurian. I think churches and ‘priests’ are necessary. And I think christianity can be taught as myth, while removing the falsehoods by stating that it is myth and parable not history and truth.

    I regard christianity as having failed, because the church was so desperate to preserve the lies, that it did not adapt to telling the truths: that the church in retrospect has worked hard to build civilization from the ashes of the empire – albeit with entirely selfish motives. And that the christianization of europa was among the great crimes in history.

    But that does not mean we do not need a church. Without it we get the state or the academy or both. and as we have seen, they are far worse than the church.

    We have but one aristocratic religion – that is the law and the sacredness of the law; sovereignty, and the sacredness of it; the beauty of women, family nature, craft, and art, and the sacredness of that beauty.

    I am not sure why we need lies if we have thousands of years of great men and great families. If we have festivals to celebrate them. If we have stoicism for men and upper (and secular buddhism for women and bottom), and we create monthly or holiday ‘feasts and services’ wherein we practice how to behave in the presence of the sacred.

    People went to church to learn. They stayed in church for institutional reasons. There is no reason we cannot ‘take’ the christian church and make it a place of learning, and institutional utility. But to do that we must separate the teachings of ‘love’ of jesus from the teachings of lies of the church.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 08:46:00 UTC

  • DENY POTENTIAL ALLIES THE FIELD Part of winning the war against the left’s jewis

    DENY POTENTIAL ALLIES THE FIELD

    Part of winning the war against the left’s jewish pseudoscientific, puritan and german psuedo rational, and french moral, and islamic reactionary movments is denying your allies in the libertarian and the right, their fantasies. It is easy for them to concentrate their forces upon us, prior to concentrating their forces upon each other.

    Ending traditional conservatism wasn’t necessary -it failed despite access to power. Ending optimistic conservatism wasn’t necessary – it failed despite access to power. Ending neoconservatism wasn’t necessary – it failed despite access to power. Ending libertinism (Libertarianism) was a bit harder because it was such a failure it never obtained access to power with which to demonstrate their failure. Ending the Christian 88’ers is even harder because they have no chance whatsoever of obtaining power, and demonstrating failure while in power. Any more than their peers, the Jewish communists and socialists have of obtaining power. It is harder to defeat libertarians because of the pseudoscientific and anti-historical bulwark that they have created – sufficient for an attempt at constructing a new religion. And it’s even harder to defeat the 88’ers because they have neither the intellectual bulwark to defeat, nor the evidence of failure, nor the power during which they can demonstrate their failure.

    On the other hand the demonstration of the failure of the 88’ers is their fantasy that they can lead the very revolution that they seek to obtain, by intellectual argument, moral imperative, or obtaining and holding power.

    The 88’ers are just soldiers. The libertines just escapists. the merchants just followers. It is up for the warriors and the aristocracy to lead, so that the soldiers have something possible to follow.

    But like their marxist peers, they have the fantasy that they can rule. This fantasy must be ended in order for them to obtain their desired status by possible, and durable means.

    There is only one future available to us that restores the relative position of our classes in relation to other classes: the restoration of our competitive advantage: sovereignty, truth, beauty, and the production of commons against which no other people can compete.

    Everyone thinks they can lead. But we lead because people want us to, and they want us to because we have actionable plans, and we achieve results because we have actionable plans and people who want a leader to inform them how to act in favor of what end.

    If you don’t have ideas, dont have plans, don’t have leaders, and don’t have sufficient number of people who can act on those plans as suggested by their leaders, then you are just IN THE WAY.

    You are a useful idiot working in favor of the left against your own people.

    That’s my criticism of the 88’ers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 12:39:00 UTC

  • UNCOMFORTABLE THOUGHTS ON MEN AND WOMEN At some point we are going to have to co

    UNCOMFORTABLE THOUGHTS ON MEN AND WOMEN

    At some point we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that women are property of families in all of history, and men fight for that form of property just as they do for slaves, domesticated animals, and territory. And that those peoples that retain the treatment of women as property of the family kin-corporation (a capital asset) will always, over time, defeat those that do not (us).

    Now, when we say something is property, we generally refer to that which lacks sentience. But even with property we do not confer a monopoly of control, but a limited one. For example, I may purchase the Mona Lisa or another great artwork, and I may purchase a full-granary, and I may purchase a lake. But we do not grant one another the right to destroy the art, destroy the grain, or pollute the lake. This is called the right of “ABUSUS”, and it is rarely granted – it is only granted for those things that are not productive in and of themselves. In other words, you are prohibited from causing negative externalities by the consumption or destruction of a good. In this sense you possess rights of USUS (use) and FRUCTUS (the fruits of) property that can cause externalities, and are always and everywhere not in monopoly control of property.

    Men do not tolerate defectors, nor traitors in their responsibility to the kin-group in matters of war. They are profiting from the taking of an asset from the kin group. Why a woman can profit from the taking of a reproductive asset, produce externalities by doing so, and deprive future generations of her offspring, is no different from acting as a traitor or defector.

    If a woman is to exit her kin group, she deprives the kin group of an asset. It’s up to the kin group whether they will defend against the loss of an asset. those groups that prevent assets from defecting will defeat those groups that do not.

    Conversely, if a woman is to bear children at the cost of her people, then she acts parasitically.

    This is not to say that any other right other than ABUSUS can be withheld from women – or from men who wish to import women from non-kin groups. So the door swings both ways. So to limit outbreeding from either direction seems a retention of capital. Except that there are marginal undesirables that breed themselves out of the ingroup by doing so, and into the lower groups.

    We are not the higher evolved unless higher evolution succeeds in competition. We do not choose what is a greater evolutionary strategy. Our survival does.

    It is no more possible for a people (tribe of men and their property) to survive the loss of warriors and producers, than it is for a people (tribe of men and their property) to survive loss of their women and their childbearing.

    Moroever, it is merely an act of ABUSUS for a woman to profit from the gains of the people (the men and their property) while not bearing children, just as it is an act of ABUSUS for a man to profit from the gains of the people (men and their property) while not policing property, maintaining property, and defending property.

    Once we understand this set of evolutionary necessities much of the rhetoric of human life (Moral excuse making) is just a convenient set of lies by which to avoid paying the cost of persistence of a people.

    And while women may not care for their people (men and their property) men must care. And if men do not care, then they are not men, they are just domesticated animals that are either costly or profitable, but unable to demonstrate capacity for political (group) decisions.

    I don’t particularly like this stream of reasoning. But it is what it is.

    if the west is to continue to drag humanity into transcendence we who CAN RULE, must return to the costly but profitable industry OF RULE.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 10:52:00 UTC

  • Testimonlialism, Propertariaisnm, Market Government, and Sovereignty are equally

    Testimonlialism, Propertariaisnm, Market Government, and Sovereignty are equally good for all nations. And it is only with in nations that we may in fact be sovereign. Because it is only in nations that we can create the commons necessary to incrementally domesticate, and transcend our families in to the aristocracy we envy, and the gods we seek to be.

    I am not racist. I am a classist in the sense that the evil 80’s and below are a burden for all nations. I am a culturist, in the sense that all cultures consist of myths, traditions, norms, and laws, that either advance sovereignty and transcendence, inhibit it, or actively devolve law, norm, tradition, myth and genetic transcendence.

    There is no extended family that we call ‘nation’ that cannot transcend the animal man, to fully rational human, to transcendent god we seek, if we practice testimony, property, market government, and sovereignty.

    But we must, as we evolved, bear our own costs of that transformation. Otherwise we do not practice sovereignty. We merely practice parasitism.

    The only substantial differences between the races that I have uncovered is verbal acuity achieved by the process of reduction of gender dimorphism through reproductive selection, and reduction in impulsivity achieved by the process of pedomorphic reproductive selection, the demand for rational intertemporal planning caused by cold climate agrarianism, the upward redistribution of consumption and reproduction to the middle and upper classes under various forms of manorialism, and the consistent culling of the lower classes by war, famine, disease, and aggressive hanging or murder of the impulsively criminal.

    Yet in the current era this problem is easily circumvented by a one-child policy except for those that have reached a certain income level.

    By one child policy alone, within a few generations, the underclasses will reduce and the middle and upper classes reproduce, and the functional difference between superstitious, theological, philosophical, and empirical nations will disappear, as demand for comforting falsehood is eliminated, and the information in the normative commons adjusts, and so do all its institutions, to suit the needs of the new distribution of abilities.

    The bottom is far more harmful than the top is beneficial. We need not try to manufacture superhumans. We need only prevent the reproduction of inferior humans – something which the 20th century has inverted – much to our dismay.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 15:13:00 UTC

  • ON MY (FRUSTRATING) ADVOCACY FOR VIOLENCE That stuff that makes you frustrated i

    ON MY (FRUSTRATING) ADVOCACY FOR VIOLENCE

    That stuff that makes you frustrated is my attempt to remove from the negotiating table the assumption that we have only two choices: cooperation or avoidance. But we have the third choice (Ternary Ethics) to not cooperate, not avoid, but prey upon. This statement is necessary in order to establish the premises from which all other political negotiations (trades) must rest. I suppose I don’t need to explain why negotiations are different between soldiers in battle, merchants in a city, friends in civic discourse, and family in matters of the home. The military and judicial order creates conditions under which negotiations in commerce, commons, and family can prevail without resorting to violence. But this is only a convenient consequence of military and juridical order. In matters of truth, in matters of politics, in matters of war, the option for violence always exists, even if in ordinary daily life we ignore it. I must end this contrivance because all of libertinism is built upon it. All of social democracy is built upon it. Yet classical monarchy, and classical liberalism within those monarchies, is not.

    So please read my ‘colloquial verse of violence’ that you describe as so disturbing, as successful by disturbing you. Its purpose is to disturb you. Because all of western philosophy is riddled with this little lie of convenience that has evolved from mere good manners, to metaphysical assumption upon which much of the falsehoods of philosophy are built, no different from the falsehoods of the approval or disapproval of a god are built. they serve the same purpose: to create the lie that violence is not possible, and therefore parasitism, as a consequence must be TOLERATED.

    in other words, I’m lowering the false bar of moral discourse to its truthful origins, and removing the presumption of ‘us’, created by prophets and philosophers. Us is me. my family, my kin. The only other ‘us’ is a contract we make for reciprocity: mutual gain.

    And if that contract either is broken, is insufficient, or is undesirable then there is no ‘us’ to assume in rhetorical negotiation. Instead. Only me which I defend and you which are candidate-for-prey.

    Only the weak perpetuate this lie. Because the strong do not need to.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 13:50:00 UTC

  • ON ADOLPH HITLER, IN THE CONTEXT OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION Unfortunately, as a ger

    ON ADOLPH HITLER, IN THE CONTEXT OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    Unfortunately, as a german, and man of his era, Hitler lacked the concepts and the language to state that in the spectrum from communism, to authoritarian socialism, to democratic socialism, to classical liberalism, to classical monarchism, to anarchy, that his proposition was to forcibly direct the use of proceeds from taxation to production of classical monarchic ACCUMULATIVE commons, because the left had been so successful at advocating the forcible direction of proceeds from taxation to DEPRECIATIVE consumption and hedonism, that a democratic polity could not be entrusted with discretion.

    In any normative, legal, economic and political system, we have the choice of (a) how do we organize production: in the middle eastern and asian river-valley model (Authoritarian/Corporate). Or in the european forest model (Family Farms). A difference caused mainly by the methods of irrigation – by rainfall in europe, or its seasonality or scarcity in those other climates. (b) how do we distribute proceeds between the private, the common, and leadership, and (c) what is the means we use to decide how to distribute them between the private and the common and leadership.

    The concentration of wealth made possible by the authoritarian river valley model (china/mesopotamia/egypt) allowed for the funding of armies, and large territorires. The privatization of wealth made necessary and possible in europe because of the impossibility of holding distributed territories compared to concentrated river valley territories.

    The fact that he was acting as a classical monarchist in the interests of his people is somewhat obvious, since the classical monarchies competed for status, talent and wealth in the production of commons. Without the church to rally the people. And without the aristocracy to rally the people. He used an aesthetic idea – and a very beautiful, and successful one – to rally the people. And to restore their germanic civilization to its prior trajectory in producing the next enlightenment – an enlightenment necessary to counter the jewish counter-enlightenment produced by the french via Rousseau, then the Jews, in Boaz(vs Darwin), Marx(vs Spencer), Freud(vs Nietzsche), and the Frankfurt School in particular. The only Jewish member of their counter-enlightenment to equal the europeans was Einstein(vs Maxwell).

    Unfortunately, he did not have a means of countering the Jewish counter-enlightement (pseudoscientific deceptions) with the force of law using methods of testimonial science and its demand for truthful, reciprocal, fully accounted speech, that we have today. So he had to physically remove the antagonists and their followers rather than simply silence them and prohibit them from property, public speech, and participation in goverment and industry.

    Had he not engaged in warfare at the same time, and made it impossible to fund the resettlement camps he might have succeeded as the British had. He was too impatient. (I don’t pretend to understand his mind, I just assess this from my vantage point in history.). Had he eliminated the jews from Germany and relocated them as many other nations had done before, he might have helped the jews come to the realization that they must, if they desire sovereignty, obtain and hold a territory, not rest parasitically on the laboring classes of others’. And he might have saved western civilization as he intended.

    But his rather dramatic failure has forced us, a century later, to achieve by TRUTH, LAW, and externality, what Hitler could not achieve by aesthetics, propaganda, physical removal, and war.

    And yes. In the fight for the survival of your people and your civilization, many deaths are of no consequence. We die faster or slower. The question is not what happens to us. But the theft we make from the investments of those ancestors that came before us, and the theft we make from all those generations yet to be, if we do not kill tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions in their interests.

    And I am quite certain that this is a moral statement. It is moral because the only test of morality is reciprocity. And only other sovereign peoples are capable of reciprocity with sovereign people. So they can ether advance to the fully sovereign and therefore fully moral, or they can be held at bay as insufficiently moral, and if a hazard, exterminated for their immorality.

    And frankly. Very few homo sapiens have been successfully domesticated sufficiently enough to think, act, exist, and evolve morally.

    Ergo, there are many people in this world, but very few humans. Because to exist as a human being requires perfect reciprocity, and perfect reciprocity is only possible with truthful speech, and personal sovereignty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 13:37:00 UTC

  • WHICH Doolittle:Anglo-Empiricism, Hoppe:German-Rationalism, Moldbug:Jewish-Criti

    WHICH

    Doolittle:Anglo-Empiricism, Hoppe:German-Rationalism, Moldbug:Jewish-Critique. We bring our baggage with us. Our lenses through which we unconsciously ‘create’ our versions of history.

    Whig history follows the evolution of the west’s only meaningful cult: sovereign common law of european men: contractualism. The means of resolution between warriors.

    Technically speaking, Moldbug is stating jewish history: jewish class and history – a homogenous monopoly. he has conflated his monopoly mind with european deflationary history of aristocracy, church, and burgher. We do not practice monopoly in the west. We even have different languages for our classes.

    When we say ‘europeans practiced X habit” the classes gave priority to very different theories. the slave, serf, freeman, citizen, senator, and monarch, or their feudal equivalents, or their modern equivalents, all rely upon different narratives, making different arguments, and in the west often making them in different languages. I don’t quote the church because I know the church attempted (as far back as bede_ to create another monopoly of lies in the jewish model. But unfortunately they and the burgher who wrote all the propaganda. It is the law of the juridical/military caste, and the church that wrote for the underclass. But then as now, the underclass message is obtainable by all, the burgher language (philosophy) by may fewer, and the aristocratic message (juridical military) by the fewest of all. Which is unfortunate. Because men at least, for most of our history, lived a dual existence as members of the aristocratic military respectful of the peasant religious, while the burghers tried to gain respectability from each.

    I’m Aryan (military aristocracy) first, Philosophy(burgher) second, and christian (peasant) third. Or do you speak Semitic (jewish) monopoly universalism, or it’s byzantine equivalent?

    Can you look at your polytheistic belief system and identify the priorities you attach to each?

    It’s actually pretty difficult.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 12:15:00 UTC