Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WE NEED A CHURCH, BUT ONE FREE OF LIES I see the church as desperately clinging

    WE NEED A CHURCH, BUT ONE FREE OF LIES

    I see the church as desperately clinging to middle eastern dogma instead of seizing the opportunity to teach a mixture of aryan transcendence, christian commercial ethics, and stoic and buddhist mental discipline. In my experience prayer can provide the same benefits as stoicism and buddhism but the problem is that it requires a lie. Whereas buddhism and stoicism do not require lies.

    I talk to god every day. You would not imagine how great an influence my god has on my life. While empirical, I am not (like my sister) a stoic. Instead, I practice prayer myself because it is what I know how to do well – but then, my concept of god is so esoteric it may not mean the same thing even if it fulfills the same function.

    I see no incompatibility between Aryanism and the church. Nor between our ancient nature worship and the church. I see a weakness in a religion without institutions (paganism). My preference is that the church reform FURTHER in favor of Aryanism than it did in the reformation. And further than the Germans tried to do with the second enlightenment in the 1800’s. Because we need a church that institutionalizes those values across eons and has no other purpose.

    For those who don’t understand, Aryanism refers to the initial value system that moved westward with the Kurgans (Yamnaya) and formed the uniqueness of western civilization: Personal Sovereignty. Truthful speech. Public heroism. Political(spiritual) Transcendence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 17:29:00 UTC

  • CIVILIZATION: ALL PROBLEMS OF INFORMATION The solution to ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS OF

    CIVILIZATION: ALL PROBLEMS OF INFORMATION

    The solution to ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS OF COOPERATION is (a) information and (b) institutions that facilitate the production, distribution, and testing of information. We need institutions that allow the intergenerational transfer of information. Previously savings and interest combine with property and family provided those institutions. The 20th century can be seen as a pseudoscientific attack on those western traditions.

    They attacked us because we habituated our scientific culture without being able to articulate what we had habituated in rational and scientific language.

    We were vulnerable to that attack because we used democracy to overthrow the aristocracy, rather than to ask for additional houses with which to conduct trades between long term genetic responsibility (monarchy), long term territorial responsibility (nobility), medium term economic responsibility (burghers), medium term responsibility for production( man as provider of family consumption), and short term responsibility for consumption in reproduction (woman as producer of generations).

    In every civilization, every nation, every sub culture, every class, and every person, at every age, in both genders makes use of some cognitive constant against which they calculate their judgements. Unfortunately, no such constants exist. We call this assumption of constants ‘taking something for granted’. Taking something for granted makes decisions easier when we have sparse information. But without knowing that we are taking something for granted in order to make decisions easier, we do not know the limits of the decisions we can make under the assumptions that we take for granted.

    Hence the importance that all individuals of all ages, in both genders, in all classes in all subcultures in all nations and all civilizations know the limits of the decisions that they make because of the assumptions that they make. And it is not complicated to teach people this set of limits of knowledge, and why. It is certainly easier than reading, writing, and arithmetic – which are contrary to human cognitive habits,. There is nothing more natural to human cognitive habits than deciding among our wants and the possibility of obtaining them in the circumstances we exist in, with the resources at our disposal, with the abilities that we possess. Unfortunately, lying to ourselves and others about limits, circumstances, recourses, and abilities, is often easier that finding a solution without lying about them. So while we may have a desire to possess the value of the skills of reading and writing in obtaining our wants despite their cognitively unnatural demands, we may not desire to possess the skill of ascertaining the limits of our judgements in obtaining our wants despite their cognitively natural demands.

    So just as we must work hard to teach people the value of reading and writing so that we make use of the written and calculative information systems, we must also teach people the value of limits of knowledge so that they can make use of the information system in obtaining their wants through cooperation with others.

    There are differences in institutional requirements between:

    Simple arithmetic knowledge – which requires the institution of teaching…

    And literary knowledge which requires accumulated written material stored in institutions private and public so that we can access it, but requires little interpersonal cooperation other than argument to assist us in filtering information….

    And the institutions of contract, law, and judiciary And the institutions of money, accounting, and banking, require formal institutions in addition to education….

    And the limits of knowledge, requires education, and the institutions of arithemtic, literacy, finance, and at least natural law if not the law iteself. Each of these skills and the institutions that perpetuate them, make us aware of both opportunities if we learn them and limits imposed upon us by necessity when we have.

    There are few people who do not desire to read, more that do not desire to perform mathematics, more that do not want knowledge of finance and economics, more that do not want knowledge of natural law, law, contract, and court.

    But we defend ourselves against the ignorant, regardless of those numbers, in no small part by forcible education in those subjects – at least at the level to which they can find some useful (paying) labor.

    And we now require that we expand the knowledge of people prior to their ability to enter the franchise, such that they cannot be easily lied to by those who would use their ignorance to in turn use the franchise to destroy those institutions of knowledge that we have evolved, incrementally, in the west, over millennia.

    The aggression against the ignorant mind is a means of insuring ourselves that the bottom do not burden the top over-muchly, and in doing so stagnate or regress the society that depends upon individual ability to make use of the various institutions by which we manufacture, distribute, make use of information, in the pursuit of information about opportunities that we can consume, and transform into consumption for us, our families, our classes, our tribes, our nations, and our civilizations, and in the end… mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 10:45:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WE NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH? (Note: for followers, pls note the use of these

    WHY DO WE NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH?

    (Note: for followers, pls note the use of these series/sequences/spectrum of decidability)(Q:how would the argument differ without them, if I relied on advocacy for testimonialism as an ideal type, instead of illustration by spectrum? )

    —“If [propertarianism and testimonialism] were attractive would it not pull us from philosophy? (convince us?) “— A Friend

    Would not religion pull us from superstition?

    Would not philosophy pull us from religion?

    Would not science pull us from philosophy?

    Would not testimonialism (complete science) pull us from science?

    Or, is religion all that is possible for some of certain limited abilities, philosophy only possible for some others of certain limited abilities, science only possible for some of certain limited abilities, and Testimonialism only possible for some of certain limited abilities?

    If not everyone is pulled forward by each technological advancement in decidability, then why do we see both the retention of superstition, religion, philosophy, and science, and why we see innovations in superstition, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and (in the near future) pseudotestimonialism?

    We do not choose what is true for our means of decidability. We choose what is useful. If superstition, religion, pseudorationalism, philosophy, pseudoscience, science, pseudotestimonialism, and testimonialism are useful for different groups for different purposes, because of what we can ‘get away with’ in each discipline given its lack of precision, or openness to fraud, then we should expect people to seek what is beneficial to them with each technology of decidability.

    And that is what we see.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 14:46:00 UTC

  • When the Chinese philosopher (Confucius) failed to solve the problem of politics

    When the Chinese philosopher (Confucius) failed to solve the problem of politics (truthful debate and property and jury) he directed all men into a vast hierarchical family administered by a hierarchical bureaucracy with decidability provided by his version of morality “order/non-conflict”. While this retained the extended Chinese clan/tribe ( family), it caused the eventual stagnation of the polity, economy, bureaucracy and civilization. However, while we in the west solved the problem of politics, we failed to solve the problem of family/clan/polity. Whether in Rome, in the roman church, and in England we failed. Only in Germany – surrounded on three sides – did they grasp the importance of family/clan/tribe/nation as a limit on corporatism.

    And we conquered them for it.

    (sigh)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 11:57:00 UTC

  • THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION We can measure the higher and lower morality o

    THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION

    We can measure the higher and lower morality of groups by the scope of property that they protect from parasitism – non-reciprocity.

    (see “Incremental Suppression”)

    it is always moral for a more moral order of people to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purposes of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results.

    (“Investment in the production of reciprocity”)

    If it is affordable, it is immoral to fail to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purpose of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results. Otherwise one passes the cost to future generations, and increases the risk that in a period of shock or weakness the less moral people may cause either or both a decline in property, or a decline in morality of the more moral people.

    (“Defense against the deceit of claiming conviction when one is practicing mere convenience: externalizing costs to others.”)

    As far as I know, arguing against this position cannot be done except by the non-reciprocal export of costs upon others. In other words, the failure to aggress against immoral orders can only be explained by immoral actions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:31:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING ‘MONEY’ AS TIME (REALLY) (first cause of economics)(very important

    UNDERSTANDING ‘MONEY’ AS TIME (REALLY)

    (first cause of economics)(very important)

    Shares are issued as a loan against future productivity.

    In the case of fiat money (shares in the economy), shares are issued to consumers, who businesses fight for, in order to produce profits some portion of which are captured by taxes that repay the debt. Although tis is still a mistake. We are just borrowing from our future selves. So there is really no reason to pay it back since we will either collect dividends in present consumption and accelerated productivity, or we will collect dividends in taxes produced by returns. Or we will do neither and lose our investment by externalizing that loss in a million ways.

    The trap most people cognitively fall into is starting with the first cause being a commodity (asset of questionable demand) or commodity money (quantifiable asset of unquestionable demand), rather than starting with TIME that we capture in commodities, commodity money, credit money, and share money.

    We are just talking about time PAST to time FUTURE. WHICH ONE ARE WE USING?

    Once you reduce all to time – the first cause of everything – the model is quite simple. Are we losing time we have previously created, or losing time we have hoped to create, and what are the consequences of each? Well the consequences of losing past money is that we can sense the change in capital state and know when we are increasing risk, while losing future money – as we do not calculate expected returns now – we currently cannot. And therefore we consume and risk that capital we have collected over centuries.

    But it is quite possible to calculate those bets and returns just as businesses and financial organizations calculate those bets and returns. However, how do we make certain that the people who take those bets are not violating the requirement for warranty (skin in the game)? Well by making them take the losses personally. Even if fractionally spread across the population, so that we know what our investments have gained and lost.

    The reason that the left has opposed such things (even the simplistic version of the Singapore model) is because such warranty, accountability, and transparency, produce evidence of the reason of resulting inequality, and would give moral license to aristocracy and meritocracy.

    You see, the left needs to lie in every way possible. But we can create means by which lying is very difficult if we choose.

    Anyway. The central idea I would like you to walk away with is that when you think ‘back’ to the starting point of money, or back to the starting point of commodity, you are not thinking back to the first cause: time.

    Because this is why man defeated the dark forces of time and ignorance: by coordinating our actions we are disproportionately more productive than we can be on our own.

    WE DEFEAT TIME. THE MORE TRUTH WE TELL THE MORE TIME WE DEFEAT.

    I hope this teaches some people this lesson since it is the first lesson that all subsequent economic lessons are based.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-03 22:52:00 UTC

  • We don’t vote for our identities. we vote for our parties. we have two parties.

    We don’t vote for our identities. we vote for our parties. we have two parties. we have two parties by design. the multi-party system seems to have been a better choice. the prime-minister/monarch seems to have been a better choice. however, in practice (universally) a majority and an opposition party seem to form that roughly reflect the feminine (dysgenic female) and masculine (eugenic male) reproductive strategies.

    This is the empirical revision of the Iron Law of Oligarchy: (a) oligarchies will form, (b) they will form into a major and an opposition party (c) they will pursue either feminine/dysgenic vs masculine/eugenic, and whether they use Authoritarian or Majoritarian ‘excuses’ will depend upon the homogeneity of the population.

    the left = feminine, consumptive, dysgenic equalitarian. the right = masculine, accumulative, eugenic meritocracy.

    The rest is just excuses and verbal nonsense to claim status signals by promoting differences without distinctions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-02 10:25:00 UTC

  • Think of the language of propertarianism like this: Humans have possibly three e

    Think of the language of propertarianism like this:

    Humans have possibly three emotional drivers: activation-rest, pain-pleasure, dominance-submission. And on top of those three we find our big five/six personality drivers – our sensitivity to those three emotional drivers. And on top of that the rather broad cacaphony of emotions you can see in diagrams of our emotinal ranges. And on top of that the combinations of all those emotions as we react to the complex symphony of emotions we feel when we percieve the any complex thing constituted in multiple causes and consequences.

    But underneath all those layers is a very simple machine that wants to obtain access to a higher ratio of calories under it’s control than the cost to obtain and consume them.

    And it turns out that the list of things we like to collect in our inventory, so that we find security and pleasure in our condition, is fairly small. We call it ‘property in toto’: those things people act to obtain, defend, transform, trade, and consume.

    So, if we speak in the language of the gain or loss of property in toto, we circumvent the apparent complexity of those emotions, the lies and denials that accompany them, we can state all of human perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and action as reactions to the changes in the state of their inventory – and nothing more.

    it only seems complex to learn to speak in causes rather than experiences. But the causes are much more simply: “what is this person attempting to acquire, or defend, and is he doing it truthfully and morally or untruthfully and immorally?”

    From this perspective, the argumentative power of propertarianism is so all encompassing because it relies upon first cause. But that said, it’s actually *very simple* compared to the arguments consisting of experiences, analogies, and deceits.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 15:47:00 UTC

  • SORRY. I KILLED ANARCHISM (DENIAL OF REALITY), AND POSSIBLY LIBERTY (BEGGING FOR

    SORRY. I KILLED ANARCHISM (DENIAL OF REALITY), AND POSSIBLY LIBERTY (BEGGING FOR PRETENSE OF SOVEREIGNTY).

    (and I love taunting the faithful with such statements)

    —“Are you an anarchist or not? There is only one social law and it is absolute, axiomatic, eternal, objective, and universal natural law- the law of private property.”— Chris Anpropian

    That is an interesting statement. But until you define the scope of private property it’s actually non-rational (untestable) one: a logical deception demanding the use of substitution for an undefined (property) term.

    If you define the scope of property using rothbardian ghetto ethics, you will be unable to use praxeological reasoning to construct an explanation of the incentives under which such a polity can form and persist. If you define it as Hoppian ethics, you will not be able to construct an explanation of the incentive of how a polity can form and persist in competition with other polities. if you rely on property in toto (demonstrated property), you will be able to construct a polity that can form, survive, and compete.

    There is a reason why the american west was a province of the american empire, a reason why eastern europe hosted jews as polish, lithuanian, and russian provices, a reason the german princedom’s existed under french and italian papacy as provinces, a reason why the icelandic experiments existed as danish provinces, a reason why greek settlements existed as greek provinces, and so on: to hold (squat) territory at low cost on behalf of an empire that could afford to defend but not afford to administrate it.

    There exists one objective law of voluntary cooperation: full reciprocity: the non imposition of costs against the costs born by another without having imposed costs against the costs born by another and so on – leaving only productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities as the possible means survival. In other words: markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group competition against other polities.

    One does not create excuses why another will not retaliate. Others will not retaliate against productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. That would be irrational, and man is neither moral or immoral, but merely rational in the pursuit of his reproductive, and therefore cooperative, strategy.

    quod erat demonstrandum.

    I killed jewish and german anarchism and left the fully reciprocal natural law of sovereign men as the only possible means of obtaining a condition of sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy as insurance.

    There has only ever been one source of sovereignty: the organized use of violence to create a condition of perfect reciprocity by the total suppression of parasitism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Law of Nature and of Men.

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 09:00:00 UTC

  • THE FOLLY OF EUROPEANS – THE SPREAD OF SUICIDAL GERMANISM ( Only privileged euro

    THE FOLLY OF EUROPEANS – THE SPREAD OF SUICIDAL GERMANISM

    ( Only privileged europeans argue moral equivalency where no equivalency exists. There is a very good reason northern europeans evolved a the world’s fastest innovation, greatest wealthy, highest trust society, practicing deflationary truth, deflationary classes, deflationary disciplines, deflationary (independent) institutions, with common natural empirical law, absolute nuclear families, markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, rather than the opposite of each of those that are practiced universally – everywhere else in the world and in history. We have the evidence: we have literally eliminated our underclasses by incrementally aggressive means for 3500 years. And this is the dirty secret of the Human Genome Project: (a) there are differences between geographic groups, ethnic groups, difference between classes, and genders, (b) that these differences are the product of self selection not random mutation, leaving all europeans significantly more ‘domesticated’, homogenous, and pedomorphically evolved than other groups except the Han, Koreans, and Japanese (who practice particularism and willingly pay the economic cost of it), and (c) that the current era’s wealth has temporarily made these differences less material than in the past. But (d) as the current economies are demonstrating, that temporary wealth advantage was was created by europeans over centuries and is now dissipating as the technologies are distributing worldwide and eliminating that advantage. Europeans are still faith-based. In fact, as the evidence mounts, it turns out that most of the ‘bad ideas’ that have led to the end of the west are or german origin and have spread to the other european countries by their influence. That influence originated in the kantian preservation of faith by secular rationalist means. Continental philosophy is suicidal. Always has been. And this is why europeans are suicidal: faith in the empirically false assertion that we are any different from the genetic mechanizations of any other domesticated animals. We aren’t. Breeds matter. And we are the golden retrievers of the human breeds. And that’s a bad thing. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 07:56:00 UTC