THE FUTURE IS JUST A CHOICE. RETURN TO OUR MAJOR INDUSTRY: RULE.
We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.”
You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.
There is a difference between a cost of entry into a religion and the content of the falsehoods in the religion. Many cults do not ask us to pay physical costs, but to deny reality as the cost of entry.
In fact, is that not the entire premise of the monotheistic religions? The price of entry is faith in falsehood? A cost of non-correspondence with reality? The signal of trustworthiness to others is the likewise denial? The shared lie?
There exist amazing cults (stoicism), questionable cults (Buddhism), ignorance creating cults (Christianity and Islam), immorality creating cults (Judaism), and even worse cults that teach even worse lies.
There is no need for lies. History, myth, man, and nature are beauty enough and wonder enough without the need for lies.
—“The only statement you can construct that’s true, but not ‘useful’ would be by defining ‘useful’ in a highly narrow sense of ‘useful to higher order consciousness functions’.
But, you have only practical, not epistemological reason for doing that: the fullness of your mind needs these basic perceptual constructions.
For everything else you write about epistemology, I continue to be surprised you don’t understand why truth must be only intersubjective experience. How could it be otherwise?”—
It’s easiest to describe as an analogy to the coins-and-scale problem of finding the oddly weighted coin.
Most people do not consider that there are there conditions: the left side, the right side, and the table in front of the scale.
So when someone says ‘intersubjectively’ anything I’m never sure if they are referring to imaginary (two sides of the scale), or correspondent (two sides of subjective value plus the objective reality they are both testing against.
So while the utility may possess subjective value, correspondence is still simply true or false.
It may be true that we only care about useful truths in the positive sense.
But we also care about intersubjectively erroneous judgements which we resolve by objective truth.
This is why I always ask for both sides of the question, instead of the ideal type of utility (seizure of opportunities).
Truth and falsehood may help us get what we want: to cooperate.
Truth allows us to decide conflicts: non-cooperation.
Since the central problem of our age is DISPUTE, I am not looking for consensus by preference or utility but for means of resolving these disputes regardless of intersubjective valuations.
So it’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that I understand the full accounting of the question, rather than just the partial accounting of utility in matters of cooperation.
—“From looks you don’t look like a dangerous person at all, mr. Doolittle.”—- Anon.
Well. let us test your perception.
There are different categories of ‘dangerous’: 1v1 dangerous, 1v2 dangerous, 1v3 dangerous , up to 1v1000’s, and 1v1000000’s dangerous. Only simpletons LOOK dangerous – because 1v1 dangerous is so easily defeated by numbers.
But let’s look at REALLY dangerous:
Rousseau didn’t look dangerous
Napoleon didn’t look dangerous.
Marx didn’t look dangerous
Lenin didn’t look dangerous
Hitler didn’t look dangerous
Mao didn’t look dangerous
Looking dangerous means you’re “small-time dangerous”.
If you want to get into the big time, you have to BE dangerous. And big time dangerous isn’t visible at all.
We all have a wealth of violence. Some of us are soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, majors, generals, and theorists of violence. Only grunts need to look dangerous. Only grunts need to be 1v1 dangerous. The rest of us need to THINK dangerously.
(That said i held a knife at my father’s throat to stop the violence. Only reason he died from alcoholism and obesity. )
(hmmm… well, lets do a propertarian analysis of that question)
—“How do you feel about mannerbunds?”—Harrison Baker
Well you know, I tend to stay away from silly terminology and instead make operationally testable statements.
men evolved to work in groups of brothers to herd women, hold territory, and kill competitors and take their stuff.
this requires both cooperation: shared risk, and loyalty: elimination of defectors and parasites, and a division of spoils preserving both cooperation, loyalty, and the punishment of defectors and cheats.
civilization is the result of teh accumulated knowledge and institutions that allow us to scale this system to ever larger and ever more competitive circumstances.
in this sense, yes, the bond between men that we traditionally call the ‘intitiatic brotherhood of soldiers’ is in fact the source of what we call ‘civilization;: cooperation at very large scales.
But we could just as likely say that it’s the need for men to bind to herd women and hold territory and develop institutions that is the source of civilization.
or we could say that it is man’s reaction to the untrustworthiness of women that is the origin of civilization since all we do is invent better farms in which to herd our women at lower cost to us.
Or we could say that women are untrustworthy in order to force us to build good farms (nests) for them in which they can nest. And that it is women’s untrustworthiness that forces us to cooperate and create nesting areas for them.
Roll that little model around in your head for a while? 😉
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(hmmm… well, lets do a propertarian analysis of that question)
—“How do you feel about mannerbunds?”—Harrison Baker
Well you know, I tend to stay away from silly terminology and instead make operationally testable statements.
men evolved to work in groups of brothers to herd women, hold territory, and kill competitors and take their stuff.
this requires both cooperation: shared risk, and loyalty: elimination of defectors and parasites, and a division of spoils preserving both cooperation, loyalty, and the punishment of defectors and cheats.
civilization is the result of teh accumulated knowledge and institutions that allow us to scale this system to ever larger and ever more competitive circumstances.
in this sense, yes, the bond between men that we traditionally call the ‘intitiatic brotherhood of soldiers’ is in fact the source of what we call ‘civilization;: cooperation at very large scales.
But we could just as likely say that it’s the need for men to bind to herd women and hold territory and develop institutions that is the source of civilization.
or we could say that it is man’s reaction to the untrustworthiness of women that is the origin of civilization since all we do is invent better farms in which to herd our women at lower cost to us.
Or we could say that women are untrustworthy in order to force us to build good farms (nests) for them in which they can nest. And that it is women’s untrustworthiness that forces us to cooperate and create nesting areas for them.
Roll that little model around in your head for a while? 😉
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(this ought to get me in trouble) (important piece)
Don’t dis on black or other impulsive peoples, we have white trash too. Blacks just haven’t organized to cull their herd as much as we have. They didn’t have winters. The entire warm zone of the planet consists not of failed states but of people who failed to cull the herd.
Don’t dis on Jewish people. We have vociferous gossiping parasitic white people too – most of our women. Jews organized to specialize in verbal creation of the opportunity for parasitism through the use of gossip and suggestion. To maintain Jewish separatism, escape payment for the commons, and to survive and profit by privatizing commons, they have allied with the state against the people in every society and been outcast or decimated for it. But that is the same strategy our women have always practiced since their invention of gossip, and the strategy our women have adopted since their enfranchisement in politics: alliance with the state in order to extract parasitically. Hence the treatment of jews and women by every society in history: as a useful danger to be carefully managed.
The problem that the transcendence of mankind faces is not the races but the classes and the genders. The bottom is more harmful than the top is beneficial. And because people act as racial kinship groups in all areas of life, we try to solve the wrong problem that generates the conflict: parasitism. We solve by war, religion (deceit), and propaganda (lies), that which we failed to solve by truth: the natural common, judge discovered law, of voluntary transfer prohibiting parasitism. We force them into productive voluntary exchanges in order to survive. We force them into productive work in order to survive. We force them into careful mate selection. And we force them back to the status of undomesticated animals if they do not, and sterilize them.
We don’t need to conduct wars of extermination, to put people in ovens, or hang them from ropes, or spit them on pikes – unless they rally in numbers. We need only limit their breeding to one child, and pay them to have no children. And to extend the legal prohibition on false and immoral speech products – protect information just as we protect land, air, water, commons, and institutions from harm.
We need to return to our long, successful, and widely profitable history of domesticating the universe, nature, plant, animal, and those animals sufficiently sentient that we have the potential to cooperate with via productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to productive externalities: at present, that is limited to homo sapiens-sapiens and his sub-species we call the ‘races’, and ‘sub-races’.
Because Western Aristocracy is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a government – it is a technology and an INDUSTRY. And it is by use of this industry we have profited by dragging the beast man out of his parasitic past on the margins of nature into the transcendent mastery of himself, and nature.
Man is an animal. Human is a domesticated man. Aristocracy is a transcendent human: “one who domesticates the beast man”.
You can dis on Muslims in particular, and all religious fundamentalists in general, and all pseudo-academics, and all pseudo-intellectuals, and all pseudoscientists, and all frauds of any kind that spread error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit. Because there is no place for fraud in the marketplace of information and ideas any more than there is for fraud in the marketplace of goods and services. All these people merely profit from undomesticating the animal man.
Because it is only the burden of the underclasses that cannot verbalize abstract ideas, and learn by self-instruction that prevents us from the universal human future we all desire.
And it is those who profit from the un-domestication of the animals, more so than the animals themselves that are our, and mankind’s enemy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(this ought to get me in trouble) (important piece)
Don’t dis on black or other impulsive peoples, we have white trash too. Blacks just haven’t organized to cull their herd as much as we have. They didn’t have winters. The entire warm zone of the planet consists not of failed states but of people who failed to cull the herd.
Don’t dis on Jewish people. We have vociferous gossiping parasitic white people too – most of our women. Jews organized to specialize in verbal creation of the opportunity for parasitism through the use of gossip and suggestion. To maintain Jewish separatism, escape payment for the commons, and to survive and profit by privatizing commons, they have allied with the state against the people in every society and been outcast or decimated for it. But that is the same strategy our women have always practiced since their invention of gossip, and the strategy our women have adopted since their enfranchisement in politics: alliance with the state in order to extract parasitically. Hence the treatment of jews and women by every society in history: as a useful danger to be carefully managed.
The problem that the transcendence of mankind faces is not the races but the classes and the genders. The bottom is more harmful than the top is beneficial. And because people act as racial kinship groups in all areas of life, we try to solve the wrong problem that generates the conflict: parasitism. We solve by war, religion (deceit), and propaganda (lies), that which we failed to solve by truth: the natural common, judge discovered law, of voluntary transfer prohibiting parasitism. We force them into productive voluntary exchanges in order to survive. We force them into productive work in order to survive. We force them into careful mate selection. And we force them back to the status of undomesticated animals if they do not, and sterilize them.
We don’t need to conduct wars of extermination, to put people in ovens, or hang them from ropes, or spit them on pikes – unless they rally in numbers. We need only limit their breeding to one child, and pay them to have no children. And to extend the legal prohibition on false and immoral speech products – protect information just as we protect land, air, water, commons, and institutions from harm.
We need to return to our long, successful, and widely profitable history of domesticating the universe, nature, plant, animal, and those animals sufficiently sentient that we have the potential to cooperate with via productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to productive externalities: at present, that is limited to homo sapiens-sapiens and his sub-species we call the ‘races’, and ‘sub-races’.
Because Western Aristocracy is not a religion, or a philosophy, or a government – it is a technology and an INDUSTRY. And it is by use of this industry we have profited by dragging the beast man out of his parasitic past on the margins of nature into the transcendent mastery of himself, and nature.
Man is an animal. Human is a domesticated man. Aristocracy is a transcendent human: “one who domesticates the beast man”.
You can dis on Muslims in particular, and all religious fundamentalists in general, and all pseudo-academics, and all pseudo-intellectuals, and all pseudoscientists, and all frauds of any kind that spread error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and deceit. Because there is no place for fraud in the marketplace of information and ideas any more than there is for fraud in the marketplace of goods and services. All these people merely profit from undomesticating the animal man.
Because it is only the burden of the underclasses that cannot verbalize abstract ideas, and learn by self-instruction that prevents us from the universal human future we all desire.
And it is those who profit from the un-domestication of the animals, more so than the animals themselves that are our, and mankind’s enemy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPREAD IGNORANCE
( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )
Why do you have the right to ignorance?
Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.
And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.
And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.
So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.
And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.
So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.
And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.
But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:
DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
1st with ridicule & shame
(Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)
DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO COOPERATE:
2nd with ostracism
(I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)
DEPRIVATION OF GOODS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION
3rd loss of privilege
(I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)
DEPRIVATION OF CHOICE
4th loss of liberty
(You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)
DEPRIVATION OF ACTION
5th loss of freedom!
(Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state
YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPREAD IGNORANCE
( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )
Why do you have the right to ignorance?
Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.
And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.
And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.
So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.
And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.
So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.
And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.
But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:
DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
1st with ridicule & shame
(Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)
DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO COOPERATE:
2nd with ostracism
(I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)
DEPRIVATION OF GOODS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION
3rd loss of privilege
(I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)
DEPRIVATION OF CHOICE
4th loss of liberty
(You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)
DEPRIVATION OF ACTION
5th loss of freedom!
(Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state
