Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHY DO WE NOT TEACH THE CIVIC LOGICS? SO THAT THE STATE CAN LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, A

    WHY DO WE NOT TEACH THE CIVIC LOGICS? SO THAT THE STATE CAN LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, AND MANUFACTURE IGNORANCE.

    In programming we learn the very great difference between the communication of meaning and the communication of truth.

    This is why programming is as necessary a skill as reading, mathematics, and basic logic.

    And it’s why numbers, money, accounting, and property are as important as vocabulary and grammar, the periodic table, or the list of subatomic particles.

    Now you have to ask yourself: Why we teach everything else, but the set of logic, grammar, rhetoric, and history, and the set of money, accounting, property, and economics in our schools?

    We know the answer.

    Because it provides children, and youth with the ability to make uncomfortable judgments by which to question the propaganda of their teachers, their professors, their public intellectuals, and their government.

    Because, an ignorant adult public can be farmed, and an empirical and meritocratic civilization destroyed, by a government of lies, justifying its self-interest via pseudoscience, propaganda, and fraud.

    We will restore truth and testimony in education just as severely as any other part of the commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Religion of the West

    The Cult of Sovereignty

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 11:23:00 UTC

  • FUTURE NUCLEAR WAR? WELL.. THE TACTICS OF CIVILIZATIONS —“Do you see a scenari

    FUTURE NUCLEAR WAR? WELL.. THE TACTICS OF CIVILIZATIONS

    —“Do you see a scenario where nuclear powers like the US, Russia or China engage in limited nuclear conflict with one another without it escalating to a total nuclear war?” — Lawrence Fernandes

    Hmm…

    I can see it in Pakistan and India, and I can certainly see it in Iran and Israel. I have a really hard time seeing it in China and America. Russians are a practical as we are. The only reason China would do that is if we invaded her ‘circle’. But I would expect china and Russia to evolve into overt use of it as a cover for immoral actions that violate western sensibilities (domestication of man).

    BACKGROUND

    Here is how each civilization works:

    OPPORTUNISM

    Russians seize shit when they can move quickly to seize opportunity without much of a fight. Why? they fight like hell but they fight poorly because of low trust. Russians just outright lie about morality because they can’t conceive of it the way we do.

    DELAY AND DECEIVE AND DEPRIVE OF OPTIONS

    Chinese do – always – what they have done in the south china sea: practice incrementalism under false pretense of morality.

    EUROPEANS – HONESTY

    Solve conflicts early and often before those with greater numbers can marshal the strength to seize the inevitable opportunity we will present them with.

    Each civilization limits its risk based on its internal weaknesses, not those of its opponents. This is usually the problem with inter-civilizational warfare. We are at war with Islam for example but we, as Europeans, don’t even understand that such a form of war exists.

    Because we have, since the 1600’s, prohibited each other from that kind of warfare.

    We did not however succeed in getting the rest of the world to prohibit it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 10:11:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING ISN’T NECESSARY – UNLESS WE WISH TO UNITE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND N

    UNDERSTANDING ISN’T NECESSARY – UNLESS WE WISH TO UNITE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND NATURAL COMMON LAW.

    (you see, I don’t let out my end ambitions early)

    —“Christianity enlightens those who understand it.”— Collins Larbi

    I am not sure it is a case of ‘understanding’ so much as utility, submission and practice.

    In fact, I’m certain it’s not a case of understanding. That would imply that it consisted of true propositions.

    There is a very big difference between good and useful, and good and true. if Christianity needed to be understood rather than simply felt, then it would not work so well, and it would be open to criticism. Faith is important because it is a defense against argumentative superiority for those who cannot judge argumentative superiority. Faith is profoundly important.

    That said, I am definitely a Christian in practice if not in belief in the dogma.

    And that’s because I understand that Christianity has one function: the extension of kinship love to non-kin – and all the prosperity that arises from the forgiveness of the errors of human frailty, rather than the perpetuation of personal, familial, tribal, and national retaliation cycles.

    And I understand the crimes of the church – using and preserving illiteracy as a means of control. Just as in the current era the democratic socialist state use ignorance and indoctrination as a means of control.

    And I understand the benefit that we took despite the church’s crimes: the more rapid expansion of high trust, and the more rapid expansion of suppression of reproduction of the underclasses. And the more rapid expansion of delayed marriage. And the elimination of inbreeding.

    I am a Christian. I advocate Christ’s central message: the extension of kinship love. I prefer that we spoke about it in rational terms, in moral terms, and in scientific terms, and not in supernatural and superstitious terms. But this is my preference. And that is because I believe Jesus’s message has a central place in common law. Becuase it seeks to achieve the same purpose as common natural law: prosperity through preservation of cooperation. If we taught Christianity as myth to children, reason to youth, and science to adults, then it would be possible to unify Christian religion and Aryan law.

    This is my ambition.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 10:00:00 UTC

  • ON INTELLIGENCE AND CHARACTER IN POPULATIONS (it’s all domestication) IQ = Intel

    ON INTELLIGENCE AND CHARACTER IN POPULATIONS

    (it’s all domestication)

    IQ = Intelligence Quotient. Meaning the weighted test of demonstrated velocity of problem solving and knowledge accumulation, in both the spatial-temporal and verbal articulation abilities – which while a subset of the (large, perhaps 80-ish) number of various capabilities of the human brain, appears to provide a marginally indifferent measure – apparently because all other abilities seem to scale roughly with those two.

    Moreover, for reasons we are beginning to understand, the distribution of sexual dimorphism (androgens), and the degree of paedomorphic domestication, seems to influence the distribution of these talents in each population with feminine verbal skill and greater number of tasks and male greater spatial skill and greater specialization being general trends both of which are visible in prevalence of female solipsism and male autism. So if we control for sexual dimorphism, we control for depth and rate of sexual maturity, and we control for the success and shrinking the underclasses through agrarianism and climate, we seem to provide a sufficient explanation of the differences in all races and tribes and classes and genders by fairly simple selection processes whereby our cultural habits have greater and more rapid evolutionary dynamics than random mutation or (minimal if at all) epigenetic mutation.

    In other words, we’ve been domesticating each other for a couple million years, thereby incrementally delaying or limiting maturity, and then selecting for male or female(Slavic and northern European and Chinese) and male (African and middle eastern, and steppe) biases based largely upon climate, disease gradient, and means of agrarian production.

    And it seems that through selection and eugenics (aggressive hanging in the west, and aggressive killing in the east) plus the softer eugenics of diligence required for both rice farming and farming through 50th latitude winters, plus the western delay of reproduction until able to obtain access to land under manorialism – allowing women to work – at least since the 700’s if not 1500bc, that some groups have just been superior at limiting their underclasses, while redistributing reproduction upward to their middle (genetic, not economic) classes.

    The universe operates by very simple rules. We just make excuses for what’s necessary in the circumstance and call it ‘moral’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 08:56:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF SENTIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, POLITICS: BUYING OPTIONS (

    THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF SENTIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, POLITICS: BUYING OPTIONS

    (important)

    —“I agree with Camus that suicide is the pre-eminent philosophical question. On a macro scale, the question is whether or not you realize the paradox of the unproductive needing the productive, the productive not needing the unproductive, yet the unproductive seeking the demise of the productive, and ultimately themselves. The left has chosen suicide. For both themselves, and us, if we allow it.”—Ryan Montague

    Excellent way of positioning it. I need to play with this a bit. Because I’ve used the first two, and talked about the third, but not taken your jump and merged it with Camus’.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF SENTIENCE

    why and how do we think? – we select the option that produces the most options, meaning the largest number of associations. And at each moment we repeat. then we remember our option buying as planning. so we save memory. and we can repeat the process.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF PHILOSOPHY

    why do I not commit suicide? – we are buying more options on reproduction, and that of our kin.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF ETHICS

    why do we not kill you and take your stuff? – we are buying more options on survival from the discounts of cooperation.

    THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS

    Why do we let the parasitic reproduce? – they are buying options on survival in some form with greater numbers, and we are buying discounts on current expenditures of effort. And in turn buying more options.

    Religion and philosophy start with an optimistic bias out of the in-group assumption of the benefits of cooperation. But that optimistic benefit of cooperation is in service of the unforgiving process of reproduction and evolution.

    Evolution (Kinship) isn’t an optimistic bias. It’s as physical an accounting system as is entropy in physics.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy,

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 06:29:00 UTC

  • THE REASON IT’S HARD TO UNDERSTAND: UNIFYING EXISTING CONCEPTS RATHER THAN EXPLA

    THE REASON IT’S HARD TO UNDERSTAND: UNIFYING EXISTING CONCEPTS RATHER THAN EXPLAINING EACH OF THEM TO YOU.

    My work in Sovereignty, Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Market Government, Competitive Domestication of Man, and Transcendence, has been one of unifying fields that have, for centuries, been separated by different means of decision making – and often different languages.

    If you notice, and you likely will, I use sequences of terms, spectrum diagrams, parallel developments, and evolutionary processes to illustrate that those ideas that seem unrelated are merely subsets of properties of reality that in different fields, we inspect for a specific purpose. But that reality as we can understand it (and it’s pretty accurate it seems), is regular, consistent, and operates by very simple rules.

    So, you can think of normal fields, each of which addresses some subset of reality, as someone who, at best is talking to you with limited experience or understanding (a well-intentioned fool); and at worst, is someone who is deceiving you by overloading you by selectively giving you information in order to dishonestly persuade you to assist him in achieving his unstated ends. In other words – telling only part of the story. (defrauding you.).

    So then I come along and use terms from pretty much EVERY field. Because each field addresses some subset of the properties of reality. And instead of explaining all these terms from all these fields, I expect that you are at least familiar with them enough, that you can see the similarities that I draw between these ideas and the fields they come from, by using sequences of terms, spectrum diagrams, parallel developments and evolutionary processes.

    And then I give a name to the pattern we identified by the similarities across those fields by either more clearly defining a prior term (like truth, ethics and morality and law) or I create a new name (like testimonialism) where I try to capture the ACTIONS rather than the experiences that prior (more mystical) eras relied upon.

    Wherever possible I try to clarify existing terms rather than invent new ones. Or if similar terms exist, I choose the one that is the most accurate rather than the most common or popular. And if nothing exists that isn’t either wrong or deceptive, I will construct one out of near terms. And that is the best that I can do.

    So that is why it is very hard to come into Sovereignty, Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Market Government, Competitive Domestication of Man, and Transcendence, – what I call Propertarianism (which is itself only the ethics in my work ). Becuase it requires a great deal of knowledge to show RELATIONSHIPS that describe the entirety of reality in a common, amoral, demonstrable and observable, language.

    So you find people who have the easiest time, are those with a finance and economics familiarity, but have also some non-trivial experience in the physical sciences.

    It’s not easy. But if you want to be able to save western civilization from the Second Great Lie, and to do so by prosecuting the liars and their useful idiots in all walks of life; or if you are a warrior who wants to implement sustainable change to restore our civilization; or if you are simply someone who wants to understand what the prosecutors and warriors are doing, then you are learning a new language: the language of COMPLETE SCIENCE rather than the various languages of incomplete sciences.

    And learning languages with new concepts is hard.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 09:49:00 UTC

  • OUR GENERATION’S MISSION: PREVENT ANOTHER DARK AGE The left (Jewish Cosmopolitan

    OUR GENERATION’S MISSION: PREVENT ANOTHER DARK AGE

    The left (Jewish Cosmopolitanism and Puritan Feminism) has failed in every generation to succeed by persuasion, revolution, demonstration, moral narrative. And almost succeeded – since 1965 – by creating more clients for the state, and using the state to impose their pseudoscientific religion upon us, through massive immigration of the underclasses that we have worked for millennia to rid ourselves of.

    Make no mistake: this is how the destroyed western civilization the first time: through Jewish monotheistic mysticism, and the forcible takeover of the rational state by Justinian’s eastern (non-european) church. And the last time they gave us a dark age.

    It is up to the men of our current generations to restore truth and science and reason, and rule of natural law, and to outlaw this new pseudoscientific religion, or we may lose all of europe to it again. And if we do, another dark age as bad or worse than the last may truncate our ambitions to transcend the animal man to the stars, and the gods we seek to be.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 08:23:00 UTC

  • Might Makes Right By Righting Wrongs – A Declaration

    MightMakesRight By Righting Wrongs – A Declaration of Reformation (get image version , or get  PDF Version ) Might, in and of itself, does not determine right or wrong. But right is always, and must be, constructed by the use of or constraint of might. Those with might determine whether a condition of right or wrong exists or not. Everyone else merely has the permission of those with might. And when a series of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under other’s discretion, thereby depriving them of their Sovereignty, it is those with might that can restore their Sovereignty over the objections of those who lack the might. All revolutions in history are caused by a minority of men willing to use their might to change the status quo. And it is the virtue of our ancient Anglo-Saxon system of contractual government that allows redress of those abuses through restoration of that Sovereignty; and to restore it by the revision of that common contract between those with might: the Constitution – under which they agree to reserve their might and defer to tradition, norm, legislation, and Natural Law of Sovereign men. And by that revision alter the institutions and laws that govern all actions thereunder, restoring their Sovereignty. And because it is in the nature of all humans in all organizations of all scales, to seek power to circumvent the limits of their productivity, and to extract from others and others kin, their normative, cultural, institutional, informational, material, and territorial capital, by the circumvention of that Natural Law and by abuse that Sovereignty – then those with might must periodically revise that constitution through the use of might, just as we revise legislation through the proxy of might we call the legislature; and just as we revise the common law through the proxy of might we call the courts; just as we revise the current relations with outsiders by the direct use of might by means of information, conversion, immigration, economic and material warfare. There is only one judgment history lays upon us: persistence of one’s kin by survival, invention, adaptation, and competition. Might used to make Sovereignty is well judged by man’s history and nature’s laws. Because it is by that very Sovereignty that the western man dragged all mankind out of superstition, mysticism, pseudoscience, ignorance, poverty, disease, and dysgenia – kicking and screaming all the while – one calamitous conflict of tribe, nation, state, religion, and civilization at a time. A series of Conflicts through which the Sovereign continue to persevere, and by our might and Sovereignty shall continue to do so.

    — Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute

  • Might Makes Right By Righting Wrongs – A Declaration

    MightMakesRight By Righting Wrongs – A Declaration of Reformation (get image version , or get  PDF Version ) Might, in and of itself, does not determine right or wrong. But right is always, and must be, constructed by the use of or constraint of might. Those with might determine whether a condition of right or wrong exists or not. Everyone else merely has the permission of those with might. And when a series of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under other’s discretion, thereby depriving them of their Sovereignty, it is those with might that can restore their Sovereignty over the objections of those who lack the might. All revolutions in history are caused by a minority of men willing to use their might to change the status quo. And it is the virtue of our ancient Anglo-Saxon system of contractual government that allows redress of those abuses through restoration of that Sovereignty; and to restore it by the revision of that common contract between those with might: the Constitution – under which they agree to reserve their might and defer to tradition, norm, legislation, and Natural Law of Sovereign men. And by that revision alter the institutions and laws that govern all actions thereunder, restoring their Sovereignty. And because it is in the nature of all humans in all organizations of all scales, to seek power to circumvent the limits of their productivity, and to extract from others and others kin, their normative, cultural, institutional, informational, material, and territorial capital, by the circumvention of that Natural Law and by abuse that Sovereignty – then those with might must periodically revise that constitution through the use of might, just as we revise legislation through the proxy of might we call the legislature; and just as we revise the common law through the proxy of might we call the courts; just as we revise the current relations with outsiders by the direct use of might by means of information, conversion, immigration, economic and material warfare. There is only one judgment history lays upon us: persistence of one’s kin by survival, invention, adaptation, and competition. Might used to make Sovereignty is well judged by man’s history and nature’s laws. Because it is by that very Sovereignty that the western man dragged all mankind out of superstition, mysticism, pseudoscience, ignorance, poverty, disease, and dysgenia – kicking and screaming all the while – one calamitous conflict of tribe, nation, state, religion, and civilization at a time. A series of Conflicts through which the Sovereign continue to persevere, and by our might and Sovereignty shall continue to do so.

    — Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute

  • SCIENCE EVOLVED INTO THE UNIVERSAL LANGAUGE OF TRUTH TELLING Through trial and e

    SCIENCE EVOLVED INTO THE UNIVERSAL LANGAUGE OF TRUTH TELLING

    Through trial and error, we have learned, that science evolved the language of truth-telling as a branch of common empirical law. We use the language of science – the language of testimony – not because it contains the most information, but because it contains the least false information. Because the function of the process and language of science, like the process and language of law, is the removal of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, overloading, pseudoscience, rationalism, mysticism, and deceit. The international language of truth telling is science. And so we have to ask ourselves, whether, when we desire to communicate in fantasy religion, fantasy literature, fantasy philosophy, why is it that we prefer to?

    We study Aristotelianism (Western Philosophy) because it is an extension of empirical western law, that resulted in empirical, testimonial, western science.

    We can study philosophy as a fantasy moral literature. We can study philosophy as a rational religion of aspirations. We can study it as pre-scientific method of inquiry. or we can study it as scientific means of speaking truthfully (meaning parsimoniously).

    At present most of us study it for the latter reason. But it’s true that some people still study it as fantasy moral literature, rational religion, and pre-scientific, rational inquiry.

    I have never found an objection to science over philosophy that wasn’t reducible to an attempt to preserve the illusion of fantasy moral literature.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-31 06:38:00 UTC