Form: Mini Essay

  • The Truth Is Visible In Jesus’ Mythos

    THE TRUTH IS VISIBLE IN JESUS’ MYTHOS Jesus told us to love one another. He did not teach us to lie. But he was raised in a culture of myths and lies. And the language of mythology and lies was the only language of persuasion available to him. If he knew greek, he had not – like most primitive people’s – yet learned Greek reason. And if he did know of greek reason, it’s quite possible he saw it as a threat, since it was the language of government and contract, not the language of the slaves, fishermen, herders, and farmers. We tend to forget that his people at that point in time were the equivalent of the Brazilian favelas, north American ghettos, Arab hinterlands, and Indian slums. So Jesus spoke in the form of persuasion available to him: myth and lie, and probably in the language he was raised with: Aramaic. And under the influence of the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish totalitarian fairy tales we call the old testament. If you compare those authoritarian fairy tales to , Aesop’s Fables, Anglo, Scandinavian, Germanic, and Slavic Fairy Tales, the Geek and Roman Myths, the Arthurian Legends, the Germanic Niebelugelied, the Illiad and the Odyssey,, the Carolingian Saga, and Whig History (the continuous evolution of Europa), you will see the difference between the heroic man competing with the gods to sit among them, and the submissive man under a tyrannical god’s authority, producing the cultures of stagnation, and anti-science, and pervasive deceit. Why? The difference between many competing tribes in the fertile crescent with the concentration of wealth in the industrialization of the river valleys, and many homogenous tribes in the Eurasian forests and plains, limited to relatively small individual manors and farms. So Jesus he asked us to love one another the only way that he knew how, with the only appeal to truth and authority he know how, in the only language he knew how to use. His advice was that if we unified with love we could resist the aristocracy – that the solution to authoritarianism whether eastern totalitarian and immoral, or western contractual and moral, was to love each other, and to resist them. We cannot blame the people in prior eras for lacking the persuasive technologies that we invented after they passed. In each era we do the best that we can with the tools available to us. Yet with the luxury of our current knowledge, we can restate his very simple teachings from his ancient primitive language, from his ancient mysticism, from his ancient authoritarianism, from the language of deception, into the current language. 1) Treat others as you yourself would be treated. Treat no other as you would not wish to be treated yourself. There is no law above the two sides of this moral coin. 2) Reserve time to commune with your neighbors and contemplate how you may do this. 3) Impose no costs upon those things that others have labored to obtain, because it will provoke retaliation by others, and this will harm all of us. In case we need reminding, this refers to: – The life, body, offspring, mates, and relations of others. – The property that others have obtained by discovery, production or trade, from those things justly discovered, produced, and traded. – The norms, traditions, laws, and institutions of others so long as they do not violate these rules. – Speak the truth at all times, no matter the consequence. – Neither act, coerce others to act, nor even think of these things. – Show charity to those who need it to the limit of your ability, without violating these rules. – In total: treat all others as your family – and we all shall become one. One family. Not in our imaginations, but in practice. Out of many we shall become one.

  • We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit

    —“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks

    In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit

    —“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks

    In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • The Many Illusions (Deceits) by Substitution

    THE MANY ILLUSIONS (DECEITS) The design of an optical illusion can only be constructed with the intent to DECEIVE they eye, correct? In other words, it’s an illusion. A deception. A creation of man. a) an optical illusion b) a verbal illusion (most questions in philosophy) c) a physical illusion (most actions of magicians) d) an overloading illusion (most political, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational discourse). e) an environmental illusion ( why religion works if enough people believe it. Why big brand marketing works.)

    All these ‘deceptions’ ask you to fill in by suggestion that which is not present. However, as far as I know, all ‘illusions’ must be constructed as an intentional means of deception.
  • The Many Illusions (Deceits) by Substitution

    THE MANY ILLUSIONS (DECEITS) The design of an optical illusion can only be constructed with the intent to DECEIVE they eye, correct? In other words, it’s an illusion. A deception. A creation of man. a) an optical illusion b) a verbal illusion (most questions in philosophy) c) a physical illusion (most actions of magicians) d) an overloading illusion (most political, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational discourse). e) an environmental illusion ( why religion works if enough people believe it. Why big brand marketing works.)

    All these ‘deceptions’ ask you to fill in by suggestion that which is not present. However, as far as I know, all ‘illusions’ must be constructed as an intentional means of deception.
  • Aristocracy: Aryan vs Christian

    I write in the combination of Christian aristocratic and Aryan aristocratic ethics. What is the difference?  The difference is that Aryan Aristocratic philosophy asks us how we can live the best life that we are able. Christian aristocratic ethics ask us how we can parent mankind. Aristocracy concerns peers. Christianity concerns those who are not. Both of these philosophies are compatible. They just address different problems. We require Aryanism in order to preserve heroism and sovereignty, which are the causes of western exceptionalism.  Aryanism is a defensive strategy – against totalitarianism.  Against stagnation. We require Christianity in order to domesticate and develop man to transcendence: to aristocracy. To peerage. To godhood. Christianity alone will lead to eastern authoritarianism. Aristocracy alone will lead to numerical weakness. Together we possess both aristocratic quality and Christian numbers.  

    • Science (Craftsmen – Possibilities)
    • Rule of Law (Judges – Limits)
    • Aryan Aesthetics of the Peerage (Paternal Competition)
    • Christian Philosophy of Paternal Rule (Maternal Raising)
  • Aristocracy: Aryan vs Christian

    I write in the combination of Christian aristocratic and Aryan aristocratic ethics. What is the difference?  The difference is that Aryan Aristocratic philosophy asks us how we can live the best life that we are able. Christian aristocratic ethics ask us how we can parent mankind. Aristocracy concerns peers. Christianity concerns those who are not. Both of these philosophies are compatible. They just address different problems. We require Aryanism in order to preserve heroism and sovereignty, which are the causes of western exceptionalism.  Aryanism is a defensive strategy – against totalitarianism.  Against stagnation. We require Christianity in order to domesticate and develop man to transcendence: to aristocracy. To peerage. To godhood. Christianity alone will lead to eastern authoritarianism. Aristocracy alone will lead to numerical weakness. Together we possess both aristocratic quality and Christian numbers.  

    • Science (Craftsmen – Possibilities)
    • Rule of Law (Judges – Limits)
    • Aryan Aesthetics of the Peerage (Paternal Competition)
    • Christian Philosophy of Paternal Rule (Maternal Raising)
  • IT”S NOT LIKE I”M GONNA WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST FOR THIS LITTLE BIT OF TRUTH. Y

    IT”S NOT LIKE I”M GONNA WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST FOR THIS LITTLE BIT OF TRUTH.

    You know, it’s not like if I walk around telling people ‘Well, we learned how to herd females, and domesticate one another so that we could cooperate more effectively, and that there isn’t any difference between now and then other than the complexity of the methods we use because rather than just genders and alphas we have entire classes and generations.

    We didn’t have to invent domestication of other animals. We’re the first animals we domesticated.

    So (a) that all our cognitive differences are just a division of perception (b) our differences in perception and value are just reflections of reproductive strategy (c) we herded women and had to, and domesticated ourselves then the rest of the world (d) the only question is whether we continue domestication (eugenics) or we revert to animals (dysgenics).

    The west invented the most profitable and fastest way of domesticating human beings: markets in everything (empirical civilization – meaning meritocracy), and cull the herd with winters, starvation, pestilence, war, and aggressive hanging of malcontents.

    Yeah. Well, you know the optimum is a market society where we just limit the unproductive to one child. Eventually, this takes care of itself. And I think that’s the compromise that’s just as … necessary… as the institution of monogamous marriage, and rule of law.

    No one wants to be forced into marriage no one wants to be forced to limit herself to a single child, no one wants to be forced to contribute to the maintenance of defense, and no one wants to be prosecuted by the law for the imposition of costs upon others.

    It’s not a matter of want.

    Sigh.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 06:58:00 UTC

  • NATIONALISM vs MULTICULTURALISM vs RACISM (if you can manage this argument it’s

    NATIONALISM vs MULTICULTURALISM vs RACISM

    (if you can manage this argument it’s awsome)

    Nationalism yes. Racism no.

    Nationalism is a reproductive-familial, productive-economic, institutional-political, system that assists in the evolution of groups with genetic similarities and interests.

    Racism is bitching about other people instead of looking in the mirror and changing what you’re family, economy, and politicians are doing wrong.

    – Nationalism lets us love and help everyone at the expense of no one.

    – Multi-culturalism asks us to love and help some at the expense of others.

    – Racism asks us to hate everyone at the expense of everyone.

    I advocate for as much love as possible and as little harm as possible while assisting mankind in transcendence so that no harm is done to anyone, none need help, and love is not required by enjoyed.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 04:03:00 UTC

  • Um. Fascists? No.

    THERE ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHERS OF HOPLITE WARFARE (a fun one) **Fascism** is a ‘**military’ strategy** for Marshaling all economic, political, and cultural resources for the purpose of opposing **Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism**, and totalitarianism by the conduct of **military, economic and cultural warfare**.

    Just as Napoleonic **Total War** is a strategy for marshaling all national resources for the conduct of military warfare prior to the industrial revolution, when economic warfare was relatively ineffective. Just as today we use **economic warfare **almost exclusively to contain Russian expansion into southern Europe, eastern Europe and the Baltic, and as we did use to constrain Iran into constraining its expansion into Iraq, Syria and Israel. Ergo: 1. MILITARY: Nationalization of resources for military war: Napoleon **Total War** (State Credit under Nation States), Physical warfare was appropriate for the era. 2. ECONOMIC: Nationalization of resource for military, economic and cultural war: **Fascism**, or **Economic Warfare, **by the construction of an autarkic (self dependent) economy. The combination of physical, economic and cultural warfare was appropriate for the era. 3. FINANCIAL: Nationalization of federal trade policy to cause economic collapse: I don’t have a word for it but operationally it would be called “**Financial Warfare**”., by depriving competitors of access to the world markets and financial system. (which destroys economic velocity, political authority, and social stability). Financial warfare is appropriate for the era. 4. CULTURAL : the Frankfurt school of Marxism was perhaps the most effective form of warfare developed in the twentieth century. The objective is to destroy a civilization from within by sewing discord and internal conflict. It has taken many decades but combined with vast underclass immigration it has been almost successful in destroying the American Rule of Law experiment. PHILOSOPHERS? In this sense, it is no longer necessary for us to develop philosophers for the purpose of Military Total War (state credit), Economic Total War (Fiat Money), or Financial Total War (International Financial System) It is however, necessary (and I am one of them) to develop philosophers to counter the combination of false history, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda, using academy, state, media complex, to conduct cultural warfare. So no. There are no Fascist philosophers per se, for the same reason there are no philosophers of Napoleonic (or hoplite) warfare. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute