Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • A RUSSIAN CRITIC OF PUTIN ADVISES PRO PUTIN LIBERTARIANS The thing that bothers

    A RUSSIAN CRITIC OF PUTIN ADVISES PRO PUTIN LIBERTARIANS

    The thing that bothers me is the theft of your business if you build one. The Putin Oligarchs are fine for the poor, but not for the entrepreneurial class. And therefore not eventually for anyone.

    ——–

    (POSTED NOT LINKED) I CANNOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO LINK TO IT. SO HERE IS THE COPY AND PASTE

    Vera Kichanova shared Tatiana Moroz’s post — feeling angry.

    November 22 at 3:51pm · Kyiv ·

    I am mad as hell. A friend of mine and a libertarian star Tatiana Moroz asked her fb friends (mostly American libertarians) what they think about Putin https://www.facebook.com/tatiana.moroz/posts/10153258040193595. Many answered they “trust him 100%” because he is “anti-communist” and “opposing New World Order”. As a person who has lived under Putin most of my life (I was 9 when he came to power for the first time) I have a lot to say in response to this:

    “Modern Russia is much less socialist than the US and Putin is blantly anti communist.”

    Some westerners admire Putin for being “not openly a communist”. Well, I fondly hoped that whenever statism changes its name libertarians can still recognize it. Half of Russian economy is officially owned by state, and all the big monopolies that are de jure private actually belong to Putin’s friends, relatives or judo sparring partners—and now their children are already being appointed executives, thus, half of Russian economy is ruled by few dynasties.

    At the same time, when someone creates a successful business and refuses to play by their rules, they find a way to take it away in favor of someone more loyal. See the story of Pavel Durov, a libertarian hero who created a “Russian Facebook”, the major IT-company in Russia, and was forced to sell it to Putin’s friend after he refused to show the personal data of some Ukrainian activists (he is in exile now) http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandcu…/…/24279/1/pavel-durov

    A very popular argument for Putin being “anti-communist” is a flat taxation in Russia. Yes, that was a great improvement made during his first term, and it was implemented by his former economic advisor Andrei Illarionov, now a Cato Senior Fellow and a prominent Putin’s critic. Ten years ago (!) he resigned declaring that “Russia has become a different country. It is no longer a democratic country. It is no longer a free country”. There are no free market supporters in Putin’s administration now.

    But even if you prefer symbols to actions, a modern Russian ideology is still a mix of Stalinism and Orthodoxy. Other post-communist countries (like Baltic states and now Ukraine) have gone through decommunization process, but not Russia. The main street in almost every town is still called Lenin Street. Moscow authorities are planning to rebuild a monument of Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret police and the most bloody person in our history. The head of state is a former KGB officer, and there is no such thing as a “former KGB man”. None of the top officials who were Communist Party members in Soviet times (and most of them were) ever renounced the communist ideology.

    At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church has become an influential political force. The Cossacks were allowed to “patrol the morals” in the streets. The construction of 200 (!) new churches in Moscow was sponsored by the Moscow government. One can receive a prison term for offending “religious feelings” of other people http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Russia-introduces-jail-terms-f… Further, religious education is mandatory in all Russian schools. The Russian Patriarch calls Putin’s reign a “miracle of God”.

    As you probably know, two years ago a famous “gay propaganda law” was enacted making it illegal to equate straight and gay relationships and to show public affection. Soon after I and my fellows were beaten for “looking gay” in a bar owned by a representative of Moscow’s mayor. Three months later, my friend from Petersburg was attacked by two masked men at the meeting for the LGBT community. He sustained serious damage in one eye after being shot with a pneumatic pistol http://www.politico.com/…/03/russia-putin-lgbt-violence-116… Do I have to mention that Russian investigators refused to search for the thugs in both cases?

    Russia is a de-facto single-party state, just like the USSR. The laws on the majority of issues are being passed unanimously, since, as the State Duma speaker famously said, the “parliament is no place for discussions.” Independent parties are not allowed to participate in elections. Last summer, I was attacked by unknown criminals who broke my street booth and tore all the signatures I had collected in support of myself as a candidate for Moscow City Council.

    “The media will always demonize Putin because they work for “The Man” whose agenda is complete world dominance. Putin is one of a few remaining leaders who is standing in the way. The people of Russia, for the most part, are very happy with him. Not the brainwashed ones who are all for “globalism”.”

    Not brainwashed, right? The first thing Putin did when he became president was taking control over the media. Every country-wide channel now is controlled by the government, including your favorite Russia Today, which receives $300 million dollars from the Russian government every year. The opposition blogs are routinely blacklisted and online news outlets censored. For instance, Russian Wikipedia was temporarily blocked because of the article “Cannabis smoking”, a number of Bitcoin-related websites were blacklisted because “it contributes to shadow economy”, and my article on Siberia was blocked as promoting separatism http://studentsforliberty.org/…/journalist-vera-kichanova-…/

    As for anti-Putin movement, in 2011, we had the biggest civil uprising since the 1990s. As a result, 28 demonstrators were accused of inciting a riot and violence against the police—not celebrated opposition leaders but a random selection of the 100,000 protesters. In fact, Russian government set up this lottery to make us all afraid. “For an injured policeman, the liver of demonstrators should be smeared on the asphalt”, said Putin’s spokesman.

    Now, if a protester is detained for the second time, he or she risks receiving up to five years in prison. By the way, I have been arrested six times for peacefully protesting and once as a reporter http://www.forbes.com/…/ive-been-arrested-at-six-anti-puti…/ Despite that, 50,000 of my fellow countrymen went out in the streets of Moscow last year in protest of our government’s aggressive actions in Crimea. Have you seen it on Russia Today? No need to ask.

    “[Putin] seems to be the only head of state in power that uses common sense.. .also seems like he actually cares for the well being of humanity…”

    “He’s for restoring and preserving his nation. That’s more than I can say for our leader!”

    “Surely Russia’s wealth has increased and he’s not exactly imposing his footprint that much, although there are certainly some questionable issues on his foreign policy I’m sure

    Questionable issues, really?!

    Putin admitted that Russian troops took over Crimea, removing any doubt that it was an occupation and not a popular uprising. (The same kind of referendum is illegal in Russia: public calls for actions violating the territorial integrity of country are punishable by 4 years in prison.) Many separatists fighting in Ukraine are Russian citizens, some of their commanders formerly served for Russian special services. If you need more facts on Russia’s regime comparing to Ukraine I recommend you to read this: http://libertarian-party.ru/…/an-appeal-to-western-libertar…

    In addition, Russian military budget is the second largest in the world. Russia, by the way, still has a conscription army, and many those fighting in Ukraine and Syria are subject to a military draft. Journalists who investigated secret burials of Russians paratroopers killed in Ukraine were severely attacked

    http://www.rferl.org/…/russia-pskov-politicia…/26558191.html Russian officials, however, finally admitted there were regular army soldiers in Ukraine, but said they were fighting voluntarily while being “on vacation.”

    “Anytime the US media demonizes someone there’s something good about them.”

    Would you join ISIS just because Obama said it’s evil? The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. I don’t want to spend my whole life proving this obvious thing, and I’d appreciate if you help me to spread the truth.

    Don’t be Confused Pro-Putin Libertarians, please.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 08:33:00 UTC

  • How and Why The Collapse of Britain Mirrors The Collapse of Rome: Pseudoscience Over Mysticism – But Still The Same Lie

    (some important insights) [P]eter Hitchens (all), If you put the ‘dumbing down’ of the British population in historical context, it is an attempt to establish a secular version of christianity under pseudo-scientifc argument, and the closure of the church, and the extermination of the aristocracy, using forcible conversion by the state, using the same aggressive means that christianity was a successful attempt to establish a mystical christianity, using forcible conversion by the state, and the closure of the pagan temples and stoic schools, and the extermination of the aristocratic families. In the modern era, feminism and socialism and the attack on marriage and family have caused a population collapse as great as any plague in history. In the ancient era, the transfer of rates of reproduction from the middle and upper class to the lower classes, plus rapid immigration by the lower classes, was followed by devastating plagues that left the western roman empire indefensible. Our middle ages did not experience immigration, so we survived that plague. IN the ancient and modern world we did not, and may not unless we learn from it. In this context there is no difference between the prelude to the dark ages in the collapsing roman empire, and the prelude to another dark age in the collapse of the British empire. There is no talk necessary. We will destroy, fight and kill, or be little more than the priests at Lindesfarne as the boat people come to steal from us. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV3rfd0JqGA

  • How and Why The Collapse of Britain Mirrors The Collapse of Rome: Pseudoscience Over Mysticism – But Still The Same Lie

    (some important insights) [P]eter Hitchens (all), If you put the ‘dumbing down’ of the British population in historical context, it is an attempt to establish a secular version of christianity under pseudo-scientifc argument, and the closure of the church, and the extermination of the aristocracy, using forcible conversion by the state, using the same aggressive means that christianity was a successful attempt to establish a mystical christianity, using forcible conversion by the state, and the closure of the pagan temples and stoic schools, and the extermination of the aristocratic families. In the modern era, feminism and socialism and the attack on marriage and family have caused a population collapse as great as any plague in history. In the ancient era, the transfer of rates of reproduction from the middle and upper class to the lower classes, plus rapid immigration by the lower classes, was followed by devastating plagues that left the western roman empire indefensible. Our middle ages did not experience immigration, so we survived that plague. IN the ancient and modern world we did not, and may not unless we learn from it. In this context there is no difference between the prelude to the dark ages in the collapsing roman empire, and the prelude to another dark age in the collapse of the British empire. There is no talk necessary. We will destroy, fight and kill, or be little more than the priests at Lindesfarne as the boat people come to steal from us. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV3rfd0JqGA

  • What Is The Next Great Technological Revolution? Its Not What You Think.

    [I]’m going to posit a very different technological revolution, that is far more important. Lets look at a set of revolutionary inventions:

      What I am working on, and what I hope is the next great revolution, is to provide a reformation to counter the Pseudoscientific Era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises) imposed by Academia, the same way that the British (English and Scottish enlightenments) provided a reformation against the era of mysticism (Justinian and Augustinian imposed Christianity). We know now that the Flynn effect is caused largely by the incremental conversion of human thinking from a multitude of case specific rules of utility (think recipes) to a limited number of general rules describing the behavior of similar systems (think theories). Depending upon who you ask, this education in scientific thinking appears to have created a 20 point increase (more than one standard deviation) in demonstrated human intelligence. Likewise, the application of scientific thought to the social sciences in order to overcome the equivalent of the second christianization of European civilization – this time with pseudoscience instead of mysticism – will very likely produce an equal if not greater affect on our economies, our polities, and our demonstrated intelligence. And like the conversion from mysticism to physical sciences, the conversion of pseudoscience to social science, will be just as difficult and costly and require an equally challenging and costly effort. We have only half-escaped our primitive mysticism. The next revolutionary science is not robotics. It’s social science: morality: natural laws of cooperation. With which any advancement in machine intelligence is governable, and without which it is a risk. THE WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY If you cannot warranty that your testimony survives these tests then you cannot claim you speak truthfully.

      • Identity
      • Internal Consistency
      • External Correspondence
      • Existential Possibility
      • Parsimony
      • Full Accounting
      • Demonstrable Morality

      Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

    • What Is The Next Great Technological Revolution? Its Not What You Think.

      [I]’m going to posit a very different technological revolution, that is far more important. Lets look at a set of revolutionary inventions:

        What I am working on, and what I hope is the next great revolution, is to provide a reformation to counter the Pseudoscientific Era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises) imposed by Academia, the same way that the British (English and Scottish enlightenments) provided a reformation against the era of mysticism (Justinian and Augustinian imposed Christianity). We know now that the Flynn effect is caused largely by the incremental conversion of human thinking from a multitude of case specific rules of utility (think recipes) to a limited number of general rules describing the behavior of similar systems (think theories). Depending upon who you ask, this education in scientific thinking appears to have created a 20 point increase (more than one standard deviation) in demonstrated human intelligence. Likewise, the application of scientific thought to the social sciences in order to overcome the equivalent of the second christianization of European civilization – this time with pseudoscience instead of mysticism – will very likely produce an equal if not greater affect on our economies, our polities, and our demonstrated intelligence. And like the conversion from mysticism to physical sciences, the conversion of pseudoscience to social science, will be just as difficult and costly and require an equally challenging and costly effort. We have only half-escaped our primitive mysticism. The next revolutionary science is not robotics. It’s social science: morality: natural laws of cooperation. With which any advancement in machine intelligence is governable, and without which it is a risk. THE WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY If you cannot warranty that your testimony survives these tests then you cannot claim you speak truthfully.

        • Identity
        • Internal Consistency
        • External Correspondence
        • Existential Possibility
        • Parsimony
        • Full Accounting
        • Demonstrable Morality

        Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

      • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

        (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.

      • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

        (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.

      • THE SECOND GREAT CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY (important)(very important) You see, the

        THE SECOND GREAT CRITICISM OF DEMOCRACY

        (important)(very important)

        You see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success.

        There are only three means of organizing man: 1) force, 2) gossip and 3) exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion.

        By constructing three houses that reflect these three means of organizing man:

        1) aristocracy/military/law of property;

        2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance;

        3) burgher/commerce/law of contract;

        …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons.

        So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation.

        If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family.

        Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent.

        In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent.

        Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent.

        So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity.

        Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras.

        We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses.

        More as I continue my work.

        But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsible for our success.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-12-01 04:03:00 UTC

      • CAN CHRISTIANITY FIND ROOM FOR INTELLECTUAL CHRISTIANS? I am fairly sure at this

        CAN CHRISTIANITY FIND ROOM FOR INTELLECTUAL CHRISTIANS?

        I am fairly sure at this point that my concept of christianity differs little from say Jefferson’s except in the current scientific language I would use to express it.

        I practice an intellectual form of what we call christianity. It is demonstrably more pagan (the adoration of beauty, life, nature, the universe) in sentiment. It is not submissive but heroic. It is not the demand of a god, but an exchange with one. It is not mystical, but psychological and ethical, social and moral, political and economic. But it remains spiritual: a means of serving the pack by submission to, investment in, and sacrifice for, the pack (the tribe).

        I pray to and take advice from my god daily. Yet I see this god as a construction of man’s collective intuition, belief, and action, and the magic of religion a product of complex consilience.

        When I talk to my god he is not the semitic, egyptian or babylonian terrorist, nor the fearsome Odin, nor the importune Zeus. He is the “all-father” for certain, but he is a distinctly christian father. A wise monarch, not a pious priest or selfish demon.

        Or better yet, he is the god I need him to be in order to do the work of my people – to raise my people from beast, to man, to gods all. To transform the entire universe to eden. Not to be cast out of paradise, but to construct it.

        So in this sense I see Polytheism as superior for an advanced civilization: to lionize our generals and saints, artists and poets, scientists and philosophers, manufacturers, merchants, and craftsmen. Because all of us require that our gods speak to us in our our language.

        But what are gods? Gods are the product of the human mind, just as are numbers and formulae, and they exist just as do numbers and formulae. They are what we wish to be if we were able, not what exists prior to us.

        Is it better to practice ancestor worship, disciplined ritual, as the japanese and the stoics? It certainly appears so. Is it problematic to practice nature worship, seek advice of the gods? I do not see reason to. I can pray to the soul of aristotle and if I understand him well enough hear his advice. Prayer is a means of circumventing your cognitive biases by a ritual act of submission to the pack. We hear the truth in prayer because we cannot lie to ourselves before an the knowing gods.

        If Christianity can find room for Intellectual Christians then why must it remain ‘truth’ rather than ‘myth and allegory’? Surely a tea ceremony, or the daily ritual of diary planning and writing are personal rituals rather than political. While prayer remains a mixture of personal and political. But all three quiet the mind so that we can listen to intuition gained from the study or experience of the ideas of great minds free of the multitude of biases that cloud our minds.

        Christianity can be expressed as an entirely rational system of thought. The premise is very simple: extend love of kin to non kin, and in doing so construct trust, and trust will produce prosperity. When paired with aristocracy and chivalry, this comprises the western character: heroism: the construction of personal excellence for the purpose of service to and advancement of the tribe.

        That we create god within us is more important for us than to explain the vicissitudes of nature – the universe is definitely hostile to human life.

        If I agree with the Catholic philosophers and Mormon practice, why is there no room for those men of science (truth) who need even FEWER biases and comforts in order to gain access to our intuitions? We need fewer excuses and incentives to think and act in Christian fashion, other than because of our station or disposition we understand that limiting consumption and contributing to the commons with our thoughts, feelings, and efforts is

        you see, I understand the cancer that is monopoly in any form, and the genius that is what we call balance of powers, but is better considered a division of labor. For in that division we produce multiple excellences, and through voluntary exchange we find the golden mean: the optimum path for many specialists rather than the only possible path for monopolists.

        The church is meaningless and rudderless without aristocracy. Aristocracy is meaningless without the church. Without the competition between Nobility, Priesthood and Burgher (bourgeoisie), two must be subject to the whim of one rather than each in constant excellence each conducting exchanges, and where those exchanges form an information system by which we investigate all three possible dimensions of social order as specialists, use each that we find advantageous, and continue to evolve. Meanwhile each keeps the other from abuses by a competition for power.

        This was our western secret and we have abandoned it for the folly of monopoly government by the lower classes in which we simply lie and cheat and manipulate outside of government and using government rather than between the great houses of state, church and industry.

        A man must be educated by the church and the aristocracy and industry. He can then specialize to suit his abilities: education and care-taking, invention and production, law and order.

        I do not see the value in the bible that I see in our great literature. I see value in a church, in a priesthood, in a mythos, and in rituals. I do not see the value in heaven that I see in the natural world. I do not see the value in false gods that I see in past saints and heroes. I do see a true god, and a truthful god, that seeks to parent us through our evolution such that we may transform the universe into the garden of eden. And that god has many faces.

        It has taken me a long time to understand that across all of mankind the words spoken in ritual whether field, temple or church, are meaningless. It is the safety we feel in ritual that matters – our feeling of membership in the pack and the great comfort that it brings to us no matter what the forum (including TED talks for the new hippie era).

        We need a christian reformation as well as a restitution. And we need to kill forever the monopoly of the heresy that is state-run-secular-humanism as one of the great failed experiements – another great lie – in human history. A heresy that is a monopoly, and as a monopoly NOT CHRISTIAN OR WESTERN but middle eastern.

        It is not only islam we must purge from the west, but democratic secular humanism: the worship of the state: the worst false god man has invented in two thousand years.

        Curt Doolittle

        The Philosophy of Aristocracy

        The Propertarian Institute

        Kiev, Ukraine

        Source date (UTC): 2015-12-01 03:38:00 UTC

      • Trump for King!!!!! (actually, not a bad idea) This history seems a bit biased,

        Trump for King!!!!!

        (actually, not a bad idea)

        This history seems a bit biased, but it’s exciting none the less. 😉

        His dad’s name was Fred Trump – who made his first fortune operating boom-town hotels, restaurants and brothels in the Northwestern United States. (Seattle!!!)

        Drumpf was born in 1869, to Katherina (Kober) and Christian Johannes Trump.in the old Pfalz town of Kallstadt, where his family worked in a vineyard,

        Trump emigrated to New York City in 1885 at the age of 16 with empty pockets and worked as a barber for six years. In 1891, he moved to Seattle, Washington, and established a “decadent” restaurant (likely to have also been a brothel) known as the “Poodle Dog” (identical in name and format to a restaurant in San Francisco). It was around this time that Trump anglicized his name to Frederick Trump, and became a naturalized United States citizen.

        In 1901, sensing the end of the gold rush and fearing a crackdown on prostitution, Trump sold his investments and used the proceeds to return to Germany.

        In 1902, Trump returned to Kallstadt to marry his old neighbor Elizabeth Christ (October 10, 1880 – June 6, 1966). German authorities determined that Trump had emigrated from Germany to avoid his tax and military-service obligations, and he and his pregnant wife were consequently expelled from the country.

        He returned to the United States and worked as a barber and restaurant manager in Woodhaven, Queens, where his sons Fred and John were born in 1905 and 1907, respectively.

        Trump died of pneumonia during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. At the time of his death, he was beginning to invest in real estate development in Queens; his wife and his son Fred would continue his real estate projects under the Elizabeth Trump & Son moniker.

        By the time he died in Queens at the age of 49, he had built up a fortune worth $31,642.54 – or around $542,000 in today’s money.

        He left his small fortune to his wife Elizabeth, who used it to go into business with her eldest son Fred Jr, who was just 15 at the time. The pair created the Trump empire, which is now headed by Fred Jr’s son, Donald.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-11-30 09:31:00 UTC