[W]ell, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny. A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology). Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable. So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along. Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing. And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines. But all investments provide returns or not. The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Why Is Propertarianism’s Explanatory Power So Important?
[W]ell, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny. A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology). Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable. So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along. Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing. And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines. But all investments provide returns or not. The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Why Aren’t There More Female Directors
[T]op 100 films (directed by women) – a list by minalex The problem is that there is only one money making director on that list that can compete with men as a rule rather than as an outlier, and that’s KB. It’s not about whether you like the movie. It’s about whether people will drive, fill up the gas, get a date, drive more, park, walk, buy tickets, grab something at the snack bar, watch a movie, go for a drink or food after the movie, drive the date home, drive home. If you cant get someone to do that it’s not a movie. It’s a daydream. It’s not business its recreation. If you want to make it as a woman director, follow the advice we got in film school: shoot a trailer, shoot a sex scene (yeah, that’s what we were taught – it’s hard to do), shoot a car chase, shoot a horror movie that doesn’t make people laugh at you, and blow people away with how much emotion you created with how little resources. A drama doesn’t take skill in managing the audience experience. Then make the case you will make money. After all. That’s the business. Men are more likely to trust men. Men are more likely to take risks. Men are more likely to lose health, life, family and home for their work. Men are more likely the high performing outliers. We invest in who we trust. So there is a bias toward men by men for completely logical reasons: evidence. What I remember hearing from women all the time was “I want to make a movie at my pace with my aesthetics, on the budget I need to do that”. Made me cringe. There are thousands of guys out there willing to make a movie that makes money at whatever pace the money requires. You gotta get people out onto the street and into the theatre, you’re competing with video games, and the internet, not other movies. The test is not whether one movie is better than another. Its whether people will choose to go to your movie during it’s first weekend over video games, Netflix, the internet and whatever else they can choose to do. Enough complaining from me. Just tired of dealing with bias claims in all walks of life when the problem is trust and evidence. If women need to make movies because they’re women then raise money and build a studio to do it. If you can’t get into business raising your own money, than that’s just empirical. If you can’t stay in business, then that’s just empirical. Its just what it is. Movie making is an extreme right of the curve high risk business. It’s gambling. Some people do it for love at great personal cost, often, if not most often, experiencing tragic failure. Other people do it because they know how to make money at it. And others are willing to burn life, health, family, friends, and every cent they have to make it happen. And that inspires trust. The kind of trust you give budget to.
-
Why Aren’t There More Female Directors
[T]op 100 films (directed by women) – a list by minalex The problem is that there is only one money making director on that list that can compete with men as a rule rather than as an outlier, and that’s KB. It’s not about whether you like the movie. It’s about whether people will drive, fill up the gas, get a date, drive more, park, walk, buy tickets, grab something at the snack bar, watch a movie, go for a drink or food after the movie, drive the date home, drive home. If you cant get someone to do that it’s not a movie. It’s a daydream. It’s not business its recreation. If you want to make it as a woman director, follow the advice we got in film school: shoot a trailer, shoot a sex scene (yeah, that’s what we were taught – it’s hard to do), shoot a car chase, shoot a horror movie that doesn’t make people laugh at you, and blow people away with how much emotion you created with how little resources. A drama doesn’t take skill in managing the audience experience. Then make the case you will make money. After all. That’s the business. Men are more likely to trust men. Men are more likely to take risks. Men are more likely to lose health, life, family and home for their work. Men are more likely the high performing outliers. We invest in who we trust. So there is a bias toward men by men for completely logical reasons: evidence. What I remember hearing from women all the time was “I want to make a movie at my pace with my aesthetics, on the budget I need to do that”. Made me cringe. There are thousands of guys out there willing to make a movie that makes money at whatever pace the money requires. You gotta get people out onto the street and into the theatre, you’re competing with video games, and the internet, not other movies. The test is not whether one movie is better than another. Its whether people will choose to go to your movie during it’s first weekend over video games, Netflix, the internet and whatever else they can choose to do. Enough complaining from me. Just tired of dealing with bias claims in all walks of life when the problem is trust and evidence. If women need to make movies because they’re women then raise money and build a studio to do it. If you can’t get into business raising your own money, than that’s just empirical. If you can’t stay in business, then that’s just empirical. Its just what it is. Movie making is an extreme right of the curve high risk business. It’s gambling. Some people do it for love at great personal cost, often, if not most often, experiencing tragic failure. Other people do it because they know how to make money at it. And others are willing to burn life, health, family, friends, and every cent they have to make it happen. And that inspires trust. The kind of trust you give budget to.
-
We All Weaponize Something Or Other…
[I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.
-
We All Weaponize Something Or Other…
[I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.
-
My Position on Race and Racism – Again. And It’s Relation to Polytheism.
[I] am an aggressive supporter of kin-preference, aristocratic families, paternal aristocracies, and as many of them as an can make. My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism causes conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism and local separatism improve everyone. My position on the cause of the *meaningful* differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the underclasses and their reproduction over long periods of time. My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others. My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral. I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families. So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize others successful reproductive strategies, rather than the criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies. I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods. That is my vision of polytheism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
My Position on Race and Racism – Again. And It’s Relation to Polytheism.
[I] am an aggressive supporter of kin-preference, aristocratic families, paternal aristocracies, and as many of them as an can make. My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism causes conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism and local separatism improve everyone. My position on the cause of the *meaningful* differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the underclasses and their reproduction over long periods of time. My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others. My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral. I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families. So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize others successful reproductive strategies, rather than the criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies. I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods. That is my vision of polytheism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
I Solved It: The Method of Lying In Both The Religious and Pseudoscientific Eras.
[I] think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics. Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it. I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism.
[pullquote]In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline.[/pullquote]
In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not. I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people. So I know how to kill that too. I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline. I am confident now. I can do it. Curt.
-
I Solved It: The Method of Lying In Both The Religious and Pseudoscientific Eras.
[I] think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics. Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it. I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism.
[pullquote]In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline.[/pullquote]
In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not. I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people. So I know how to kill that too. I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline. I am confident now. I can do it. Curt.