(profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology) [O]nce you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion. However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law. Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies. The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations. You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
Form: Mini Essay
-
North Sea Truth vs Levantine Critique
(profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology) [O]nce you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion. However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law. Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies. The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations. You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Adults and Institutions, Children and Beliefs
[C]hildren talk of beliefs. Adults talk of institutions.
Children talk of “Want and Belief” Adults of “Expectations and Habits”.
The mind plans with what it has available. We need develop means of creating habits that produce expectations.
People then plan with those expectations – because that is what is available to them.
As far as I know only property, homesteaded and voluntarily exchanged, allows such planning by the individual, and decidability by third parties in the case of conflict.And far as I know the only means of creating ‘scientific’ rules of human cooperation is the organically evolved common law, constructed upon the one rule of property and the one operation of voluntary exchange.
Just as with mathematics we can take the concept of a single unit and simple operations we create all of mathematics, with the concept of property and the simple operation of voluntary exchange, we can create all of human cooperation in equally rich variety.
In the logic of human cooperation that we inarticulately call moral prohibitions and ethical rules, and which we can easily embody in law, we need only one unit “property” and one operation “exchange”.
All commons can be constructed as long as the principles of existence, calculability, and operation-ability are maintained, such that all propositions are decidable without dependence upon information external to the operation.
The only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine. -
Adults and Institutions, Children and Beliefs
[C]hildren talk of beliefs. Adults talk of institutions.
Children talk of “Want and Belief” Adults of “Expectations and Habits”.
The mind plans with what it has available. We need develop means of creating habits that produce expectations.
People then plan with those expectations – because that is what is available to them.
As far as I know only property, homesteaded and voluntarily exchanged, allows such planning by the individual, and decidability by third parties in the case of conflict.And far as I know the only means of creating ‘scientific’ rules of human cooperation is the organically evolved common law, constructed upon the one rule of property and the one operation of voluntary exchange.
Just as with mathematics we can take the concept of a single unit and simple operations we create all of mathematics, with the concept of property and the simple operation of voluntary exchange, we can create all of human cooperation in equally rich variety.
In the logic of human cooperation that we inarticulately call moral prohibitions and ethical rules, and which we can easily embody in law, we need only one unit “property” and one operation “exchange”.
All commons can be constructed as long as the principles of existence, calculability, and operation-ability are maintained, such that all propositions are decidable without dependence upon information external to the operation.
The only moral society is one in which property, morality and law are synonyms.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine. -
Self-Criticism and Self-Reformation – Not Racism or Anti-Semitism
[I] am critical of every one of the enlightenment groups for their stupidity.
So I am not interested in racism or anti-semitism so much as self-improvement. I argue only against the accidental application of jewish in-group ethics and argument structure as pseudoscience in an era where our western extant means of logic and argument at human scale required our retention of european testimonial truth and operationalism because at that time our intellectual problems in all fields exceeded human scale. This is a profound statement if you grasp it.
I am not anti semitic. Just the opposite. I’m a compatibilist. I do think the Jewish century is over with, and that it was tragically harmful. But if you want to get involved in or discuss racism or whatever, then that is not what I do. I think it’s always the wrong question. The answer is why you subject yourself to internal political competition – not why others pursue a better life for themselves.
**I do not think Jews understood what they were doing any more than we anglo europeans understood what we were doing, or the germans or the french understood what they were doing. We all just justified what we had done before in the new context in order to maintain group cohesion.**
My effort is to make us understand what happened, and why Jewish pseudoscientific thought in all disciplines was so easy to attack and destroy western civilization with – for the SECOND TIME.
What didn’t we learn the first time? What have we learned or failed to learn this time?
*Propertarianism*
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine -
Self-Criticism and Self-Reformation – Not Racism or Anti-Semitism
[I] am critical of every one of the enlightenment groups for their stupidity.
So I am not interested in racism or anti-semitism so much as self-improvement. I argue only against the accidental application of jewish in-group ethics and argument structure as pseudoscience in an era where our western extant means of logic and argument at human scale required our retention of european testimonial truth and operationalism because at that time our intellectual problems in all fields exceeded human scale. This is a profound statement if you grasp it.
I am not anti semitic. Just the opposite. I’m a compatibilist. I do think the Jewish century is over with, and that it was tragically harmful. But if you want to get involved in or discuss racism or whatever, then that is not what I do. I think it’s always the wrong question. The answer is why you subject yourself to internal political competition – not why others pursue a better life for themselves.
**I do not think Jews understood what they were doing any more than we anglo europeans understood what we were doing, or the germans or the french understood what they were doing. We all just justified what we had done before in the new context in order to maintain group cohesion.**
My effort is to make us understand what happened, and why Jewish pseudoscientific thought in all disciplines was so easy to attack and destroy western civilization with – for the SECOND TIME.
What didn’t we learn the first time? What have we learned or failed to learn this time?
*Propertarianism*
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine -
Race: The Desire for Liberty and Equality
[M]y objective is the achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it. For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.
As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity. The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups. EQUALITY Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses). An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence). THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY: (a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model); (b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or; (c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model) That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty. ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism. As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what. -
Race: The Desire for Liberty and Equality
[M]y objective is the achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it. For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.
As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity. The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups. EQUALITY Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses). An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence). THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY: (a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model); (b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or; (c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model) That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty. ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism. As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what. -
The Ultimate Question of Economic Science? It’s Eugenia or Dysgenia.
[P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.
And it’s been bothering me all night:
Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.
So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?
Well, they do. All humans do.
Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.
The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.
This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.
Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?
I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.
-
The Ultimate Question of Economic Science? It’s Eugenia or Dysgenia.
[P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.
And it’s been bothering me all night:
Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.
So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?
Well, they do. All humans do.
Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.
The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.
This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.
Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?
I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.