Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE TWO FOLD MORALITY OF ACHILLES by Adam Voight The morality of Achilles is two

    THE TWO FOLD MORALITY OF ACHILLES

    by Adam Voight

    The morality of Achilles is two fold:

    1) Freedom – Rulers do not own the ruled; rulers owe their power to attracting good subjects who will fight for them and serve them. This is revealed in Achilles’ dealings with Agamemnon and Menelaos.

    2) Universal Honor code – Just because you are fighting a war against some nation, does not mean that you hate those people or deal with them dishonorably. All just war is just insofar as it is fought for honor and fought with honor. The fact that Achilles recognizes the honor of the Trojans when he returns Hector’s body and when he dies accepting the Trojan’s word that it was the Greeks who broke the cease-fire.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:34:00 UTC

  • “YES MY CHILD, ONLY HALF OF PEOPLE WORK” 😉 —“Only half participate in the wor

    “YES MY CHILD, ONLY HALF OF PEOPLE WORK” 😉

    —“Only half participate in the work force? Really?”—

    um… that’s normal. children, stay at home moms, and the elderly. 20 years to mature, 40 years of work, 20 years of retirement = 50% employment in an evenly rotating population.

    That simple sentence is enough to explain why redistribution doesn’t work. Costly to train, costly to reproduce the next generation and work, and costly to support in old age. Basically if you can’t pay for yourself you’re screwed.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:32:00 UTC

  • WISDOM LITERATURE PAST AND PRESENT: UNITS OF MEASUREMENT (very, very, important

    WISDOM LITERATURE PAST AND PRESENT: UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

    (very, very, important piece)

    So, you know, how some fiction author creates a ‘universe’ and writes multiple books using that universe? Well, some authors write stories for other authors’ universes. And then publishers combine these stories into a compendium of short stories (anthologies)?

    Paul (Saul of Tarsus) created a fantasy ‘universe’, just like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, Saberhagen’s Berserkers, Herbert’s Dune, Martin’s Song (Game of Thrones), Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, the Arthurian Legends, or the greek and roman myths, or any of our original natural mythologies.

    And a lot of other authors made up stories and attributed them to paul’s characters. (And whomever converted christian literature to islamic). Then the only debate was over which stories were included in the anthology (bible).

    These stories consist of a rather small set of archetypal characters and archetypal plots, in a host of circumstances. And we use these characters, circumstances and plots as units of measurement for making decisions in the kaleidic complexity of real life. And in this sense we do need stories the same way we need logic, mathematics, weights and measures, norms and laws.

    So these stories are no less important than any other system of measurement and standard of weights and measures. The differences is we do not see the consequences (and externalities) of mass use of these systems of measurement, and we are unable to correct these stories once we release them into the ‘wild’ (market).

    In other words, while in most systems of measurement (what we call ‘weights and measures’) we can prohibit fraudulent systems of measure, and fraudulent exchanges. It’s not so much that we need to create standards (while we do for the purposes of commensurability, and as such for the prevention of fraud by incommensurability), it’s that we must ensure that our weights and measures are not fraudulent or harmful either directly, indirectly, or by externality.

    In the ancient world, modernity was disrupting tribal hierarchies and traditions, and as such nearly all the underclass (vast majority of peoples) lost any hope of expressing dominance, success, or excellence. They lacked the genetics, agency, knowledge, and institutions to produce the confidence necessary to make decisions in a kaleidic universe undergoing dramatic change. They were losing their ability to calculate a feeling of success at whatever level of success or failure they were achieving.

    And this is a serious problem, because evolution provided us with a set of cognitive biases to keep us pursuing lifespan even in the most hopeless of circumstances. And in order to prevent in the ancient world what middle age white men are doing today (committing suicide) young men are doing today (withdrawing from society), and women are doing today (forgoing children, then taking anti-depressants), they inverted the heroic legends of dominance with an heroic legend of submission and resistance – primarily resistance against the roman-greco-persian and less so egyptian empires: the people of fertile crescent slavery and impoverished pastoralists, against the people of armies, metal, reason, mathematics, farm, and trade.

    In the recent era, we have seen Marxism and it’s suite of literatures, the continuation of Democratic literature (anti-aristocratic literature), Postmodern literature (all of these meaning the political literatures), and Science Fiction(our modern aryan mythos), Medieval fantasy, the War story, the Western, and the spy and detective story (the personal literatures). We have devolved into effeminate literatures (Japanese), and childish literatures (superheroes) – an attempt to create heroes without armies. And we have seen the active suppression of our ancestral literatures – of armies – as the democratic, marxist, and postmodern seek to erase them, just as the jewish, christian, and islamic sought to erase them in the ancient world – and all but succeeded.

    Now, creating a conflationary wisdom literature that combines a fictional world, archetypal characters and plots, into stories and from stories into an anthology as a mythology( pseudohistory), that includes prescribed rules (pseudolaw), and a method of argument (pseudo rationalism), and justifies it by some sort of magic (pseudoscience), is to some degree necessary to create commensurability between the units of measurement (stories).

    The difference is that the west began with sovereignty, and divided into specialized literatures: logic, mathematics, science, history, law, philosophy, literature, mythology – and all competed against each other using different terminologies and sometimes different languages (in english: german, french, latin, and greek). The chinese reacted to greek reason with confucian, dao, and eventually buddhism – a class based set of logics rather than a discipline base set of logics. The Persians reacted to greek reason and greek reason to persian, with a cult that slowly transformed the sky god into mithra. The semites reacted to greek reason by inverting every single dimension of the markets and creating a mandatory monopoly system of thought.

    The west’s use of competing markets of measurements (stories) rather than chinese hierarchy of stories, or semitic authoritarian monopoly stories is a natural consequence of western sovereignty. However, while the western system can adapt to changes faster than all others – it can be defeated by Overloading (immigration, conversion, propaganda) precisely because the underlying system of measurement (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) was never written down – only practiced out of habit in our traditional (pre urban) (indo-)european law.

    Had this underlying system of weights measures and values (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) been articulated, the market for disciplines (grammars and semantics) would have remained possible. The reason being that our aryan system of weights and measures and values, (truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) is purely via-negativa. It does not tell us what to do, only what we may not. As such each discipline may compete for what we should do, even though we prohibit discretion in what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets.

    And while our law contains implicitly a record of decisions using truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets, our law does not articulate the mandate for truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets.

    So what I have tried to do for my people, and perhaps if they wish to use it, the rest of mankind, is to articulate those first principles in a formal logic, as a via negativa, so that those markets for stories (systems of measurement) may continue to compete via positiva, but so that we can prohibit stories (systems of measurement) that violate those first principles of formal logic that make the rapid adaptation and therefor rapid innovation, and therefore rapid wealth, of western aryan civilization possible.

    In this way I seek to modify (amend, rewrite) our constitutions such that they make explicit these first principles in formal logic, and their objective and purpose as a via negativa commensurable system of decidability, across all competing grammars, as a defense against another abrahamic dark age that inverted those values, and the marxist-postmoder-feminist age that seeks through immigration, takeover of the academy, the media, and the state, to replace that system once again- and deliver us and mankind into another dark age like the jewish-christian-islamic, and the loss of another thousand years, and the suffering that is produced, by the inversion of the first principles of western (aryan) civilization.

    The cost of this defense against the second abrahamic dark age is the criminalization of literatures that violate truth(scientific truth), sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, and markets.

    In other words, we will be able to suppress invasion by fraudulent systems of measurement that seek to create monopolies by which we undermine and replace markets.

    And the cost of persisting that prosperity is the upward redistribution of reproduction and the downward redistribution of compensation, in order to maintain a polity that is far more invulnerable to desirable monopoly frauds. And the reversal of underclass immigration and forced integration the purpose of which is to achieve through culture-cide and genocide that which could not be achieved by the veracity of their ideas.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy: Nomocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:29:00 UTC

  • THE ABRAHAMIC OR EGALITARIAN WORLDVIEW by Daniel Gurpide Irrespective of the for

    THE ABRAHAMIC OR EGALITARIAN WORLDVIEW

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Irrespective of the forms it has adopted, the Abrahamic or egalitarian world view has always been eschatological – and also reflects an implicit anthropology. It attributes a negative value to history, and discerns sense in historical motion only insofar as the latter tends towards its own negation and final end.

    According to this view, history has a beginning and it must also have an end. It is but an episode—an incident as far as what constitutes the essence of humanity is concerned. The true nature of man would be external to history. And the end of history would restore—sublimating it—whatever existed at the beginning. Human eternity would be based not on becoming but on being.

    I.-THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

    This episode which is history is perceived in the Christian perspective as damnation. History derives from man being condemned by God—owing to original sin—to unhappiness, labour, sweat, and blood. Humanity lived in happy innocence in the Garden of Eden, and was condemned to history because its forefather, Adam, transgressed the divine commandment, wanting to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge: to become like God. Adam’s fault weighs, as original sin, upon every individual who comes to the world. It is, by definition, inexpiable, since God himself was offended.

    However, God, in his infinite goodness, himself takes charge of the expiation. He becomes man—incarnate in the person of Jesus. The sacrifice of the Son of God introduces in historical becoming the essential event of Redemption. No doubt this concerns only those individuals touched by Grace, but it makes possible the slow march towards the end of history, for which, from then on, the ‘communion of saints’ must prepare humanity. Finally, there will come a day when the forces of Good and Evil will come face to face in a battle that will lead to a Last Judgement and, thence, to the instauration of the Kingdom of Heaven—which has its dialectical counterpart in the abyss of Hell.

    Eden before the beginning of history; original sin; expulsion from the Garden of Eden; traversing the vale of tears that is the world—the place of historical becoming; Redemption; communion of saints; apocalyptic battle and Last Judgement; end of history and instauration of a Kingdom of Heaven: these are the mythemes that structure the mythical vision of history proposed by Christianity. In this vision, man’s historical becoming has a purely negative value, and the sense of an expiation…

    II.- THE MARXIST VIEW

    The same mythemes can be found—now in a secularised and pseudoscientific form—in the Marxist view of history. There, history is presented as the result of the class struggle: a struggle between groups defined in relation to their respective economic conditions. The prehistoric Garden of Eden has been transformed into a primitive communism practised by a humanity still immersed in the state of nature and of a purely predatory character. Whereas man in Eden was constrained by God’s commandments, man in primitive communism lives under the pressure of misery. Such pressure has brought about the invention of the means of agricultural production, but this invention has also turned out to be a curse. It has entailed, indeed, not only the exploitation of nature by man, but also the division of labour, the exploitation of man by man, and, consequently, human alienation. The class struggle is the implicit consequence of this exploitation of man by man. Its result is history.

    As we can see, for Marxists it is economic conditions that determine human behaviour. By logical concatenation, the latter leads to the creation of ever new systems of production which, in their turn, cause new economic conditions and—especially—ever greater misery for those who are exploited. Nevertheless, there comes a moment of Redemption. With the arrival of capitalism misery peaks—it becomes unbearable. Proletarians become conscious of their condition, and this redemptive realisation gives rise to the organising of communist parties—exactly as the redemption of Christ had caused the founding of a communion of saints. The Judeo-Christian notion of ‘Grace’ finds its equivalent, especially in relation to the Sermon of the Mount.

    Communist parties carry out an apocalyptic struggle against the exploiters. This may be long and difficult, but it will ultimately and necessarily be successful: it is ‘the sense of history.’ This will bring about the abolition of social classes, put an end to man’s alienation, and allow the instauration of a communist society—unchanging and classless. Furthermore, since history is the result of the class struggle, evidently there will be no more history. Prehistoric communism will be reinstated—like the Garden of Eden in the Kingdom of Heaven—but in a sublimated way. While primitive communist society was afflicted by material misery, post-historic communist society will enjoy a perfectly balanced satisfaction of its needs.

    Hence, in the Marxist view, history also assumes a negative value. Born originally because of human alienation, it makes sense only insofar as it increases incessantly the misery of those exploited, finally contributing to the creation of the conditions through which misery will disappear and, as it were, ‘marching’ towards its own end, its self-abolition.

    III.- THE END OF HISTORY

    Both egalitarian views—religious Christian and secular Marxist—logically imply that history is determined not by the action of man, but by something that transcends him. It is true that Christianity ascribes free will to man and so affirms that it was Adam, having freely ‘chosen’ to sin, who is responsible for his fault, for his imperfection. However, it was God who made and wanted Adam to be imperfect.

    On the other hand, Marxists were sometimes wont to say that history was made by man—or rather men, as members of a social class. However, it is the case that social classes are determined and defined by economic conditions, and that it had been original misery that had constrained men to enter into that bloody concatenation which is the class struggle. Man is then incited to act only as a result of his economic condition. He is a mere decoy in a game played in nature by material forces.

    …Within the egalitarian vision of history, man performs a dramatic role—in a tragic, shameful, and painful farce—one that he has not written and will never write. Dignity, as an authentic human truth, is found outside history—before it and after it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 08:43:00 UTC

  • WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION Natural law preda

    WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION

    Natural law predates all western states, and is merely the law of tort (reciprocity for the prevention of retaliation cycles), which is merely traditional european customary law back into the pre-govermental (tribal) period. Natural law is the label and justification for traditional (northern) european customary law. It was the greeks who started and zeno in particular who gave the romans, the explanation that traditional customary law of individual sovereignty and reciprocity (and tripartism), was in fact ‘natural’ ( living according to the laws of nature), and the church’s contribution was to state it was necessary for peaceful cooperation among peoples as a means of demanding the state – particularly once the spanish started slaughtering primitives in the new world.

    Western civ like all civs is a product of our law, and our law like all civs originated in our military orders and was codified during the period of the great transformations.

    Theologians, priests, monks, and the church like philosophers, public intellectuals, professors, and the academy, and like propagandists, politicians, bureaucrats and the state, take credit for and develop names for, those things which they justify but do not cause or created or even practice.

    Meanwhile the law, the economy, the trades, and families leave daily records of the purely empirical.

    We are almost always just the product of our laws, and everything else is propaganda.

    Hence the importance of law, and in particular the law of sovereign men, and that is the law of tort: the resolution of conflict and the prevention of retaliation cycles by the demand for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon third parties (externalities).

    It just so happens that once you choose sovereignty and the law of tort you are forced to produce markets, and in doing so adapt faster to changes than all other civilizations combined.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 08:41:00 UTC

  • ¡ ‘To understand Marx, one should use the following dictionary: Yahweh = Dialect

    ¡ ‘To understand Marx, one should use the following dictionary:

    Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism

    The Messiah = Marx

    The Elect = The Proletariat

    The Church = The Communist Party

    The Second Coming = The Revolution

    Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists

    The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth’

    – Bertrand Russell

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 06:14:00 UTC

  • by Thomas Daniel Nehrer, Paul almost certainly wrote seven of the books attribut

    by Thomas Daniel Nehrer,

    Paul almost certainly wrote seven of the books attributed to him, and possibly an eighth — based on writing style and content. Biblical scholars have concluded (in general, as some doubtless differ) that the other books attributed to him were written by someone else. Their style and content differ considerably.

    And all of the other books of the NT, 19 or 20 of them were anonymous — with names attributed to them either attached later or applied at the time to give greater believability to the work. These are logical conclusions based on scholarly research. For example, whoever wrote Matthew drew heavily from the writings attributed to “Mark” — many passages are copied, some revised a bit to correct errors or eliminate accounts deemed uncomplimentary to Jesus.

    If Matthew were indeed the tax-collecting disciple of Jesus, he wouldn’t have had to copy the older writing. And he would have recounted the stories as “we” did such and such, or “we” then went to so-and-so. In fact, these gospel writers’ names and all the rest of the NT documents were assigned, i.e, made up, names that lent credibility to the works.

    Putting your own name as title would garner no authority, but falsely applying the name John or Peter, noted disciples, or Jude or James (brothers of Jesus) — now that would get your epistle read and accepted, get your own ideas heard.

    So that’s what they did — unknown characters, putting their own ideas into play.

    NT books were all written in Greek, dating maybe 40 years after Jesus’ time (Mark) to perhaps 60 years (John), maybe more. Clearly, the illiterate peasants who followed Jesus, including his disciples, couldn’t write in fairly good quality Greek — and didn’t — so the gospels’ authors are all unknown.

    While you don’t know their names, you can conclude who they were.

    By 70 CE, about when Mark was written, the Romans had invaded Jerusalem and most proto-Christians had long since fled Judea. The early religion was still stuck to Judaism, but had started to attract non-Jews — thanks in part to Paul introducing the notion that Jesus was divine to Greeks and others in the region. Few Jews bought into the idea — their notion of a Messiah wasn’t a guy strung up as a common criminal, but would be a great leader come to free them from external control (like the Romans).

    But when Mark was composed, info on Jesus was sparse — that was four decades after Jesus’ likely crucifixion. His Galilean culture was illiterate, so only personal stories of his travels and teaching survived. But that, passed by word of mouth for 40 years among illiterate, uneducated, superstitious peasants, grew in myth and aggregated lore at each retelling. That was several generations, as people didn’t live long then.

    Early Christians — particularly the Greek contingent intermingled in the population of Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt — had only the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) to reference for their directives. And they had those old, exaggerated tales of Jesus. About year 70, then, some fairly literate follower collected stories he’d heard and wrote them down. These eventually were reputed by later generations to have been written by Mark, companion of Peter — but that was simply added myth. Earliest manuscripts have no byline. But the writer was Greek, not Galilean.

    Scholars don’t reliably know even where Mark was composed, let along by whom — Syria? Asia Minor? Nobody knows. What it contains, though, is clear. It contains the viewpoint of that anonymous writer and his community — stories they’d heard and believed. What it doesn’t contain are biographical facts — ancient writers weren’t objective reporters: they wrote to pass along ideas, not report true events.

    Both Matthew and Luke — similarly, written by unknown Greeks — take Mark and expand on it. Of 660 verses in Mark, Matthew takes some 600, Luke 300, and revises them to clear up errors and make Jesus appear ever more heroic and divine.

    The author of Mark, writing in 70 CE, knew nothing about a virgin birth or resurrection. (Nor had Paul, writing his letters around year 50.) Matthew and Luke both had to make up those stories to glorify Jesus — so they invented stories to get him to grow up in Nazareth (which everybody knew) but yet come from Bethlehem (where lore claimed a great teacher would come from).

    However those two writers weren’t aware of the other’s fiction: if you read both accounts of the birth of Jesus, they couldn’t both be true. Same with the death and resurrection. As Mark knew nothing about these stories, clearly they were invented later.

    So, clearly exaggeration and myth-growing were at work here. By the time John was written, likely around the end of the century, the Jesus myth had grown even greater — he was now equated with god, had been in existence forever, etc. (This certainly wasn’t written by John, son of Zebedee, who would have been about 100 by then, in a time when 30 was old.) (And the Jesus depicted in John is radically different from the Synoptic Gospels in many ways.)

    So, who wrote the New Testament? Superstitious, credulous, extremely naĂŻve Greeks.

    Everybody in the first and second centuries — outside of a small group of sincere, searching folk in Alexandria and maybe a few thinkers remaining in Athens — was in that category. They had no idea they inhabited a planet orbiting a sun, no recognition of weather patterns, continental drift, economics, political science, world cultures, history, pre-history, geography, mathematics, bacteria, objective thinking, critical thinking — or much of anything else we take for granted.

    The New Testament writers were stating their primitive notions, based on generations of accrued myth, exaggerated lore — and a total misunderstanding of Jesus’ parables. Where Jesus spoke of a Kingdom “within” — find it within yourself and you’ll be blessed, i.e, good things will happen to you — the NT writers latched onto and expanded Paul’s archaic ideas: God would be coming any day now to establish his kingdom on earth.

    Who they were is unknown. What they wrote is easy to see — if you look with an open mind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 01:44:00 UTC

  • I dunno. I loved my wife more than life itself, for the better part of twenty ye

    I dunno. I loved my wife more than life itself, for the better part of twenty years. I was a better person, happier, more successful with her than without. We had an enviable marriage for a very long time, and were the consummate power couple. Unfortunately illness did to me and our marriage what friction does to most – I did not survive cancer and consequent illnesses the same person, and for a long time saw nearly every stress, obligation and demand a life threatening burden. I have loved every woman I’ve shared life with, and cherish each of them. So I don’t have the same opinion of other men. My chief argument is against the legal system that is so against men now, that it is literally suicidal to get married and have children. Never again let pandora out of the political box. But I adore women. Always and everywhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 20:20:00 UTC

  • women choose. women choose what they understand. women must learn to understand

    women choose. women choose what they understand. women must learn to understand what is good, not what is familiar.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 20:09:00 UTC

  • Read and Lift Something Heavy Every Day. This is still my favorite man-quote

    Read and Lift Something Heavy Every Day.

    This is still my favorite man-quote.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 20:07:00 UTC