Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN The Oath Of Transcendent Man A Pagan, A Christian,

    THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN

    The Oath Of Transcendent Man A Pagan, A Christian, An Aryan, A Warrior, A Man Transcendent

    (REPOST)

    A PAGAN

    I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

    As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

    A CHRISTIAN

    I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. 4) the dedication to acts of interpersonal charity for those whose need I observe myself.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

    AN ARYAN

    I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

    A WARRIOR

    I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

    As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

    And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Sovereignty

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

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

  • women choose. men must choose not to choose poorly from those that choose them

    women choose. men must choose not to choose poorly from those that choose them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 20:01:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENCE OF CHRISTIANITY (REALLY) —-“What is the overall message of the bib

    THE SCIENCE OF CHRISTIANITY (REALLY)

    —-“What is the overall message of the bible?”—

    (“Salvation”)

    It is:

    “If you submit (abandon) your reason, and surrender (abandon) your will to the commands of an evil omnipotent and omniscient fictional character, and imitate the life of another very benevolent and charitable fictional character, that you will find salvation (be saved) in a non existent afterlife, after you die.”

    Scientifically:

    Now scientifically speaking, christianity is reducible to:

    1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart.

    2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin.

    3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, imprisonment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    And this turns out to be the optimum strategy for producing persistent high trust cooperation. It’s just counter intuitive since we evolved very aggressive altruistic punishment.

    And functionally:

    More than 1/3 if not 1/2 of people are lack the agency both internal and environmental, and or the intelligence, and or the resources to contrive a means of successfully competing in market civilization, when ones self worth and status are determined by by that success.

    As such providing an alternative method by which people of limited agency, ability, and resources can develop virtuous behavior, and personal mindfulness, and therefore happiness with their self image, through merely extension of kinship love, forgiveness, and charity is a successful strategy. Moreover, the externalities produced in a market civilization by large numbers of these people constructs the trust necessary for prosperity in a market civilization.

    And Politically:

    Despite lacking agency, ability, knowledge, education, and resources, people are able to use ‘faith’ and the ‘christian strategy’ to defend against threats to their strategy, their self image, and the good they do to society, are impervious to corruption, to persuasion, to coercion, and to abandonment of that strategy (hence why intelligence agencies love to hire christians).

    The problem is that there is an ever declining percentage of the population willing to use this strategy by faith, even if there is an ever expanding population willing to use this strategy if stated as scientifically as I have here.

    So while a demand for ‘church’ remains, a demand for the primitivism of semitic underclasses, has been replaced by a demand for the advance reason of european middle classes.

    The already devoted are irrelevant. It’s those who are not open to devotion that don’t need a religion of faith, but a religion of reason, that need mindfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 19:58:00 UTC

  • MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary excha

    MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”—

    well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange.

    —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”—

    Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’.

    The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against.

    blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation.

    —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”—

    ok what’s your example.

    —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:

    If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”—

    Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no.

    –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?

    (I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”—

    There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really).

    —“I posed a yes-or-no question”—

    And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one.

    (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality.

    So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade.

    In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality?

    well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary.

    –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”—

    Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars.

    Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes.

    Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No.

    —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”—

    It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it?

    –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”—

    Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this

    That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively.

    Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal.

    Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not.

    That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice.

    Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible.

    Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions.

    Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution.

    Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul.

    —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”—

    “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.”

    Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts.

    Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism

    The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument.

    —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”—

    I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you.

    So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment.

    –“I see”–

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 19:43:00 UTC

  • Um, technically speaking it’s Pilpul I have a problem with regardless of whether

    Um, technically speaking it’s Pilpul I have a problem with regardless of whether it’s in religion, philosophy, traditional law, argumentative rationalism (Pseudo-rationalism), pseudoscience, propaganda, or any other form of falsehood prose.

    The reason is that I understand that all deceptions are created by the same technique(s). And that just as the greeks invented reason on a scale previously impossible, the rabbis took the greek technique and invented lying on a scale previously impossible. And that this technique is extremely dangerous both in religious (christianity and islam) and pseudoscientific (marx,freud,boas, cantor, mises, rothbard), and pseudo rational (rousseauian , kantian, postmodern) forms.

    So I want to prevent another abrahamic dark age whether created by christianity and islam in the past, or marxism, postmodernism and multiculturalism in the present.

    Because we are extremely susceptible to these forms of lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 18:52:00 UTC

  • I mean, wizard of earthsea, the Iliad and Odyssey, the hobbit and lord of the ri

    I mean, wizard of earthsea, the Iliad and Odyssey, the hobbit and lord of the rings, Beowulf, the Nibelungenlied, La Morte De Artur, Ivanhoe, Frankenstein, [????], Starship Troopers, The Foundation Series, The Forever War, Dune.

    That’s a pretty nice canon. I could add a few more ‘stories’ in there in between to make a nice mythology, but that’s our literature right there.

    The literature of heroism.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 17:46:00 UTC

  • I’m going to start arguing using the Lord of the Rings as my Wisdom Literature w

    I’m going to start arguing using the Lord of the Rings as my Wisdom Literature whenever someone references one of the fictionalist religions. Fiction is fiction, fictionalism is fictionalism, history, the record of adjudications, economic evidence, the findings of science, and mathematics are not fictions.

    “Well Gandalf said….” is about the same as any reference in the bible or koran.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 17:32:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY 1) Acting Reciprocally is necessary for cooperation to survive in an

    RECIPROCITY

    1) Acting Reciprocally is necessary for cooperation to survive in any life form (or post-life for that matter). All life forms that do not practice reciprocity must go extinct, because consumption (use of resources) is not calculable.

    TRAINING

    2) Tit for tat, and exhaustive tit for tat, are strategies to train for preserving reciprocity. (an investment) However, they require memory. Hence why it’s only possible for creatures with memory.

    MORALITY

    3) Morality is the name for the value judgement we assign to reciprocity. ( a value judgement). Actions are moral, amoral, or immoral, if they are reciprocal, fully internal, or irreciprocal.

    MORAL NORMS

    4) Moral Rules (moral norms) are those surviving habits of reciprocity in any social order.

    ETHICAL, MORAL, AUTISTIC

    5) Ethics refers to conditions of the interpersonal (non-anonymous but informationally asymmetric), and Morals refers to conditions of the extra personal (anonymous and informationally asymmetric). Technically actions that are neither interpersonal nor anonymous (affecting only the self) are “Autistic”.

    —

    is = exists as. If you think you know what you’re talking about don’t use is, are, was, were, etc. It will demonstrate whether you do or not if you can manage to make a complete and grammatically correct statement without the ‘fudge’ words (verb to be) that mean everything deducible from your statement (premise) is false. I’m very careful with it. is/are=exists as.

    The reason most people are confused is simply a failure to speak in operational (correct) grammar, while trying to make arguments requiring infungible premises.

    Every moron who argues with me (present company not included) will jump on teh autistic bandwagon not realizing that if they cannot speak precisely and operationally they are either hand waving to cover their reliance on intuition rather than argument, or engaging in rationalism (justification) which is the intellectual cancer Kant imposed upon our poor european cousins.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 16:19:00 UTC

  • End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation un

    End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:05:00 UTC

  • COUNTER SIGNALING NAXALT: WE ARE COMPATIBLE OPPOSITES —“…all women are diffe

    COUNTER SIGNALING NAXALT: WE ARE COMPATIBLE OPPOSITES

    —“…all women are different…”—

    A distinction without a difference. It is almost as impossible to have a scientific conversation with women about philosophy, economics, politics, and war as it is for a man to have a conversation about relationships, carrying a baby, nursing and how ‘beautiful and special’ her lower 80% munchkin is.

    Seriously. Even the fact that one would say such a thing is evidence – because that statement is an instance of NAXALT. It means you’re empirically blind: that there is no normal distribution and in particular that the vast majority are indifferent.

    I expect a woman to love me, care for me, and try to make me better and happier than I am. And women are in general, if you are worth having as a mate, pretty good at it – and often even if you aren’t worth having as a mate.

    The best relationship for a man to have with a woman is where you listen to her, fulfill her wants and needs, try to help her be all she can be, listen to her insights into people she has spoken to, cherish each other and the time together, but never take her opinions beyond those wants, needs, relationships, and your relationship more seriously than you do the impulsive fascinations of your golden retriever has with disgusting smells.

    Just as all but a minority of men are empathically blind, all but a minority of women are morally blind. They have to be. Or they would never bear and raise children – 80% of which are of necessity in the bottom 80%. Female puberty produces marginal insanity for good reason. You’d have to be insane to care for babies, toddlers, and dependent children. Female marginal insanity is an evolutionary adaptation necessary for our survival.

    The fact that this was common knowledge in all cultures until the Victorians tried to corral the newly liberated lower classes, advertisers found women spent 70% of world income, and feminists tried to take power from white men, is merely a blip in the stream of history.

    I love women but I know I am blind to the things women are not, just as I know women are blind deaf and dumb to anything they cannot feel.

    And I hate that I even have to write about such things, because it’s the lies that these things are not both true and obvious that cause the difficulties in our relationships.

    (A simple experiment: Watch the View for a week and observe how women can make excuses to justify anything that will bring about consensus no matter how false, impossible, or outright stupid. It doesn’t matter the topic. Just watch the absurd excuses they will make to generate consensus on a status quo. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 13:30:00 UTC