You assume, that like you, we are limited in our choices. But If we cannot agree on rules ( terms of cooperation), then we need not agree to anything. If we don’t agree to anything, then there are no rules – meaning no limits to our choices other than our own will.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 14:30:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 14:26:00 UTC
THE VALLEY IS A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION OF MONARCHY.
Invest in businesses to produce public goods.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 10:26:00 UTC
POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY AND NEGATIVE LAW
If you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).
Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.
We attempt to advocate and inform, and prohibit and prosecute.
As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>
And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.
Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 07:46:00 UTC
MARCO CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THIS?
Can you all please help me flesh this out a bit? The table at the bottom? I don’t know who the players are.
I know you organize by topic and ‘movemnet’ where I organize by argument structure and class.
I tend to divide the previous generation (through 2012) as ‘hopeful’ and the new movements as ‘resigned’ or ‘hopeless’, meaning that the newer movements are scientific and not rationalist, and that they accept the data that it’s not possible to convince people to adopt political orders at odds with their reproductive strategies.
I’m really only interested in people who argue under the ‘resigned’ or ‘hopeless’ strategy, not the ‘hopeful’ strategy of the postwar right and libertarians.
Anyway, we’re the only two people who seem to work on this consistently so I was hoping you could help.
Thanks
Curt
THE EMERGING NEW RIGHT MOVEMENT
———————————————————————–
CENTRAL ARGUMENTS
———————————-
1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe.
2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits.
Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations.
But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense).
This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society.
So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm.
3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare..
That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT?
It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west.
We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit.
We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force.
The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers).
And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization….
… or we will break it all to pieces.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
THE CLASSES
——————–
ARISTOCRATIC RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy)
Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism,
(left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.)
UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis)
(the slowly converting anglo libertarians)
Stefan Molyneux
Tom Woods
(left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers)
MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis)
(Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx)
Ramsey Paul
LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right)
Christopher Cantwell
(Left Equivalent social justice warriors)
WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers)
The inequalitarians
The racists
The Fashy Militants
(left equivalent = anarchists)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 07:38:00 UTC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEToBcaV8wADear Mr, Oshay Duke Jackson
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEToBcaV8wA )
Elegant, insightful honest commentary. But I might explain white people a bit better.
White people – at least conservative white people – demonstrably lionize the black middle, and what little black upper middle class exists.
George Soros and those people that want to keep black people down, are not WHITE. The white people that CONTROL black people so that they can feel SUPERIOR are on the left – and black people vote for them. But it’s those people on the left that destroyed the black family and moved people from rural (physical) areas, to urban (verbal) areas, creating ghettos.
White people, especially conservative white people, don’t like that black people mature EARLIER, FASTER and MORE, and subject them to (1)emotional impulsivity (2)physical and verbal aggression (3) physical violence. And conservative white people think we should be in different schools with different programs that reflect the different rates and intensities of maturity. It’s the left’s white and Jewish people that force us to be raised equally even though we mature very differently and have different needs.
We talk trash about our own underclass you know (rednecks, trailer park whites, and what we call white trash). And we don’t think any differently about them than we do the black equivalent in urban ghettos.
But white people have a different advantage that we don’t talk about: we evolved under harsh winters, and under unforgiving farming, and we HUNG 1% (1 in 100) of our people every single year. So every ten years we killed off ~10% of our ‘troublesome’ people. FOR CENTURIES. For well over a thousand years, and arguably for over two thousand. We didn’t let people have farms unless they were mature, married, and of good character, and we left the rest to poverty and starvation. By the time of the industrial revolution we had killed off so much of our lower classes, that nearly everyone in Europe was descended from someone in the middle class – people who are not impulsive, people who have adequate verbal skills, and who can create stable families over many generations.
Now, white people don’t talk about this because then they couldn’t have such a high opinion of themselves (we call this ‘status signaling’ or ‘virtue signaling’). But the truth is that white people ‘domesticated by aggressive use of violence’ their population for centuries and arguably millennia.
Those traditions remain in (a) the absolute nuclear family (b) market meritocracy (c) the ‘sacredness of common spaces’ (treating public space like church) (d) militial service in exchange for enfranchisement(voting). (ie: men must fight to earn a ‘say’.) (e) and they must contribute to the commons (care for not only their things and land but everyone’s things and land – every man is a sheriff). (f)that this entire process is unforgiving and meant to eradicate the ‘unproductive’ lower classes that ‘cost’ society more than they contribute.
This is what the ‘western tradition’ means. For over 3500 years, since they combined bronze, horse, and wheel, in one form or another, westerners have been domesticating themselves and the people they rule.
Christianity is just an EXCUSE to do so in god’s name rather than for profit (taxation).
World-Democracy is just an EXCUSE to do so in the name of ‘common good’, rather than for profit (financialisation of the world economy.)
Now it turns out this is the whole secret of western success. Why? Because every person at the bottom is six times as costly as the person at the top is productive. (yes basically that’s a close enough rule of thumb). This is why it’s very hard for black people, south Americans, Muslims, and even Indians (the continent) to achieve what the west and the east have achieved: the west and east have been killing off or constraining the reproduction of the lower classes for thousands of years, and the warmer climates do not have natural climates to do the same.
It’s not unreasonable for white people to continue the same with all other people – white people have been doing it forever. And by doing so have raised all of humanity in both the ancient and modern worlds, out of ignorance, poverty, superstition, and disease. We have CHOICES to have big underclasses today that we have never had before – simply because we can afford NOT to starve or kill them.
So, white people need to be honest, and black people need to be honest – everyone should be honest. The problem is pretty simple really:
Rebuild the family and control reproduction. Create schools and universities that match our rates and degrees of maturity (blacks need more physicality, whites who mature less and more slowly middle physicality, and Asians, who mature the least, and slowest, the least physicality.)
We are not equal in the size of our underclasses. We are not equal in rate and degree of maturity. We are however, entirely compatible as families who seek to domesticate our generations until all of us prosper.
In my view everything that white and Jewish leftists have done has hurt the black family,and the crazy religious conservative whites that are crazy about discipline had the right message all along: build strong families with strong discipline and eventually we will be compatible.
Anyway,
That’s my attempt at truthfulness.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 07:21:00 UTC
—“CURT, YOUR CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY IS AN INTERESTING PHILOSOPHY”—
Irony appreciated. Even if it’s just a play on words.
The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth).
In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”.
Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?
As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer.
As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.
Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.
The philosophers are often circumventing costs, and transfers, and claiming that they’re pursuing truth.
What I find, is that they are all too often, engaged in fraud.
So instead of testing for truth, I first test for theft.
This is the difference between the philosophical search for AGREEMENT and the legal search for theft.
Ergo, It is law that is our western philosophy(prohibition, decidability, criticism) and everything else is religion (aspiration, negotiation, justification).
The west didn’t conflate truth, law, politics, and religion.
We have always preserved competition as means of ongoing calculation, and thereby avoided stagnation.
But Egyptian-Judeo-Christian-Muslim totalitarianism did the opposite. They created authority (monopoly) by conflating different disciplines with different purposes. This is why Egypt froze, jews contributed nothing until they were forced by Europeans into the enlightenment, Muslims appear to have taken credit but not developed anything, and certainly, as soon as the common people adopted it, were insulated, and why the west stagnated for a thousand years, albeit under constant onslaught of the commercial Mediterranean by Muslim pirates and war.
Seek first fraud, not agreement.
Our civic cult is law.
We are prosecutors.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non-Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 06:23:00 UTC
( So yes, I’m reforming philosophy, psychology, social science, economics, politics, and group competitive strategy.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:38:00 UTC
ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY
I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology.
Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened.
So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete.
Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is:
1 – categorically consistent (identity)
2 – internally consistent (logically consistent)
3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent)
4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated)
A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining:
5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony)
And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining:
6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality)
So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights.
However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language.
Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration.
So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit.
And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:37:00 UTC
Philosophers place greater weight upon FEELING, and the cognitive scientists place greater weight on REPORTING, which tells us nothing about TRUTH but a great deal about the instrumentation available to SUBJECTIVE introspective and OBJECTIVE empirical testing.
My experience is that while in retrospect the initial stage of awareness is arguably ‘me’ or ‘i’, while in that state any such ‘experience’ (feeling) other than ‘satisfaction/dissatisfaction’, ‘urgency/calm’, ‘dominant/submissive stance’ does not seem to exist.
So one can ‘feel’ first, but not understand, and the one can understand but not report upon, and finally one can feel, understand, and report upon.
Interestingly, analyzing feelings can change them(association), and reporting upon feelings can change them(signaling) – sometimes falsely. (Which obvious in retrospect)
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:31:00 UTC