Source: Facebook

  • (Kant’s grandfather was a Scot? Named “Cand”? No wonder he was a little person.

    (Kant’s grandfather was a Scot? Named “Cand”? No wonder he was a little person. Celtic genes?)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 11:02:00 UTC

  • TRANSCENDENCE We transcended the limits of intuition with the invention of Reaso

    TRANSCENDENCE

    We transcended the limits of intuition with the invention of Reason in Greece.

    They pulled us back into morality.

    We transcended perception with mathematics and geometry

    They pulled us back into astrology.

    We transcended morality with Roman law.

    But the Byzantines pulled us back into mysticism.

    We transcended mysticism with British science and economics.

    But the French and Germans drew us back into rationalism

    We transcended religious language with industrial science and Darwin.

    But the cosmopolitans drew us back into pseudoscience.

    We transcended the limits of perception with relativity, macro economics, computability.

    But the postmoderns and feminists resorted to propaganda, shaming and lying.

    We transcended pseudoscience with genetics and cognitive science.

    Truth, science law are enough to transcend us from their mysticism, rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and outright lying.

    There are no discounts on excellence. There is no cheap trick. No cheat. No cunning. No witticism. No deceit.

    The only perfection is truth itself.

    And the only means of discovering truth is that method of laundering error bias wishful thinking and deceit from our words and thoughts and memories.

    Only gods have no fear.

    Therefore only gods can know the truth.

    The truth is not comforting

    The truth is empowering.

    It is truth that makes men gods.

    It is godliness that makes us truthful.

    Only cowards and the weak fear truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 08:49:00 UTC

  • THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH – UNLESS YOU ARE TOO WEAK TO WIELD IT. The truth is enough t

    THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH – UNLESS YOU ARE TOO WEAK TO WIELD IT.

    The truth is enough to restore the west. If the truth is not enough for you then you are too weak to wield it. If you are too weak to wield truth, then you are too weak to lead. And if too weak to lead then have the good sense to follow.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 08:08:00 UTC

  • WHY DO YOU FEAR THE TRUTH? ( Cold Mirror, Asgeir Theodor, Josh Jeppson ) It’s no

    WHY DO YOU FEAR THE TRUTH?

    ( Cold Mirror, Asgeir Theodor, Josh Jeppson )

    It’s not that I don’t understand. Its that I have failed as yet to help you understand. And while I may continue to fail, but I will try until I am at least comfortable, that I can do no better at trying.

    ARGUMENT:

    Militia, Heroism, Sovereignty, Jury, Truthfulness, Science, Sanctity of Nature, have produced the common interest, high trust, competitive excellence, and economic velocity that made western man surpass competitors in both the ancient medieval and modern world..

    We can stack argumentative techniques by effectiveness of persuasion, largely because elites are copied by their followers, and the rest of the population is organized by those elites using law, commerce, and moral speech.

    1 – Sentimental Expression (justification of moral and reproductive biases)

    2 – Mythical analogy (justification)

    3 – Moral/Religious Argument (justification)

    4 – Rational argument (justification)

    5 – Historical analogy (justification)

    6 – Economic (correlative) argument.

    7 – Empirical (causal argument – criticism)

    8 – Existentially Descriptive (scientific and truthful argument – criticism)

    Each of these maps roughly to a difference of a half standard deviation in IQ. With the upper classes that organize society (re: Pareto – the upper 20%, led by the upper 1%) utilizing the highest means of argument and the lower classes using the lower forms of argument.

    The lower classes are DIRECTED, they are not themselves capable of leadership. So they require we USE the lower forms of argument in inciting them to ACTION, but we do not organize the upper classes by sentiment, we organize them by their means of argument – almost all of which is empirical.

    So psychology is used by ideology in order to inspire the lower classes to action. While facts are used by the upper classes to determine the means of organizing and reorganizing the lower classes through law and violence, moral speech and gossip, and material incentive.

    But upper (meaning middle, upper middle, and elites) classes merely USE the lower classes by giving them inspirations caused by incentives.

    That does not mean that the upper classes rely upon the same arguments. It means they tell narratives, myths and fantasies to the lower classes in order to inspire them.

    The problem is not in inspiring the lower classes. The problem is in developing a means by which to enact and sustain a change in the status quo.

    So those things that inspire people being to the discipline of preferences – aesthetics. They do not belong to epistemology, ethics, politics. Those are domains of TRUTH independent of our preferences. Aesthetics is the discipline in which we USE truth and psychology together to achieve PREFERRED ends.

    NET: if we eliminate by violence (law) deceitful methods, we are left with truthful methods only available to us. We can create religions but they cannot be constructed of lies. WE can create ideologies, but they cannot be falsely constructed.

    I think truth is enough. It demonstrably has been.

    REVERSAL

    Conversely, if a man is not capable of motivation to transcendence by the truth, then how is he not incapable of transcendence if he fears the truth and requires untruth?

    In other words: by stating that truth is not enough, you say you are already sub-human, and in need of dominance by your betters.

    SO I UNDERSTAND

    I understand that the lower classes need to be led by inspiration. I also understand that transcendence – to leave the subhumans behind, requires that we abandon comforting lies that exist to assuage our weaknesses.

    If truth is not enough for you, then you cannot transcend and become fully human, and in doing so, become a god.

    Instead, one is just another weak woman at the mercy of chemistry she cannot master, or an impulsive imbeclile who lives in fear of the universe.

    So you see, I see your form of arguments as weakness. Not of strength. Of cowardice, not of heroism. Not of intelligence but of animal impulse. Not of truth, but of justification for failure.

    Religions are for the majority peasantry. Cults are for the minority who are desperate. Truth is enough for aristocracy because they have the courage to confront and dominate a hostile universe that has no interest in man or his joys, but which seeks to end him. Truth is enough for ruling the peasantry. Truth is enough for transcendence. Truth is enough for aristocracy. Truth is enough for gods. Because that is what gods are: omniscient and omnipotent.

    THE END OF THE ARGUMENT

    As far as I know you cannot exit this argument except to admit that you are weak.

    If you choose to abandon your weakness, and have the courage then I welcome your advice and counsel. If you remain a coward, hiding behind germanic attempts to restate Christianity in pagan language, or to restate paganism in christian language, then I think you are not really worthy of my time and effort.

    I spend time on people to make bets. Very few bets pay. I need only a handful that do. Every other man who follows will do so out of incentives not necessarily understanding. And that is the domain of elites: rule.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 07:39:00 UTC

  • Thought you might be interested in this and would like to know what you think ab

    Thought you might be interested in this and would like to know what you think about it. There’s a nice image on distribution of religions in it too:


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 06:37:00 UTC

  • OPEN LETTER: CONTRA THE VIGOR OF PUBESCENCE (I am not constructing a philosophy

    OPEN LETTER: CONTRA THE VIGOR OF PUBESCENCE

    (I am not constructing a philosophy for losers. Sorry.)

    You attack me for not agreeing with the sentimental religion of disaffected pubescent males longing for the romanticism of a bygone era?

    And it would be nice to have more followers. But if that means followers are infantilized males shouting as coverage for lack of feminine attention, then that is an acceptable loss.

    History provides us with the truth of man. Philosophy constitutes his attempts at construction of value systems with which to accommodate his place in history, and these philosophies are universally constructed in eras of class rotation. And class rotation is the product of economic and military success and failure – aesthetics productions are the result not cause of these transformations.

    Works are the product of one’s age. Using the institutional technologies available. All great works whether military, artistic, technological, and intellectual arise from the middle class in times of change in celebration of the transfer of power.

    I posted Durant’s criticism of Nietzsche yesterday and it’s rock solid. My own criticism is that aesthetics, arguments and religions justify reproductive strategies, and reproductives strategies reflect one’s gender and class. If one chooses the reproductive strategy of the masturbatory male lacking sufficient virility with which to attract women, then his choice of philosophy is codification of his reproductive strategy, class, and desirability.

    That generation you venerate has passed. That era has passed. Philosophies are strategies for times of transition, given circumstances of transition. That time is past. We can no longer unite en masse under nationalist anti-modernity as did the nazi era (as aesthetically brilliant as it was.)

    There is nothing incompatible between the overman and my work other than that the means of achieving our ultimate potential are a novel religion with which we must win a majority by conversion under your fantasy, and the systematic application of science and law by a minority willing to raise the cost of the status quo by violence in mine.

    It may be true that you can resurrect a hokey 19th century religion. It may be true that traditionalists can resurrect medieval christianity. It may be true that classicists can resurrect pagan hero and nature worship. But it is more LIKELY true that we can continue to apply truthfulness in all walks of life, and create a competitor to jewish and islamic law, using natural law and truth telling, through which those more viscous philosophies gain their vigor.

    The mistake you made was vanity, pride, and religious conviction in a fallacy. You called me out in public by attacking me when I asked you not to force me into that debate – knowing the result.

    And by doing so you have both demonstrated the failure of the religion you devoutly worship as a means of obtaining self validity, and made it impossible for yourself to recant in front of your peers.

    The mature man admits failure and passion, and the more mature man responds with understanding and forgiveness.

    I am not sure you can admit failure, blame passion and youth – not because you are not intellectually capable of grasping the folly of your over-investment in a comic-book religion for sophomores (something all of us most do in order to transition from prior metaphysics to new ones), but because you would loose the esteem of your peers if you did.

    This is wisdom. And your folly and pride will deprive you of it. Because my analysis of incentives means that the value you place on having friends who sympathize with your justification of your reproductive strategy, even if you and they err, and even if that strategy fails to advance your reproduction, is more important than achieving any existential result in this world.

    On the other hand, I care only whether I give men of our age a means of achieving our ends using the tools and technologies of our time, by providing incentives to people of our time. To force the transofrmation of the most important institution in western history: property, judge, rule of law, jury, and senate. And to construct arguments in science rather than religion.

    Good luck. I did the best I could afford to do with you. Not all investments pay returns.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 03:57:00 UTC

  • DURANT ON NIETZSCHE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4i11923V04BTW: DURANT ON NIETZSCHE


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 19:12:00 UTC

  • De Monarchia Liber Europae Reges Magni De Philosophia Aristocratia De Nobilitate

    De Monarchia

    Liber Europae Reges Magni

    De Philosophia Aristocratia

    De Nobilitate et Scriptura

    Viridis Bibliis Arianorum


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 13:32:00 UTC

  • YES I AM A PACIFIST Of course I am a pacifist. Meaning that I see the highest pu

    YES I AM A PACIFIST

    Of course I am a pacifist. Meaning that I see the highest purpose of great men is to pacify the universe and make an Eden of it.

    The counterintuitive fact is that the pacification of that universe requires the incremental suppression of parasitism by our fellow man, and the continuous genetic pacification of our fellow man since he is the greatest obstacle to that Eden.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 10:43:00 UTC

  • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFENDER So now I have offended six groups: 1) the local Criti

    EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OFFENDER

    So now I have offended six groups:

    1) the local Critical Rationalists on four counts: that the method is not unique to science, that critical preference is theoretical not empirical, and that testimony is the only existentially possible truth, that popper’s arguments are cosmopolitan, not unique to science, and incomplete.

    2) I’ve offended the offended the Libertines intentionally on the fallacies of argumentation, NAP/IVP, and Mises’ failure by confusing operationalism as a test of existential possibility with empirical investigation, plus a host of other issues.

    3) I’ve offended the entire continental movement as an attempt at deceit by conflation, and having adopted the technique of the christians and gave the technique to the cosmopolitans: marxists, libertines, and neoconservatives, as well as the anglos: neo-puritans – who have devastated our culture with it.

    4) And I’ve offended a Nietzschean because he could not grasp the difference between negative philosophy (law and epistemology) and positive philosophy (aesthetics), and because I had to criticize Nietzsche for having failed, like all other conservatives (aristocratics) have failed, to employ rationalism or narrative, when only science has succeeded in transcending the pseudoscience of the postmoderns and their predecessors in the enlightenment.

    5) Strangely enough the traditional christians do get offended, but since I basically argue that (a) the church did some good, and (b) christianity’s love is pretty useful I tend to get by.

    6) My (formerly many) jewish friends who object to my rather extensive attacks on the jewish enlightenment – as if my attacks on the german, french and anglo aren’t just as damning.

    Just how it is.

    We soldier onward.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-14 10:06:00 UTC