Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 3

    So what we see is that it’s not capitalism vs socialism, it’s reciprocity vs parasitism. Law’s job is to suppress all forms of parasitism and thus enforce natural law of reciprocity. In my other vids on Propertarianism I’ve explained the basics of how we can write/design our rule of law to do that better than we do today. But Why is it that enforcing reciprocity (eliminating parasitism) produces wealth and high quality of life?

    It’s Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Non Parasitism, Rule of Law, suppression of demand for authority. (PACK) VS Equality, Proportionality, Parasitism, Rule by Discretion, Demand for authority.(HERD) So yes, the capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy that is perhaps the best persistent example of using pilpul and critique to present a straw man argument when all economies must be mixed because defense of the private for the purpose of consumption and the common for the purpose of preservation are two very different things requiring two different kinds of enforcement. We must have markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, elites and their strategies, and polities. Because markets calculate the unknown. Its only backward organizations that can use authority for short periods to adapt (transform) to a new technology using a novel set of incentives. This is the value of executive and states: to reorganize incentives that have calcified. Answering the WHY IS IT…? Question is just (a) we make time through divisions of labor (b) we make more time the faster we identify and capture opportunities. (c.) for increasingly complex goods, services, and information, we produce longer more complex production cycles with more opportunities along the chain, in to more and more organizations in sustainable networks of specialization and trade. We are calculating a way of defeating the dark forces of time and ignorance in a window of opportunity between catastrophic events on a plant that has had a set of what I suspect are rare coincidences. Western man uses maneuver – ooda loops- to move faster than others. That’s it. And law, and markets in all aspects of life favor evolution, eugenics, and prosperity as a method of competitive advantage. And the weak spot in our civilization is that (a) until now it wasn’t codified in a sort of bible of the law, and (b) our women and some portion of our men will always be vulnerable to false promises that evolution and the red queen can be ignored rather than defeated.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 3

    So what we see is that it’s not capitalism vs socialism, it’s reciprocity vs parasitism. Law’s job is to suppress all forms of parasitism and thus enforce natural law of reciprocity. In my other vids on Propertarianism I’ve explained the basics of how we can write/design our rule of law to do that better than we do today. But Why is it that enforcing reciprocity (eliminating parasitism) produces wealth and high quality of life?

    It’s Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Non Parasitism, Rule of Law, suppression of demand for authority. (PACK) VS Equality, Proportionality, Parasitism, Rule by Discretion, Demand for authority.(HERD) So yes, the capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy that is perhaps the best persistent example of using pilpul and critique to present a straw man argument when all economies must be mixed because defense of the private for the purpose of consumption and the common for the purpose of preservation are two very different things requiring two different kinds of enforcement. We must have markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, elites and their strategies, and polities. Because markets calculate the unknown. Its only backward organizations that can use authority for short periods to adapt (transform) to a new technology using a novel set of incentives. This is the value of executive and states: to reorganize incentives that have calcified. Answering the WHY IS IT…? Question is just (a) we make time through divisions of labor (b) we make more time the faster we identify and capture opportunities. (c.) for increasingly complex goods, services, and information, we produce longer more complex production cycles with more opportunities along the chain, in to more and more organizations in sustainable networks of specialization and trade. We are calculating a way of defeating the dark forces of time and ignorance in a window of opportunity between catastrophic events on a plant that has had a set of what I suspect are rare coincidences. Western man uses maneuver – ooda loops- to move faster than others. That’s it. And law, and markets in all aspects of life favor evolution, eugenics, and prosperity as a method of competitive advantage. And the weak spot in our civilization is that (a) until now it wasn’t codified in a sort of bible of the law, and (b) our women and some portion of our men will always be vulnerable to false promises that evolution and the red queen can be ignored rather than defeated.

  • Religions: Addiction to Emotional Self Indulgence

    RELIGIONS: ADDICTION TO EMOTIONAL SELF INDULGENCE The purpose of most religions is not mindfulness but it supplanting it with addiction to emotional self indulgence. The purpose of buddha’s teaching was, originally, submissive mindfulness. The purpose of stoicism’s teaching was dominant mindfulness – action. The purpose of Epicureanism was evidentiary mindfulness: supplying the human with real demands instead of status competition. And while the stoic METHOD – today’s cognitive behavioral therapy (training) – is superior to all others, the Epicurean objective is superior to all others. And this is in part why the anatolian, syrian, middle eastern fought so hard to destroy western heroism and it’s status competition by demonstrated action, sacrifice to earn the franchise, truth and duty to preserve the franchise: because all of these demands force us to obtain status through contribution to the commons (farmers and men ), rather than hyperconsumption of any available commons (shepherds and women), and emotional self indulgence. Why? Because while the division of labor provides discounts on production, status provides a discount on opportunity. So if can construct high status (sexual, social, economic, political, or military market value) we obtain more and better opportunities with more and better people. The innovation in abrahamic religion was to provide competition against aristocratic stoicism, truth, duty, and contribution to the commons, with self indulgence, justification of cowardice, and elimination of contribution to the commons – which is what we see in communism, neo-liberalism, and libertarianism: how to consume the commons rather than contribute to them. The structure of this religion is dependent upon your learning to lie in the face of reality in exchange for denial of that reality, denial of truth, duty, commons. It is a narrative structure that recreates the nepotism and insularity of the wandering shepherds who have no land, but live off common lands, and preserve insularity and non-defection in a condition of permanent competition against others of the same ilk, rather than the forces of nature. Our gradual domestication of this religion the purpose of which was to undermine the aristocracy, by converting it’s women and underclasses, who could not obtain status in the meritocratic order in that era where industrialization and gunpowder had not yet produced multiples of force, and all was still dependent upon military participation and fighting. The demand for mindfulness is largely a demand for means of training our demand for status. As the division of labor increases, the classes diverge in ability, productivity, and interest, and as power distance between bottom and top increases, we find those with the least agency seeking status by alternative means, and a caste of ‘talkers’ providing status (success) by alternative means – where are alternative does not refer to production contribution to the commons, or defense of the private and common. Gods provide a means of obtaining approval without competing in the sexual, social, political, economic, and military markets for status and therefore opportunity. Mythical Archetypes, heroes (masculine pagan markets), gods and saints (feminine abrahamic monopoly), provide a diversity of heroies and interests as suits those with agency in a division of knowledge and labor. The monotheistic archetype creates an anti-hero, in which the victim who suffers for his lack of ability and agency is somehow heroic. But the purpose of this anti-hero is the undermining of those who demonstrate innovation, excellence, competitiveness, production, and contribution to the commons, that increases the division of knowledge and labor, increases competitiveness, increases power distance, and decreases opportunity for status in those lacking ability, training, and agency. The jesus hero is a contribution to the heathen (ancestors, nature) pagan (heroes, archetypes) when one of many. But a disaster, like mohammed, and the jews when a monopoly – for we are only equal in ignorance, lack of agency and poverty. We are always unequal in knowledge agency, and wealth. It is not that we didn’t need the jesus hero, since there is no equivalent of the feminine archetype in the european pantheon. and the teaching of forgiveness and love in christianity is commercially optimum for all peoples. Unless it is applied (as do christians) beyond our kith and kin. There is no better method of training our emotions and intuitions other than the stoic method. There is nothing better to seek in life than the epicurean. And just as we domesticated christianity into a germanic folk religion, and just as we manufactured chivalry to direct aryan men to christian ends. These are the needs of the many ordinary men, while nietzsche, aristotle, alexander, jefferson, and frederick are examples for those of us who are not ordinary men. And it is only aristotelianism, heathenism, paganism , and christianity together that produce a religion for all the classes. We have always been an aristotelian (natural law), heathen (nature and ancestor) and pagan (heroes and tribes) people. With competition between the martial, magical,literary, and rational in competition. (Note: I have made a mistake by not putting time, opportunity, and status, at the top of the demonstrated property hierarchy. life is just time. time opportunity. opportunity experience.)

  • Religions: Addiction to Emotional Self Indulgence

    RELIGIONS: ADDICTION TO EMOTIONAL SELF INDULGENCE The purpose of most religions is not mindfulness but it supplanting it with addiction to emotional self indulgence. The purpose of buddha’s teaching was, originally, submissive mindfulness. The purpose of stoicism’s teaching was dominant mindfulness – action. The purpose of Epicureanism was evidentiary mindfulness: supplying the human with real demands instead of status competition. And while the stoic METHOD – today’s cognitive behavioral therapy (training) – is superior to all others, the Epicurean objective is superior to all others. And this is in part why the anatolian, syrian, middle eastern fought so hard to destroy western heroism and it’s status competition by demonstrated action, sacrifice to earn the franchise, truth and duty to preserve the franchise: because all of these demands force us to obtain status through contribution to the commons (farmers and men ), rather than hyperconsumption of any available commons (shepherds and women), and emotional self indulgence. Why? Because while the division of labor provides discounts on production, status provides a discount on opportunity. So if can construct high status (sexual, social, economic, political, or military market value) we obtain more and better opportunities with more and better people. The innovation in abrahamic religion was to provide competition against aristocratic stoicism, truth, duty, and contribution to the commons, with self indulgence, justification of cowardice, and elimination of contribution to the commons – which is what we see in communism, neo-liberalism, and libertarianism: how to consume the commons rather than contribute to them. The structure of this religion is dependent upon your learning to lie in the face of reality in exchange for denial of that reality, denial of truth, duty, commons. It is a narrative structure that recreates the nepotism and insularity of the wandering shepherds who have no land, but live off common lands, and preserve insularity and non-defection in a condition of permanent competition against others of the same ilk, rather than the forces of nature. Our gradual domestication of this religion the purpose of which was to undermine the aristocracy, by converting it’s women and underclasses, who could not obtain status in the meritocratic order in that era where industrialization and gunpowder had not yet produced multiples of force, and all was still dependent upon military participation and fighting. The demand for mindfulness is largely a demand for means of training our demand for status. As the division of labor increases, the classes diverge in ability, productivity, and interest, and as power distance between bottom and top increases, we find those with the least agency seeking status by alternative means, and a caste of ‘talkers’ providing status (success) by alternative means – where are alternative does not refer to production contribution to the commons, or defense of the private and common. Gods provide a means of obtaining approval without competing in the sexual, social, political, economic, and military markets for status and therefore opportunity. Mythical Archetypes, heroes (masculine pagan markets), gods and saints (feminine abrahamic monopoly), provide a diversity of heroies and interests as suits those with agency in a division of knowledge and labor. The monotheistic archetype creates an anti-hero, in which the victim who suffers for his lack of ability and agency is somehow heroic. But the purpose of this anti-hero is the undermining of those who demonstrate innovation, excellence, competitiveness, production, and contribution to the commons, that increases the division of knowledge and labor, increases competitiveness, increases power distance, and decreases opportunity for status in those lacking ability, training, and agency. The jesus hero is a contribution to the heathen (ancestors, nature) pagan (heroes, archetypes) when one of many. But a disaster, like mohammed, and the jews when a monopoly – for we are only equal in ignorance, lack of agency and poverty. We are always unequal in knowledge agency, and wealth. It is not that we didn’t need the jesus hero, since there is no equivalent of the feminine archetype in the european pantheon. and the teaching of forgiveness and love in christianity is commercially optimum for all peoples. Unless it is applied (as do christians) beyond our kith and kin. There is no better method of training our emotions and intuitions other than the stoic method. There is nothing better to seek in life than the epicurean. And just as we domesticated christianity into a germanic folk religion, and just as we manufactured chivalry to direct aryan men to christian ends. These are the needs of the many ordinary men, while nietzsche, aristotle, alexander, jefferson, and frederick are examples for those of us who are not ordinary men. And it is only aristotelianism, heathenism, paganism , and christianity together that produce a religion for all the classes. We have always been an aristotelian (natural law), heathen (nature and ancestor) and pagan (heroes and tribes) people. With competition between the martial, magical,literary, and rational in competition. (Note: I have made a mistake by not putting time, opportunity, and status, at the top of the demonstrated property hierarchy. life is just time. time opportunity. opportunity experience.)

  • The Difference is LAW not GOVERNMENT

    Just to clarify, it’s our LAW, not our GOVERNMENT that creates anglodom’s excellence:  the exclusivity of Tort, meaning ‘Trespass’ – the natural law of reciprocity – that libertarians pretend under Non-Aggression is some innovation on their part,rather than a sophism to entice useful idiots into a moral and arbitrary definition of trespass rather than an empirical one evolved from thousands of years of evidence – a law that has been the basis of western civilization since the western indo-european expansion. This is an unconstrained vision of the law, in which we do not limit people’s experimentation (we do not exercise prior restraint) we only punish trespass, tort, imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others.  And we punish in court, which is terribly expensive, and can be horridly expensive if the jury finds you greedy, dishonest, or immoral. What makes america great is our LAW. What makes it NOT GREAT is our government.

  • The Difference is LAW not GOVERNMENT

    Just to clarify, it’s our LAW, not our GOVERNMENT that creates anglodom’s excellence:  the exclusivity of Tort, meaning ‘Trespass’ – the natural law of reciprocity – that libertarians pretend under Non-Aggression is some innovation on their part,rather than a sophism to entice useful idiots into a moral and arbitrary definition of trespass rather than an empirical one evolved from thousands of years of evidence – a law that has been the basis of western civilization since the western indo-european expansion. This is an unconstrained vision of the law, in which we do not limit people’s experimentation (we do not exercise prior restraint) we only punish trespass, tort, imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others.  And we punish in court, which is terribly expensive, and can be horridly expensive if the jury finds you greedy, dishonest, or immoral. What makes america great is our LAW. What makes it NOT GREAT is our government.

  • Morphological Differences in the Genetic Record

    Over what period of time are morphological differences discernable in the genetic record? You are only distinguishable as you for about the past six generations, at which point you aren’t distinguishable any longer from the mass of the regional population at that time. One of the criticisms I get from right wing and population geneticists, is that west eurasians are the only historical category while I refer to the spectrum of post-glacial proto-peoples (european,  finnic caucasian, iranic, turkic) that affected, and were affected by, the IE expansion. The reason for my emphasis is the spread of IE thought as it converted from submission to nature to dominance over nature. In other words, I’m interested in the european, persian, and proto-into-iranian thought that persisted until the spread of the cancers of the abrahamic religions created the abrahamic dark ages. So given that as far as I can tell the original ‘caucasians’ are mostly gone (lost), as are the original indo-iranians (remember, india used to include afghanistan and pakistan, and that is the origin of indian civilization – the muslims drove indians and indian civilization from their original homeland,back into the dravidian subcontinent. As far as I know, and I am pretty certain I’m correct, the west eurasians are detectably related in the record and from what I understand, indistinguishable. However, that is not to say that they were neigher distinguishable in the past, nor prototypes of the current spectrum of indo-european speakers, and west eurasian peoples. Worse, aggregates at our current level of understanding produce overconfidence in similarities, since it is a small fraction of our cognitive, emotional, and physical differences that cause significant differences in group temperament, cognition, and demonstrated behavior. What does this mean? It means I want someone to either correct me or agree with me, but the criticisms aren’t working so far.  Why? Because the system of categories (ontology, paradigm) is one in which I am seeking to isolate the differences in group evolutionary strategy as populations increased after the IE Expansion. Open questions that I know of are:

    • I don’t know the point of transition for the Turkic Peoples, other than being outcast from mongolian region and subsequent islamization.
    • The iranic (south and eastern) branch and the european (north and western) branch appear to have split early.  With caucasians south, iranic east then south (around the caspian) finally replacing the Caucasian (most of the peoples today are iranic).  Previously I had not been sure if the iranic peoples went clockwise or counter-clockwise around the caspian. (but again, I am not sure this is true since multiple theories are still competing.)
    • The original caucasians appear to have spread south into levant mesopotamia and they appear to be lost.  (I don’t know if this is true yet).
    • The Old europeans (SE Europe) have been present a very long time and are of at least three admixtures: Early Neolithic Farmers, IE-europeans, Slavs, Anatolians, and Turks.
    • I dont know if the anatolians (hittites) came west (counter-clockwise) or east (clockwise) around the black sea, but as far as I know to date it is counter-clockwise (through old europe).
    • As far as I know the aristocracy in old europe from at least the bronze age collapse forward, was european, not old european.
    • As far as I know the minoans were caucasians.
    • I am still unclear about the origins of the mongoloid race and the emergence of the chinese people in particular. I believe the information exists but I am simply unaware of it because I haven’t spent time on it.

  • Morphological Differences in the Genetic Record

    Over what period of time are morphological differences discernable in the genetic record? You are only distinguishable as you for about the past six generations, at which point you aren’t distinguishable any longer from the mass of the regional population at that time. One of the criticisms I get from right wing and population geneticists, is that west eurasians are the only historical category while I refer to the spectrum of post-glacial proto-peoples (european,  finnic caucasian, iranic, turkic) that affected, and were affected by, the IE expansion. The reason for my emphasis is the spread of IE thought as it converted from submission to nature to dominance over nature. In other words, I’m interested in the european, persian, and proto-into-iranian thought that persisted until the spread of the cancers of the abrahamic religions created the abrahamic dark ages. So given that as far as I can tell the original ‘caucasians’ are mostly gone (lost), as are the original indo-iranians (remember, india used to include afghanistan and pakistan, and that is the origin of indian civilization – the muslims drove indians and indian civilization from their original homeland,back into the dravidian subcontinent. As far as I know, and I am pretty certain I’m correct, the west eurasians are detectably related in the record and from what I understand, indistinguishable. However, that is not to say that they were neigher distinguishable in the past, nor prototypes of the current spectrum of indo-european speakers, and west eurasian peoples. Worse, aggregates at our current level of understanding produce overconfidence in similarities, since it is a small fraction of our cognitive, emotional, and physical differences that cause significant differences in group temperament, cognition, and demonstrated behavior. What does this mean? It means I want someone to either correct me or agree with me, but the criticisms aren’t working so far.  Why? Because the system of categories (ontology, paradigm) is one in which I am seeking to isolate the differences in group evolutionary strategy as populations increased after the IE Expansion. Open questions that I know of are:

    • I don’t know the point of transition for the Turkic Peoples, other than being outcast from mongolian region and subsequent islamization.
    • The iranic (south and eastern) branch and the european (north and western) branch appear to have split early.  With caucasians south, iranic east then south (around the caspian) finally replacing the Caucasian (most of the peoples today are iranic).  Previously I had not been sure if the iranic peoples went clockwise or counter-clockwise around the caspian. (but again, I am not sure this is true since multiple theories are still competing.)
    • The original caucasians appear to have spread south into levant mesopotamia and they appear to be lost.  (I don’t know if this is true yet).
    • The Old europeans (SE Europe) have been present a very long time and are of at least three admixtures: Early Neolithic Farmers, IE-europeans, Slavs, Anatolians, and Turks.
    • I dont know if the anatolians (hittites) came west (counter-clockwise) or east (clockwise) around the black sea, but as far as I know to date it is counter-clockwise (through old europe).
    • As far as I know the aristocracy in old europe from at least the bronze age collapse forward, was european, not old european.
    • As far as I know the minoans were caucasians.
    • I am still unclear about the origins of the mongoloid race and the emergence of the chinese people in particular. I believe the information exists but I am simply unaware of it because I haven’t spent time on it.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 2

    The fundamental problems are of course,

    1. That we are wealthy enough to create our own government suitable to our preferences, and we want to.
    2. Heterogeneity is a bad thing, that the west has been under an organized attack by the global left and domestic christian and and jews desperate to restore a monopoly and priesthood where we have had rule of law and markets.
    3. The empire is simply to big, too diverse, and whites – or at least middle and working class whites – unwilling to give up our way of life and descend like others to another dark age.
    4. Worse, Christians are natural leftists. Who side with the right only because the state wants to replace their moral religion of asceticism with one of pseudoscience, sophism, immorality and hyperconsumption. So it’s more to say that the rational center is carrying the burden of two anti-rational wings: The christian conservative, and the feminist, neoliberal, globalist, progressive.

    FIRST, PROBLEMS WITH JURISPRUDENCE

    1. To understand improvements to the law we have to understand the current problems and debate within the theory of jurisprudence that our state and courts operate under, and our academy seeks to undermine.
    2. Variation in the theory of jurisprudence from natural law (conservative) meaning ‘rule of law’, that constrains us all, to fully arbitrary pretense of law, that is just discretionary command.  There are names for each of the four main theories of jurisprudence. But they are just the degree of divergence from a formal logic to ‘whatever i say so’.
    3. Liberals don’t believe in the rule of law, they believe in rule by command. Not logic but discretion.  That’s the difference between via positiva law of the left: force change, and the via negative law of the right: prohibit bads, and all else is good.

    PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW

    1. There is no distinction between law, findings of the court, legislation, regulation and command, and the inequality of their decidability.
    2. There is no requirement that legislation pass test of construction by the court before ascent. (this used to be the function of the house of lords)
    3. There is no means by which the undecidable conflict is returned to the state, and where the state is compelled to repair the legislation, or it will nullify. In other words, no means by which bad or insufficient legislation can be forced back into the legislature or state.
    4. There are no via positiva purposes stated, nor limits stated, so that the law cannot be extended to purposes outside of its intentions. The 14th is the canon example.

    IMPROVEMENTS TO JURISPRUDENCE

    1. Given three human faculties intellectual-rational, intuitionistic-emotional, and sensory-physical.
    2. Disambiguation by the methodology of  deflation, operationalization, serialization (because operational is complete, and logic and loading are not :  logic(rational), loading(emotional), and operating (physical)) This is important since all three must be tested for completeness to exist.
    3. This method is then applied to testimony (speech) producing what we might call a checklist of tests of the possibility of testimony – which tells us whether a statement CAN be truthful.
    4. The result of applying this method is unification of math, science, logic, philosophy, and law under a single, value-neutral, paradigm, logic and language – making all human statements commensurable.
    5. When applied to law, produces a formal logic of legal decidability or what we call jurisprudence – and this jurisprudence is the formal logic of what we have, since the time of Aristotle, called natural law: the necessary law of human cooperation.
    6. This formal, operational logic, is a little closer to writing software (programming) than writing law today. Although I think most people know that writing contracts is very similar to writing software. We can now write all law very similarly to writing software.
    7. What does that mean? It means it’s testable and will calculate, balance, and compile, or it will not. Why does this matter? It matters because: 
      1. it allows us to complete the anglo legal program from aristotle to Jefferson, and write an articulate, internally consistent constitution of natural law that repairs the vulnerabilities created by the limited knowledge of the founders, the compromise necessary to approve the constitution, and the abuses of the constitution in the civil war period, and the war against rule of law by the pre-and-postwar left.   it eliminates findings of law, legislation, regulation, and commands that violate natural law.
      2. it eliminates legislation from the bench and solves the problems above.
      3. It separates Law (jurisprudence via negativa ), from Commons production (Contract). As such conflicts between different groups across political borders are rationally resolvable, but each polity can produce the commons it wants as long as stated as contract for the people by the people.
    8. The dirty secret of rule of law, of reciprocity, sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and all of western civilization is that it’s softly eugenic.  And it is this eugenics that is as responsible for our success in the ancient and modern world as much as our traditions, law, and institutions.
    9. And this entire debate is over visions of a desirable polity. The right has always been aristocratically egalitarian – meritocratic.  And the goal has been to create an aristocracy of everyone, and a hierarchy of the classes working together for mutually beneficial ends.  This is very different from every other civilization. But in practice it means a middle class civilization, and so far we are the only people to do it. And everyone else is hostile to it.  For good reason – it’s eugenic.

    Improvements in Law itself, rather than jurisprudence

    1. As for the basis of specific questions under jurisprudence, meaning the law itself, we call these rights and obligations. This means that we take the rights and obligations we know of and reconstruct them (or invalidate them), by strict construction. Those are too numerous to go through here without someone saying but doolittle, you forgot this…  I didn’t forget anything. I just can only go into so much detail at one time.

    Improvements in Policy under the law

    1. Family as the central unit of policy not the individual. Meaning that The Law, Policy (legislation), Norms, Traditions, and Education serve the interests of producing competent intergenerational families resistant to reduction to the mean. (this is again, eugenic). It’s this resistance to reduction to the mean that’s the problem. What the left sees as senseless suppressions of individuality the right sees as costs against which a competent self sufficient intergenerational family producing commons rather than consumption.  That’s the thing. Westerners produce commons. They have a higher return than consumption, and they decrease demand for income and spending. So we have this golden goose and we’re letting the left kill it because the right doesn’t know how to articulate it. So I gave the right the language to articulate their moral intuitions in rational, scientific, economic, and legal, terms. The human mind cannot calculate or reason with what it lacks language to calculate with. I provided that means of calculation.
    2. The restoration of voluntary association and disassociation
    3. The restoration of defense of life, property, and common property by every citizen.
    4. The most important innovation is the extension of warranty of due diligence in commercial speech to that of political speech in public addressing the public. This innovation offsets the principle innovation in parasitism in the 20th and forward has been sophistry, innumeracy, and pseudoscience creating a new age of mysticism just as hayek and poincare predicted. 

    Age of Mysticism

    1. The 20th will be remembered, as will the current age, as a repeat of the jewish, christian and islamic attempt at the destruction of the ancient world, this time by false promise defeating darwin.  The playbook is rather obviously the same, it’s the same playbook females use to undermine each other and dominant males.
      And we are terribly vulnerable to it because we are not, like Keegan and Van Creveld, conscious of the different means by which war is conducted by genders, elites (classes), and civilizations. And that we cannot defeat this wave any more than the romans, egyptians, north africans, persians, caucasians, byzantines and indus valley people did without adopting the other side’s strategy.  And this is the fundamental problem. Our civilization is the product of our strategy.

    Law vs Religion

    1. Reason has been under intentional attack by Theologians and the faithful, Marxists, Postmodernist, Feminists, and Neo-liberals.  While these groups claim that the right believes in falsehoods this applies only to the faithful, and then only to the devout. This doesn’t invalidate that mythological expression can be commensurable with natural law in behavior, and outcome even if not in testimony.  yet the anti-reason left asks us to state comforting falsehoods that are contrary to natural law in both word and behavior.
    2. Religion requires indoctrination, false promise of impossible reward to a family tribe, and army that doesn’t exist. Religion conquers by undermining the established order, by justifying some set of behaviors that produce beneficial results for the group at the cost of modifying behavior.  on the other hand, Law creates a market for the suppression of contrary actions, and doesn’t require indoctrination. This difference is via positiva vs via-negativa.  This is why societies use law. It adapts constantly to constant change. Religion resists change. This is why monotheistic religions created the dark ages  that we are still trying to escape: people want constancy so that they can limit demand to adapt, yet it is demand to adapt that creates prosperity, and constancy that creates poverty.

  • Notes for John Mark Interview – Part 2

    The fundamental problems are of course,

    1. That we are wealthy enough to create our own government suitable to our preferences, and we want to.
    2. Heterogeneity is a bad thing, that the west has been under an organized attack by the global left and domestic christian and and jews desperate to restore a monopoly and priesthood where we have had rule of law and markets.
    3. The empire is simply to big, too diverse, and whites – or at least middle and working class whites – unwilling to give up our way of life and descend like others to another dark age.
    4. Worse, Christians are natural leftists. Who side with the right only because the state wants to replace their moral religion of asceticism with one of pseudoscience, sophism, immorality and hyperconsumption. So it’s more to say that the rational center is carrying the burden of two anti-rational wings: The christian conservative, and the feminist, neoliberal, globalist, progressive.

    FIRST, PROBLEMS WITH JURISPRUDENCE

    1. To understand improvements to the law we have to understand the current problems and debate within the theory of jurisprudence that our state and courts operate under, and our academy seeks to undermine.
    2. Variation in the theory of jurisprudence from natural law (conservative) meaning ‘rule of law’, that constrains us all, to fully arbitrary pretense of law, that is just discretionary command.  There are names for each of the four main theories of jurisprudence. But they are just the degree of divergence from a formal logic to ‘whatever i say so’.
    3. Liberals don’t believe in the rule of law, they believe in rule by command. Not logic but discretion.  That’s the difference between via positiva law of the left: force change, and the via negative law of the right: prohibit bads, and all else is good.

    PROBLEMS WITH THE LAW

    1. There is no distinction between law, findings of the court, legislation, regulation and command, and the inequality of their decidability.
    2. There is no requirement that legislation pass test of construction by the court before ascent. (this used to be the function of the house of lords)
    3. There is no means by which the undecidable conflict is returned to the state, and where the state is compelled to repair the legislation, or it will nullify. In other words, no means by which bad or insufficient legislation can be forced back into the legislature or state.
    4. There are no via positiva purposes stated, nor limits stated, so that the law cannot be extended to purposes outside of its intentions. The 14th is the canon example.

    IMPROVEMENTS TO JURISPRUDENCE

    1. Given three human faculties intellectual-rational, intuitionistic-emotional, and sensory-physical.
    2. Disambiguation by the methodology of  deflation, operationalization, serialization (because operational is complete, and logic and loading are not :  logic(rational), loading(emotional), and operating (physical)) This is important since all three must be tested for completeness to exist.
    3. This method is then applied to testimony (speech) producing what we might call a checklist of tests of the possibility of testimony – which tells us whether a statement CAN be truthful.
    4. The result of applying this method is unification of math, science, logic, philosophy, and law under a single, value-neutral, paradigm, logic and language – making all human statements commensurable.
    5. When applied to law, produces a formal logic of legal decidability or what we call jurisprudence – and this jurisprudence is the formal logic of what we have, since the time of Aristotle, called natural law: the necessary law of human cooperation.
    6. This formal, operational logic, is a little closer to writing software (programming) than writing law today. Although I think most people know that writing contracts is very similar to writing software. We can now write all law very similarly to writing software.
    7. What does that mean? It means it’s testable and will calculate, balance, and compile, or it will not. Why does this matter? It matters because: 
      1. it allows us to complete the anglo legal program from aristotle to Jefferson, and write an articulate, internally consistent constitution of natural law that repairs the vulnerabilities created by the limited knowledge of the founders, the compromise necessary to approve the constitution, and the abuses of the constitution in the civil war period, and the war against rule of law by the pre-and-postwar left.   it eliminates findings of law, legislation, regulation, and commands that violate natural law.
      2. it eliminates legislation from the bench and solves the problems above.
      3. It separates Law (jurisprudence via negativa ), from Commons production (Contract). As such conflicts between different groups across political borders are rationally resolvable, but each polity can produce the commons it wants as long as stated as contract for the people by the people.
    8. The dirty secret of rule of law, of reciprocity, sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and all of western civilization is that it’s softly eugenic.  And it is this eugenics that is as responsible for our success in the ancient and modern world as much as our traditions, law, and institutions.
    9. And this entire debate is over visions of a desirable polity. The right has always been aristocratically egalitarian – meritocratic.  And the goal has been to create an aristocracy of everyone, and a hierarchy of the classes working together for mutually beneficial ends.  This is very different from every other civilization. But in practice it means a middle class civilization, and so far we are the only people to do it. And everyone else is hostile to it.  For good reason – it’s eugenic.

    Improvements in Law itself, rather than jurisprudence

    1. As for the basis of specific questions under jurisprudence, meaning the law itself, we call these rights and obligations. This means that we take the rights and obligations we know of and reconstruct them (or invalidate them), by strict construction. Those are too numerous to go through here without someone saying but doolittle, you forgot this…  I didn’t forget anything. I just can only go into so much detail at one time.

    Improvements in Policy under the law

    1. Family as the central unit of policy not the individual. Meaning that The Law, Policy (legislation), Norms, Traditions, and Education serve the interests of producing competent intergenerational families resistant to reduction to the mean. (this is again, eugenic). It’s this resistance to reduction to the mean that’s the problem. What the left sees as senseless suppressions of individuality the right sees as costs against which a competent self sufficient intergenerational family producing commons rather than consumption.  That’s the thing. Westerners produce commons. They have a higher return than consumption, and they decrease demand for income and spending. So we have this golden goose and we’re letting the left kill it because the right doesn’t know how to articulate it. So I gave the right the language to articulate their moral intuitions in rational, scientific, economic, and legal, terms. The human mind cannot calculate or reason with what it lacks language to calculate with. I provided that means of calculation.
    2. The restoration of voluntary association and disassociation
    3. The restoration of defense of life, property, and common property by every citizen.
    4. The most important innovation is the extension of warranty of due diligence in commercial speech to that of political speech in public addressing the public. This innovation offsets the principle innovation in parasitism in the 20th and forward has been sophistry, innumeracy, and pseudoscience creating a new age of mysticism just as hayek and poincare predicted. 

    Age of Mysticism

    1. The 20th will be remembered, as will the current age, as a repeat of the jewish, christian and islamic attempt at the destruction of the ancient world, this time by false promise defeating darwin.  The playbook is rather obviously the same, it’s the same playbook females use to undermine each other and dominant males.
      And we are terribly vulnerable to it because we are not, like Keegan and Van Creveld, conscious of the different means by which war is conducted by genders, elites (classes), and civilizations. And that we cannot defeat this wave any more than the romans, egyptians, north africans, persians, caucasians, byzantines and indus valley people did without adopting the other side’s strategy.  And this is the fundamental problem. Our civilization is the product of our strategy.

    Law vs Religion

    1. Reason has been under intentional attack by Theologians and the faithful, Marxists, Postmodernist, Feminists, and Neo-liberals.  While these groups claim that the right believes in falsehoods this applies only to the faithful, and then only to the devout. This doesn’t invalidate that mythological expression can be commensurable with natural law in behavior, and outcome even if not in testimony.  yet the anti-reason left asks us to state comforting falsehoods that are contrary to natural law in both word and behavior.
    2. Religion requires indoctrination, false promise of impossible reward to a family tribe, and army that doesn’t exist. Religion conquers by undermining the established order, by justifying some set of behaviors that produce beneficial results for the group at the cost of modifying behavior.  on the other hand, Law creates a market for the suppression of contrary actions, and doesn’t require indoctrination. This difference is via positiva vs via-negativa.  This is why societies use law. It adapts constantly to constant change. Religion resists change. This is why monotheistic religions created the dark ages  that we are still trying to escape: people want constancy so that they can limit demand to adapt, yet it is demand to adapt that creates prosperity, and constancy that creates poverty.