(FB 1552607161 Timestamp) MORE by James Fox Higgins (gold) I think you’ve misunderstood the purpose of propertarianism (as I had for a long time, and as many do). Curt is attempting to codify in language the natural law (the law of empirical science) first and foremost. Secondly, he’s writing a constitution that aligns with his natural law. If people choose to attempt to vie for power and implement this, then they may. But Propertarianism’s point is not to rule, it’s to be truthful. So, if your reputation is damaged by the TRUTH, then you have damaged your own property; which demonstrates foolishness, assuming the culture around you isn’t completely retarded. For instance, people like you and me Nicola already have a “reputation” among leftists as being “bigots” or whatever. We don’t care much because we know they’re idiots… but we care to the extent that it affects our prospects. So if you live in such a hypothetical society that equally values truth and your reputation is sullied by the truth of your actions being known, then nobody has imposed a cost upon you but you yourself. You can choose to continue in folly and let your reputation further diminish, or you can choose to repair and rebuild it through truthful action that the community smiles upon; thus engaging with the Christian practise of repentance and forgiveness, which is an ideal, and one that I wholly believe in. Propertarianism’s practical goal is to enshrine truth into law, and to defend truth by punishing lies. At no point have I suggested that violence is the only means by which people defend their reputation, nor is it often the appropriate means. Especially if your reputation is damaged by your own actions being know – getting violent won’t help at all. It would be completely irrational. You would be imposing a cost upon others. But again, you’re leaping forward into a hypothetical propertarian society to make a case against what is essentially a philosophical principle. You don’t need propertarianism or a propertarian society to recognise the different between ideals and realities (oughts and ises). We agree that people ought not use violence as the first choice in defence, but rather as a final recourse. That’s because we’re Christians. Many Muslims don’t agree or subscribe to this ideal, so they won’t care if we do. Moral arguments cower in the presence of actual violence. So just because we say “you ought not strike first” doesn’t mean others won’t strike first. The NAP is out the window when it’s not agreed to by the second party. You and I are only free to quibble about such things because a 3rd party (the state in this case) applies violence every day to ensure it. As the state begins to derelict its duty to violence, more onus falls upon us to engage with it directly (hence the breakdown of social cohesion and the requirement for preparation). You keep inferring that I hunger for violence. I don’t. I hunger for justice (i.e. the victory of truth). When words fail, violence is the last recourse and gold standard by which justice is dealt (and that is and always has been the empirically reality of man – that’s what our current legal system is; systemised violence). It may not be ideal, but it’s real.
Source: Original Site Post
-
(FB 1552580899 Timestamp) I need to make one of these for deceits
(FB 1552580899 Timestamp) I need to make one of these for deceits
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552601100 Timestamp) —“Might makes rule”– James Fox Higgins (via Micah Pezdirtz)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552604252 Timestamp) —“Force should be asserted early and often to insure the expected treatment that you demand of others and conversely what others expect of you.”—Jarrod Marma
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552580424 Timestamp) ( Health update. A little better today. I can hold a thought for more than a few seconds. I should be back at work tomorrow. )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552599802 Timestamp) James Fox Higgins understands like few others the difference between discussing what is and what we can, desire to, and should be. Everyone else wants me to produce a via positiva ideology philosophy or religion. When all I am doing is producing the law that prevents reconquest of our people if we impose it. And I have not had this experience with any other christian thought leader. When we are talk I am free to say “I can only say that this is what is – that this is law. I do not say what should or must outside of that law.” This is my version of humility. I leave the good and preferable, the inspirational and the spiritual to those for whom those things are important. For me, I see heathenism (the dead and nature), paganism (social archetypes), christianity ( political ideals), Militia and Martial Participation as (spiritual), and stoic training in mindfulness as components of my religious portfolio. But I am ABLE to do so. Not all of us are able without training. Some are not able to do more than one. it is too much for them. My view of our future is of a god (universe) of many faces (archetypes), many levels (scales), and each of us practices a group of rites (debt payments to) the faces of that god we best depend (are indebted to). Natural law and jesus’ five rules are identical. The ten commandments are simply statements of property. —“You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”… without an “if”.”— James Fox Higgins
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552604195 Timestamp) IT’S DECISION TIME! —“If you believe in the NAP and you want to be morally consistent you had better get studying Propertarianism and learn about reciprocity because you can’t be NAP compliant and lack in reciprocity. My objective is to make people admit that the NAP is their excuse to do nothing or to force them to act reciprocally and demand reciprocity. Its decision time people!”—Noah J Revoy
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1552598676 Timestamp) (must read) by James Fox Higgins I’m seeing a number of people who are struggling with some of the core ideas of Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism like property-in-toto which observes that one man’s ideal of the concept “property” may differ from another’s, just as in some cultures women are considered a man’s property which we in the Christian west find abhorrent. But the reality remains: in the Islamic state, women ARE the property of their men. It doesn’t make it morally right. It’s just an empirical fact. I thought Curt was Satan incarnate until it clicked for me that he is not in the business of moralisms like just about every other philosopher is. He’s not dealing with Platonic ideals. He’s dealing with Aristotelean empiricism. Not what ought to be (which is culturally relative), but what is (which is empirical). Words like “legitimate property” are ideals, but fail to argue against what really occurs: people defend with force that which they consider to be theirs. Those with the greater will to power, control such moral definitions. You really think the men of radical Islam will care about our Christian moralisms if they gain control of our lands? Might doesn’t make make right, might makes rule. You can talk about property moralistically if you like, but it has no bearing on the empirical reality. Wishful thinking seldom changes the reality of those who don’t accept your definitions but do have a greater will to power. This is what propertarianism is about: using language to describe what actually is, not what ought to be. Your ideals-based definitions of property are fine if you preface them with “I prefer” or “I wish” or “what would be ideal to me is” or “what is most in line with Christian ethics is”… But when it comes down to it… Bane OWNED Gotham city, until Batman took it back. Morality is only as good (in practise) as those with the will to protect it. Morality is God-given, but it is protected by the will and flesh of men. If you won’t fight for what is yours and what you believe in your heart to be right, you’re just relying on others to do it for you so you can quibble over the language of “legitimate property”. When the barbarians take your lands, livestock, and women, it is (empirically) theirs. Same applies to anything you value. Own it and defend it, or accept that others will.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552604083 Timestamp) ^I can only speak comfortably with James about christianity because he doesn’t try to weasel me into any position. Most of the time, when christians get me into a discourse they try to make me justify a falsehood. this forces me to retaliate. And I don’t like it. Because I have to attack the faith and that’s not constructive. I have a very simple principle: faith is faith, and science is science. In a dispute between faith and science it is science. However, science has nothing to say about faith. Principally because that which drives our faith may be scientifically EXPLICABLE, but it’s not scientifically SATISFIABLE. This is very similar to the mind body problem or the memory experience problem. That is, that there is a great deal of difference between explaining the physics of why we have the experiences we do, and the experience and result of that physics. I don’t find this hard to understand but apparently this is hard for most people to understand. This is why I was searching through the online christian leadership – because there aren’t any ‘great thinkers’ out there trying to solve ‘our problem’ which includes the problem of our faith post-darwin and einstein. Most are living in the past but not living in their faith. We must evolve our faith. Evolve it into a militant defensive faith. not one that is dependent upon a pagan aristocracy of arms and armor to provide it with survival. I want to restore a militant christianity just as the viking invasions restored a militant christianity, before which europe could not defend herself given the celtic holocaust, the germanic migrations to fill the vacuum, and the roman collapse and germanic and arab migrations to fill the vacuum. It may be that the west must always have pagan aristocracy and christian priesthood, and a commercial nobility in constant competition in order not to fall into the failings of each. The law is the vehicle. The natural law is compatible with christianity. The question is only whether christians will fight, or if this fight is in the hands of a few pagans who must once again save christianity from islamic and jewish conquest. If christians will fight then they are allies of our people. If they will not, then they are allies of our enemy and only pagans and heathens allies of our people. Only those who fight matter.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552598259 Timestamp) EITHER YOU ACT LIKE JESUS OR YOU DON’T. I separate the catholic church as a political organization, from belief in the supernatural and occult, from christianity as a system of alien myths and dogmas, from imitating person jesus regardless of the primitivism of words attributed to him, from the general need for simple people to escape the continuous judgement of self and others in a world where doing so by some standard other than selfishness is non rational. What we call ‘christian’ is a semitic political religious dogma taught by a greek bureaucracy over an aryan social religious relationship between peoples and the world. One is a member of the christian system of behaviors because he behaves more like other christians than he does members of every other rious order – not because what he thinks or believes. Otherwise all of christianity is false. These are empirical statements – not justificationary statements. Either you act in practice under the accumulated behaviors of our aryan, roman, greek, and semitic systems of thought, or you don’t. The degree with which you fantasize about it is merely a statement of your demand to insulate yourself from counter signaling by others. Which is the reason for religion: counter-signaling our alienation with some form of mindfulness as our relative value to the polity decreases with political scale. This is merely true. God and the universe are one and the same. Jesus told us one set of rules that make us more compatible with the universe, and therefore god. These rules are the optimum ingroup social order. There is none other. 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost, 4) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. If you practice these rules then you are acting in concert with the universe and god such that no other set of practices will produce a superior end for you or others. That’s just the science of it all. I don’t need woo woo. I am not afraid of my station in relation to others. I do not fear my betters – I welcome them. The laws of the universe are the origin of truth aboutt hat universe. The natural law of human cooperation consists of reciprocity and the teachings of jesus. Neither set of rules is complicated. They are just so simple that they leave us no means of deceit by which to lie to ourselves or others.