—“The world’s first murderer stands before a common law court. No applicable statute or precedent. How is law made?”— By Natural Law: reciprocity. The violation of reciprocity by aggression against life, body, mate, kin, property, interest. In history, common law developed to prevent reciprocity (retaliation), because of retaliation cycles. (Feuds) States imposed uniform laws once people came into conflict between groups. And if one ‘group’s punishments were too different from the others retaliation cycles would ensue (Feuds). —“Can you define reciprocity?”— Reciprocity is just the promise of doing unto others only as one would have done unto you; and not doing unto others that which you would not have done unto you. But once this is broken how do we restore a condition of reciprocity? We do so by restitution. –“Does restitution necessitate capital punishment?”– Technically it is impossible to perform restitution for murder except with capital punishment. However, in most cases it is possible to pay a high price for murder. And people generally have been forced to pay a high price depending upon the status of the killer and killed. But, in the end, the real reason we use capital punishment is because if someone will break the last rule, the one-rule, of not murdering, then they must be eliminated from the group. —“Standardization means that a superior authority is set?”— Not sure what you mean. Not authority, but decidability. Natural law is decidable. It’s perfectly decidable in all cases, everywhere, at all times, between all people. We can define restitution regardless of opinion or preference of members – in order to maintain ‘the peace’ (the rewards of cooperation). Natural law means people can’t prey upon each other. That is different from a standard. As far as I know that’s a truth. It’s just science. We don’t get to choose. Two people or parties can settle their differences however they want as long as the settlement of differences does not export harm or risk to others. but if we are asked or forced to resolve a conflict, we can do so by natural law regardless of our individual opinions. ––“If natural law means we can’t prey on each other, is it not a priori? Or is it empirically discovered as a function of the rewards of not preying?”— Well you know asking that question is fallacious. The apriori is simply a trivial case of the empirical, and the empirical merely a trivial case of the scientific. It’s observable, it’s logical, it’s possible, it’s demonstrable, and it’s thoroughly demonstrated – and moreover it’s actually impossible to contradict rationally. (You can’t even try to contradict it without confirming it.) I mean, we are part of the physical universe, despite our ability to outwit it on a regular basis through the use of sense, perception, memory, prediction, reason. If an organism tolerates parasitism and predation why does it do so? If an organism can cooperate, and cooperation produces extraordinary returns, and parasitism disincentivizes cooperation, and deprives an organism of returns, then what adaptation must an organism evolve in order to preserve cooperation? Just what we see: altruistic punishment (costly retaliation). Because even though retaliation is costly, the cumulative parasitism is much more costly, and possibly deadly. Any organism that can cooperate and becomes dependent upon cooperation cannot survive significant non-cooperation. However, some minimum of non-cooperation is necessary in order to preserve the incentive to preserve the instinct to punish parasites. And some minimum non-cooperation is necessary to provide evolutionary routes to superiority that may be integrated into the whole.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Reminder: I don’t hate.
QUARTERLY REMINDER. Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Reminder: I don’t hate.
QUARTERLY REMINDER. Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Islam is an Advanced Technology
You’re stupid if you think islam is primitive. It is an advanced technology by which the people of lowest intellectual, emotional, and physical ability, can impose costs through raiding, parasitism, over-reproduction, immigration, conversion, and informational, social, cultural, economic, and institutional devolution. Islam is an informational virus that provides the worst genetic pool possible with psychological rewards while demanding the least physical, emotional, and mental discipline. Islam is the ultimate psychological, and intellectual hedonism.
-
Islam is an Advanced Technology
You’re stupid if you think islam is primitive. It is an advanced technology by which the people of lowest intellectual, emotional, and physical ability, can impose costs through raiding, parasitism, over-reproduction, immigration, conversion, and informational, social, cultural, economic, and institutional devolution. Islam is an informational virus that provides the worst genetic pool possible with psychological rewards while demanding the least physical, emotional, and mental discipline. Islam is the ultimate psychological, and intellectual hedonism.
-
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
Provoking Thoughts: Man’s First Occupation: Predator
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before you. To burn their cities to ashes. To take their possessions. To hear the wails of their women. And, To rape their wives and daughters. That is what is best in life. As a few have noticed. By posting a quote by Genghis Khan, I was making a fairly serious statement. (Not the least of which was de-christianizing the translation of the original quote (which, if I remember correctly was spoken in mongolian, written down phonetically using *chinese* characters, translated into persian, translated into german, and then translated into english. I’m not positive but most of the ‘secret history’ followed that route. ) Now, in the context in which I made that post, I was trying to illustrate a few things at once: 1) That hunting man and animal *is* his preferred profession. And that man is not Rousseauian. It is not surprising that all other variations of the semi-sentient apes were exterminated upon our arrival. Nor why the only competition the great plagues have had is Islam first and communism second. 2) That we have spent a great deal of effort ‘regulating’ man’s preferred profession. And that the many achievements of man were made by suppressing that profession 3) **BUT**, that to CHOOSE the method of suppressing that profession requires we preserve that profession: hunting, killing, destroying, and taking – we can construct many orders from enslavement on one end to markets on the other. 4) And to preserve that profession such that we create the advanced order that we have in the ancient and modern worlds requires the Aryan (markets) and the Christian (the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.) 5) Because there is a vast difference between predation and parasitism of the khan, and the conquest and rule of people by the production of markets through which they transcend the beast, the slave, the serf, the freeman, the civilian, the sovereign – and the god. What we have failed to learn (which I am so glad someone reminded me of yesterday) is that having conquered from spain to china, and from the arctic circle to egypt, and having tried to create markets in each of those region, that we failed among all but our own. Therefore the evidence suggests that there is something special about our kin group, tribe, and race that makes markets possible. But if we must preserve the Aryan and the Christian to rule by natural law, we must also preserve the warrior to obtain and hold the condition of natural law. And we must preserve the warrior hunter’s joy and lust in Aryan and Christian forms, so that those that cannot transcend cannot harm us. If they can harm must they can be weakened. If they cannot be weakened they can be exterminated. Not with hatred, and not for profit, but for defense. Not for defense of us alone. But for the defense of human kind. And the transcendence we are inspired to achieve. So, (a) I want to cause you to attempt to disagree with this statement by stating it provocatively, (remember, this is the purpose of hyperbole that conservatives rely upon. the Asians use contradictions to cause you to think. Aristocracy uses hyperbole to cause you to think. (b) I want to force you to face a necessary truth: that violence is just a resource that we can use to create good by the incremental suppression of all means of parasitism – and that to incrementally suppress means of parasitism among hunters, requires that we maintain exceptional skill in hunting, killing, taking, destroying. (c) we created this world by mastering, professionalizing, and using violence to obtain and hold rule, through which we imposed markets, and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. I experiment a lot. I run tests. All my arguments are tests. Each test constitutes an attempt to construct a proof. When they are complete (closed), parsimonious, and clear my tests are complete, and a proof constructed. But you should not dismiss the difference between an analytic list and an emotive or poetic bit of inspiration. They are attempts to make you (and i) think about those assumptions we hold, beliefs we hold, justifications we feel, and arguments we practice. So that not only are markets created, and not only is hatred extirpated, but that ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, are removed from our thoughts.
-
Provoking Thoughts: Man’s First Occupation: Predator
The Greatest Happiness? To crush your enemies. To scatter and drive them before you. To burn their cities to ashes. To take their possessions. To hear the wails of their women. And, To rape their wives and daughters. That is what is best in life. As a few have noticed. By posting a quote by Genghis Khan, I was making a fairly serious statement. (Not the least of which was de-christianizing the translation of the original quote (which, if I remember correctly was spoken in mongolian, written down phonetically using *chinese* characters, translated into persian, translated into german, and then translated into english. I’m not positive but most of the ‘secret history’ followed that route. ) Now, in the context in which I made that post, I was trying to illustrate a few things at once: 1) That hunting man and animal *is* his preferred profession. And that man is not Rousseauian. It is not surprising that all other variations of the semi-sentient apes were exterminated upon our arrival. Nor why the only competition the great plagues have had is Islam first and communism second. 2) That we have spent a great deal of effort ‘regulating’ man’s preferred profession. And that the many achievements of man were made by suppressing that profession 3) **BUT**, that to CHOOSE the method of suppressing that profession requires we preserve that profession: hunting, killing, destroying, and taking – we can construct many orders from enslavement on one end to markets on the other. 4) And to preserve that profession such that we create the advanced order that we have in the ancient and modern worlds requires the Aryan (markets) and the Christian (the extirpation of hatred from the human heart.) 5) Because there is a vast difference between predation and parasitism of the khan, and the conquest and rule of people by the production of markets through which they transcend the beast, the slave, the serf, the freeman, the civilian, the sovereign – and the god. What we have failed to learn (which I am so glad someone reminded me of yesterday) is that having conquered from spain to china, and from the arctic circle to egypt, and having tried to create markets in each of those region, that we failed among all but our own. Therefore the evidence suggests that there is something special about our kin group, tribe, and race that makes markets possible. But if we must preserve the Aryan and the Christian to rule by natural law, we must also preserve the warrior to obtain and hold the condition of natural law. And we must preserve the warrior hunter’s joy and lust in Aryan and Christian forms, so that those that cannot transcend cannot harm us. If they can harm must they can be weakened. If they cannot be weakened they can be exterminated. Not with hatred, and not for profit, but for defense. Not for defense of us alone. But for the defense of human kind. And the transcendence we are inspired to achieve. So, (a) I want to cause you to attempt to disagree with this statement by stating it provocatively, (remember, this is the purpose of hyperbole that conservatives rely upon. the Asians use contradictions to cause you to think. Aristocracy uses hyperbole to cause you to think. (b) I want to force you to face a necessary truth: that violence is just a resource that we can use to create good by the incremental suppression of all means of parasitism – and that to incrementally suppress means of parasitism among hunters, requires that we maintain exceptional skill in hunting, killing, taking, destroying. (c) we created this world by mastering, professionalizing, and using violence to obtain and hold rule, through which we imposed markets, and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. I experiment a lot. I run tests. All my arguments are tests. Each test constitutes an attempt to construct a proof. When they are complete (closed), parsimonious, and clear my tests are complete, and a proof constructed. But you should not dismiss the difference between an analytic list and an emotive or poetic bit of inspiration. They are attempts to make you (and i) think about those assumptions we hold, beliefs we hold, justifications we feel, and arguments we practice. So that not only are markets created, and not only is hatred extirpated, but that ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience, are removed from our thoughts.
-
Why Were Westerners Unsuccessful At Exporting Aryanism: Markets in Everything?
WHY WERE WESTERNERS UNSUCCESSFUL AT EXPORTING ARYANISM (MARKETS) by Simon Ström By merely establishing rule, a small minority of conquerors do not have the resources to alter the basic fabric of social organization in a region that is already populous, wealthy and has a rigid socio-political system that works for them and is adapted to the local natural incentives. Like the Mongols in China or Iran, the conquerors are rather the ones who are subject to assimilation, although they might retain or even spread their language and symbolism as a function of its prestige. In order to permeate all society, the imposed, foreign evolutionary strategy must be carried by greater numbers than that, or at least powerful enough mechanisms of overcoming the inertia of “immunological rejection” of non-self cultural impulses. The lesser the primordial differences in genes, culture and natural incentives between conqueror and conquered, the lesser the need of great numbers in order to assimilate through elite dominance. 1. Small minority conquest: dynastic turnover, insignificant gene flow and socio-cultural regression to the median. Examples: Yuan dynasty, Hittites, Gothic Spain, British Raj. (Early Indo-Aryans were close to 1, but gravitated somewhat toward 2) 2. Sizable minority conquest: significant gene flow (amalgamation), socio-cultural regression to the mean. Examples: Corded Ware horizon, Roman Gaul, Latin America. 3. Great majority conquest: displacement, insignificant or no gene flow, complete socio-cultural continuation of the conquerors. Examples: North America, Kosovo, West Bank (future). So the obstacles of exporting our strategy are: – They don’t want it. They can profit from modernization without Westernization. – Military dominance won’t cut it. You need to dominate kinship and the social fabric. – The cost of export is too great because we are too different. Rule might be profitable, but assimilation? Questionable. We have evolved to pursue our strategy for millennia, others have not. – Simon Ström From Curt: The problem with spreading our social order is (a) demographic distribution and (b) degree of civilization. In practice we should see Aryanism (markets for rule) expandable only into areas that did not have the ability to expand the underclass, and did not possess a large underclass, and face little tribal conflict. Conversely we should see the worst behavior among peoples who have expansive underclasses, the agrarian or pastoral ability to expand those underclasses, and lots of territorial competition from other kin groups. And that is what we see