Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Stuck on Malinvestments.

    ADHERENCE TO FALSIFIED THEORIES ISN”T DEMONSTRATING INTELLIGENCE – JUST LOSS AVOIDANCE GIVEN ONE’S OVERINVESTMENT IN MALINVESTMENT Sure I spent a lot of time at LvMI. But you know, once you know your theory is bullshit it’s time to seek another. There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.

    The organization of acquisition, inventory, transformation, and consumption, the organization of reproduction, the organization of production, distribution and trade, the organization of commons production and the organization of territorial limits. It is by the suppression of parasitism that we create the Liberty we seek.

  • If Any Of You Are Still Deceived, We Can Cure You.

    (marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)

  • If Any Of You Are Still Deceived, We Can Cure You.

    (marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary) —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot) Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one. Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument. Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments. Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy. Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion. But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty. If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)

  • A Rose By Any Other Name: Aristocratic Egalitarianism And Propertarianism

    —“Q&A: Curt, How Do We Refer To Your Work: Propertarianism or Aristocratic Egalitarianism”— In my view (which may or may not be right) I have written down in rational and scientific terms, the western group evolutionary strategy – the philosophy of the west.

    But it’s a very big scope of work. So what you call it depends upon which perspective you’re looking at it from. Culturally and civilizationally, it’s the philosophy of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. a set of values: Aristocratic, and the criteria for membership: open to anyone who will fight. But if we are to ask what operations and processes do we use within aristocratic egalitarianism that refers to The metaphysics of action, Testimonial Truth and Epistemology, Propertarian Ethics, Market Government, and Aristocratic Ethics (excellence in man) To make things ‘simple’ for people to understand we use the term ‘Propertarianism’ as a shortcut, even though that only technically refers to the ethical component of Aristocratic Egalitarianism. We have debated using Testimonialism in order to place truth above property, but this term borders on the platonic, so we prefer the ‘real’ – propertarianism as a ‘common’ name for philosophical arguments that constitute the cultural strategy of the western indo European people we call Aryans: Aristocratic Egalitarianism. So that’s the full explanation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine

  • A Rose By Any Other Name: Aristocratic Egalitarianism And Propertarianism

    —“Q&A: Curt, How Do We Refer To Your Work: Propertarianism or Aristocratic Egalitarianism”— In my view (which may or may not be right) I have written down in rational and scientific terms, the western group evolutionary strategy – the philosophy of the west.

    But it’s a very big scope of work. So what you call it depends upon which perspective you’re looking at it from. Culturally and civilizationally, it’s the philosophy of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. a set of values: Aristocratic, and the criteria for membership: open to anyone who will fight. But if we are to ask what operations and processes do we use within aristocratic egalitarianism that refers to The metaphysics of action, Testimonial Truth and Epistemology, Propertarian Ethics, Market Government, and Aristocratic Ethics (excellence in man) To make things ‘simple’ for people to understand we use the term ‘Propertarianism’ as a shortcut, even though that only technically refers to the ethical component of Aristocratic Egalitarianism. We have debated using Testimonialism in order to place truth above property, but this term borders on the platonic, so we prefer the ‘real’ – propertarianism as a ‘common’ name for philosophical arguments that constitute the cultural strategy of the western indo European people we call Aryans: Aristocratic Egalitarianism. So that’s the full explanation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine

  • Q&A: Curt, Whats With Your Rejection Of Plato?

    It is best to read Plato(idealist) along with Dante(apologist) and Macchiavelli(empiricist),with the understanding that as he is writing Greece has passed out of its high point, and he is trying to find a method for ‘manufacturing’ great leaders like Pericles. He wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s kind of an analogy for 20th century conservatives. Aristotle, like Machiavelli,doesn’t try to make excuses for anything, he just reads a lot of constitutions and tells us what he finds. Hayek the same.

    Aristotle, Macchiavelli, Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Pareto, Weber, Durkheim, Burhnam, Hayek. All these authors practice Empiricism vs Idealism. The reason I’m exasperated with Plato is its he who the church turned to in order to create the priesthood. What they should have turned to was Roman Law for rule, Spartan Warriors for enforcement, Greek houses of government for commons, and Stoic Personal Philosophy, and Polytheistic Political Religion. But the dependence upon german mercenaries, the plagues that decimated the population, the eventual loss of the grain fields of north africa made them poor, and the people ignorant, and the lies of the church were simply a cheaper method of governing, with a smaller number of people, than was the army, lawyers, judges, and senators, all of whom must be expensively educated and thoroughly indoctrinated. MANAGEMENT CANNOT SUFFER INFINITE DILUTION

  • Q&A: Curt, Whats With Your Rejection Of Plato?

    It is best to read Plato(idealist) along with Dante(apologist) and Macchiavelli(empiricist),with the understanding that as he is writing Greece has passed out of its high point, and he is trying to find a method for ‘manufacturing’ great leaders like Pericles. He wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s kind of an analogy for 20th century conservatives. Aristotle, like Machiavelli,doesn’t try to make excuses for anything, he just reads a lot of constitutions and tells us what he finds. Hayek the same.

    Aristotle, Macchiavelli, Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Pareto, Weber, Durkheim, Burhnam, Hayek. All these authors practice Empiricism vs Idealism. The reason I’m exasperated with Plato is its he who the church turned to in order to create the priesthood. What they should have turned to was Roman Law for rule, Spartan Warriors for enforcement, Greek houses of government for commons, and Stoic Personal Philosophy, and Polytheistic Political Religion. But the dependence upon german mercenaries, the plagues that decimated the population, the eventual loss of the grain fields of north africa made them poor, and the people ignorant, and the lies of the church were simply a cheaper method of governing, with a smaller number of people, than was the army, lawyers, judges, and senators, all of whom must be expensively educated and thoroughly indoctrinated. MANAGEMENT CANNOT SUFFER INFINITE DILUTION

  • Aristocracy Made Us.

    The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete. The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate. The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.

    The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction. The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character. The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline. But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling). Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years. When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class. It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well. And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects. We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy. And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us. Democracy is a very bad idea. It’s unnatural. It’s dysgenic. And it is incompatible with our civilization. It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically. Aristocracy made us.

  • Aristocracy Made Us.

    The conservative organizing principle is meritocracy, and a significant percentage of mankind cannot productively compete. The primary reason being that they cannot compete productively is that they are nearly impossible to train, difficult and expensive to train, or more expensive to train than the organization of reproduction, production, and commons can tolerate. The conservative promise that everyone can rise if he so chooses, is false.

    The conservative belief that everyone desires liberty is false – they desire consumption. But they lack the capacity to produce other than by physical means, and under direct instruction. The conservative belief that we all can be raised to join the aristocracy is false – we cannot be – some of us lack the character. The conservative pretense that democracy is possible outside of the natural aristocracy is predicated on these lies: that we can achieve equality through discipline. But we have achieved our relative equality in the west through eugenics: in reproduction, in production, in commons. And commonly through warfare, and consistently through hanging (culling). Conservatism is a eugenic evolutionary strategy and that because of this genetic evolutionary strategy we have culled the ranks of the bottom, and limited our numbers by doing so, thereby concentrating reproduction in our best people. We have been practicing this evolutionary strategy aggressively for 1000, cautiously for 2000, in one way or another for at least 3500 if not 4500, and possibly as long as 7000 years. When in fact, small percentages of the (genetic)upper proletariat, much of the (genetic)lower middle class, most of the (genetic)middle class, and nearly all of the (genetic)upper middle and (genetic)upper classes can do so. This is in fact what ‘class’ means in practice. That we vary by economic class a lot, vary by social class less so, and vary by genetic class very, very little, has no impact on the fact that the primary determinant of social and economic class is genetic class. It is not only the left that lies. Conservatives lie as well. And we lie to ourselves when we try to enfranchise and convert those people without our evolutionary history, and therefore similarly narrow distributions of talents and defects. We – the majority genetic middle class – used the lie of democracy to seized power from the aristocracy. And the left – majority genetic lower class – uses it to seizes power from us. Democracy is a very bad idea. It’s unnatural. It’s dysgenic. And it is incompatible with our civilization. It was just an excuse to use our numbers to defeat the aristocratic minority, rather than preserve them, while ADDING ourselves – the those who organize production – to leadership in aristocratic civiization: those who organize the ability to organize economically. Aristocracy made us.

  • Caplan Always Requires A Tablespoon Of Salt

    Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty. Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.

    Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent. The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it. Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract. And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order. So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production. We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it. Truth is the secret of the west. (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim). Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.