Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Are Human Rights Neo-imperialism?

    Lets first state that the question itself is stated uses improper loading and framing. (See writing in EPrime for proper construction of questions. )  A better phrasing of such a question is:

    “Is the Human Rights Movement an extension of Western Imperialism?”

    1) The question depends FIRST upon whether you consider REGIONAL Religious, Political, Cultural, Normative traditions superior to UNIVERSAL human necessities of cooperation.  Generally speaking, norms, cultures, religious and political systems all serve a group evolutionary strategy.  Generally speaking, natural rights consist of those necessary rights individuals must possess to engage in productive non-parasitic participation in any economy, and are universal statements of human behavior.  So the difference between local group orders and the universal necessary order, is a choice between the competitive advantage of the local order versus the necessary order.

    2) The question depends SECOND upon whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous for a group to compete cooperatively and meritocratic-ally rather than through parasitism, predation, and conquest.  In other words, if one’s group cannot compete by human rights (Islam, China), then it is a de-facto evolutionary benefit for the group to act immorally (with disregard for human rights).

    In other words, the premise of human rights is that if we all respect them, we will create a beneficial, prosperous, meritocratic world order.  The counter proposition is that all that matters is who survives and that meritocratic orders are just a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by more advanced societies, and less meritocratic orders a form of group evolutionary strategy preferred by less advanced societies.

    3) Finally, states that emphasize human rights will rarely if ever have reason to war with their neighbors.  And the charter for human rights was effectively an attempt to prevent another world war, especially with nuclear weapons, by directing all states to work on local economies rather than political and military expansion OR face the military consequences.

    So in that case it’s better to look at the international charter of human rights as an international insurance policy or treated that allows the use of military and economic pressure against those who would abuse human rights, since they are most likely to also engage in expansionary warfare. (Islam)

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-neo-imperialism

  • What Living Figure Most Embodies The Ideal Of An American Conservative?

    Conservatism refers to a certain set of traditions most visible in Aristocratic egalitarian ethics, Anglo of Rule of Law under Natural and Common Law, and the family as both sacred and the primary unit of both reproduction and production. 

    https://www.quora.com/What-living-figure-most-embodies-the-ideal-of-an-American-conservative

  • What Are The First Things One Should Know In Political Theory?

    1. The first question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’.
    2. The first question of politics is “Why don’t me and mine kill you and yours and take your stuff?”
    3. The first question of group evolutionary strategy is “How can we either kill them and take their stuff, or prevent them from killing us and taking our stuff?”
    4. The answer to all three questions is the same: “Because cooperating in a division of labor is productive and can continue to produce mutual returns while conflict is costly and and results only in net consumption. Over time those who cooperate have more numbers, are healthier, have better industry, technology, and warfare than those who don’t.
    5. So, how do we organize group evolutionary strategy, politics, ethics, production and reproduction, so that we can out-compete, or at least say at pace with, competitors, given the people, their abilities, the territory and its resources that are at our disposal?
    6. Answering this question requires facing a very unpleasant fact, that the problem we face is human capital (talents) and that every person at the bottom of the curve drastically reduces the effectiveness of every person at the middle and top of the curve. In other words, it matters more that you don’t have impulsive, aggressive, idiots than it does that you have calm geniuses. So by and large nations in colder climates were more successful at killing off the undesirables through winters and starvation, than those in the warmer climates.
    7. So we see many different group evolutionary strategies dependent upon human capital, territory, and resources.  The most obvious are
    • the hierarchical and authoritarian irrigated flood-river valleys
    • the aggressive tribal steppe and desert regions
    • the egalitarian forest and river regions.
    • the equalitarian polar peoples
    • Each of these main groups produce different political systems in order to make use of the territory and means of production available to them.  Those that do not make good use of territory and means are displaced, conquered, or exterminated by those that do.
    • All groups require:
      • A method of organizing reproduction (usually marriage)
      • A method of organizing production (an economy)
      • A method of organizing norms (usually religion/education)
      • A method of producing commons (government)
      • A method of holding territory (army)
    • There are two economic poles available and all make use of one part of the spectrum or another, and all economies resulting in some variant on the mixed economy:
      • Propertarian / Libertarian / Capitalist / High Trust / High Innovation – Why? No corruption in theory.  Incentives work. But no competitive commons are produced, so it doesn’t work.
      • Mixed Economy of Consumer capitalism with some authoritarian commons production. Incentives work and commons possible.
      • Authoritarian / Totalitarian / Socialist / Low Trust / Low Innovation – Why? high corruption, no incentives, and it doesn’t work.
    • All governments are corrupt but if a people are successful at implementing rule of law it is possible to protect the economy using the courts from excessive interference by the government monopoly.
    • The method of deciding  ( making excuses for ) which commons is produced rather than some other commons is a matter of local dispute. But it is actually a question of competition with other states, and it is only very wealthy states that choose luxuries rather than necessities.
    • That is about all there is to political theory.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-first-things-one-should-know-in-political-theory

  • Are Human Rights Superior Than Sovereignty?

    The question is somewhat interesting since both Human Rights (which are all property rights by the way), and Sovereignty are ambitions one can seek to produce not states of nature that must be abridged.   However, the misleading nature of the question aside:

    The ‘Postwar Consensus’ and the International Charter of Human Rights, were designed to prevent wars by requiring that all states direct policy and resources to the development of rule of law and modern economy, using largely political and economic pressure.  But also military pressure if necessary – almost always provided by the USA, as the successor to, or continuation of, the British Empire. 

    In this sense, sovereignty was limited by the western world (America-and-Anglo-conquered-Europe) to the expansion of human rights and consumer capitalism (and mistakenly, democracy) in exchange for limited aggression against them.

    This consensus held largely until Russia invaded Ukraine, set up rebel governments in the Donbas basin, seized Crimea, threatened Eastern Europe with reconquest in 2014. Since then, the combination of policies designed to weaken American political economic and military power by the Obama Administration, and the need to pivot back against the Russian threat, have exposed the Nato Alliance (the USA) as incapable of protecting member states, and the remaining member states unwilling to defend other member states – and possibly themselves.  Furthermore, China’s expansion into sea territories claimed by others, and Russian expansion into disputed the arctic, have further ended the postwar consensus.  So the postwar consensus has been de facto ended.

    Practically speaking, the only guarantee of sovereignty in the 21st century is provided by nuclear weapons, and a standing military capable of suppressing both domestic populations and at least making invasion extremely difficult or expensive.  There is no longer any even tepid guarantee of human rights imposed by a collection of foreign states. And in fact, the only incentive for states to defend human rights is to defend the financing of their militaries, by defending their economies using consumer capitalism, which requires human rights in order to function.

    South Korea being the world’s only substantial hold out.  The Arab countries quickly switching now to consumer capitalism given the change in future oil revenue predictions.  The same problem faces Russian which for all intents and purposes is an enormous gas station, where 50% of revenues depend on natural resources.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty

  • What Living Figure Most Embodies The Ideal Of An American Conservative?

    Conservatism refers to a certain set of traditions most visible in Aristocratic egalitarian ethics, Anglo of Rule of Law under Natural and Common Law, and the family as both sacred and the primary unit of both reproduction and production. 

    https://www.quora.com/What-living-figure-most-embodies-the-ideal-of-an-American-conservative

  • What Are The First Things One Should Know In Political Theory?

    1. The first question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’.
    2. The first question of politics is “Why don’t me and mine kill you and yours and take your stuff?”
    3. The first question of group evolutionary strategy is “How can we either kill them and take their stuff, or prevent them from killing us and taking our stuff?”
    4. The answer to all three questions is the same: “Because cooperating in a division of labor is productive and can continue to produce mutual returns while conflict is costly and and results only in net consumption. Over time those who cooperate have more numbers, are healthier, have better industry, technology, and warfare than those who don’t.
    5. So, how do we organize group evolutionary strategy, politics, ethics, production and reproduction, so that we can out-compete, or at least say at pace with, competitors, given the people, their abilities, the territory and its resources that are at our disposal?
    6. Answering this question requires facing a very unpleasant fact, that the problem we face is human capital (talents) and that every person at the bottom of the curve drastically reduces the effectiveness of every person at the middle and top of the curve. In other words, it matters more that you don’t have impulsive, aggressive, idiots than it does that you have calm geniuses. So by and large nations in colder climates were more successful at killing off the undesirables through winters and starvation, than those in the warmer climates.
    7. So we see many different group evolutionary strategies dependent upon human capital, territory, and resources.  The most obvious are
    • the hierarchical and authoritarian irrigated flood-river valleys
    • the aggressive tribal steppe and desert regions
    • the egalitarian forest and river regions.
    • the equalitarian polar peoples
    • Each of these main groups produce different political systems in order to make use of the territory and means of production available to them.  Those that do not make good use of territory and means are displaced, conquered, or exterminated by those that do.
    • All groups require:
      • A method of organizing reproduction (usually marriage)
      • A method of organizing production (an economy)
      • A method of organizing norms (usually religion/education)
      • A method of producing commons (government)
      • A method of holding territory (army)
    • There are two economic poles available and all make use of one part of the spectrum or another, and all economies resulting in some variant on the mixed economy:
      • Propertarian / Libertarian / Capitalist / High Trust / High Innovation – Why? No corruption in theory.  Incentives work. But no competitive commons are produced, so it doesn’t work.
      • Mixed Economy of Consumer capitalism with some authoritarian commons production. Incentives work and commons possible.
      • Authoritarian / Totalitarian / Socialist / Low Trust / Low Innovation – Why? high corruption, no incentives, and it doesn’t work.
    • All governments are corrupt but if a people are successful at implementing rule of law it is possible to protect the economy using the courts from excessive interference by the government monopoly.
    • The method of deciding  ( making excuses for ) which commons is produced rather than some other commons is a matter of local dispute. But it is actually a question of competition with other states, and it is only very wealthy states that choose luxuries rather than necessities.
    • That is about all there is to political theory.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-first-things-one-should-know-in-political-theory

  • Are Human Rights Superior Than Sovereignty?

    The question is somewhat interesting since both Human Rights (which are all property rights by the way), and Sovereignty are ambitions one can seek to produce not states of nature that must be abridged.   However, the misleading nature of the question aside:

    The ‘Postwar Consensus’ and the International Charter of Human Rights, were designed to prevent wars by requiring that all states direct policy and resources to the development of rule of law and modern economy, using largely political and economic pressure.  But also military pressure if necessary – almost always provided by the USA, as the successor to, or continuation of, the British Empire. 

    In this sense, sovereignty was limited by the western world (America-and-Anglo-conquered-Europe) to the expansion of human rights and consumer capitalism (and mistakenly, democracy) in exchange for limited aggression against them.

    This consensus held largely until Russia invaded Ukraine, set up rebel governments in the Donbas basin, seized Crimea, threatened Eastern Europe with reconquest in 2014. Since then, the combination of policies designed to weaken American political economic and military power by the Obama Administration, and the need to pivot back against the Russian threat, have exposed the Nato Alliance (the USA) as incapable of protecting member states, and the remaining member states unwilling to defend other member states – and possibly themselves.  Furthermore, China’s expansion into sea territories claimed by others, and Russian expansion into disputed the arctic, have further ended the postwar consensus.  So the postwar consensus has been de facto ended.

    Practically speaking, the only guarantee of sovereignty in the 21st century is provided by nuclear weapons, and a standing military capable of suppressing both domestic populations and at least making invasion extremely difficult or expensive.  There is no longer any even tepid guarantee of human rights imposed by a collection of foreign states. And in fact, the only incentive for states to defend human rights is to defend the financing of their militaries, by defending their economies using consumer capitalism, which requires human rights in order to function.

    South Korea being the world’s only substantial hold out.  The Arab countries quickly switching now to consumer capitalism given the change in future oil revenue predictions.  The same problem faces Russian which for all intents and purposes is an enormous gas station, where 50% of revenues depend on natural resources.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-human-rights-superior-than-sovereignty

  • The Answer

    (religion) [J]ust because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past. We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future. I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science. But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science. Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church. Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas. The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same. The customer base of the church and the academy are the same. The church sold mysticism for millennia. The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century. The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church. But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem. The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness. There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind. So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind. We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others. We can sell truth rather than sell fraud. We can remake the west. Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history. Science: truth in the physical. Nature: truth in the commons Law: truth in the market. Stoicism: truth in the mind. We are the people who invented truth. Truth is our religion. We can return to the truth. End the lies Remake man in the image of gods: truth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Answer

    (religion) [J]ust because your ancestors valued a particular comforting lie or falsehood is not a reason to perpetuate the lie or falsehood. We are comfortable now with suppressing lies with physical science where were were not so in the past. We are currently uncomfortable with suppressing lies in social science: ethics, politics, economics, religion, and war, but we will not be so uncomfortable in the future. I am almost certain that the gains from ending lies in social science will be as great as those from ending lies in physical science. But I suspect an even greater effort to preserve lies in social science than the effort to preserve lies in physical science. Why? Because the church had only the pulpit, which we eventually defeated with the press. But the Academy has the media, and we are not yet sure that the internet is as capable of defeating the lies of the academy as the book was in defeating the lies of the church. Both have had the same incentives: to perpetuate their income by the sale of forgiveness or indulgences, just as the academy sells the promise of prosperity and diplomas. The monetary incentives of the church and academy are the same. The customer base of the church and the academy are the same. The church sold mysticism for millennia. The academy has been selling pseudoscience for over a century. The way we end the academy’s lies is to defund it like we did the church. The way we defund it is through the same revolution that it took to defund the church. But if we merely shift the academy to something new, just as we shifted the church to the academy, we have only moved to a new problem rather than solving the problem. The answer is to reform the church and the academy so that they sell truths, not lies. Truths in physical science, truth in social science, truth in what is best called ‘spiritual science’: mindfulness. There are many ways to produce mindfulness: from stoic philosophy, to sport, to yoga, to meditation, to the piety and sacredness of commons and ritual, to the creation of arts. The human mind requires mindfulness without the constant peer feedback of the consanguinous tribe. The greater the division of knowledge and labor, the more important is mindfulness for the happiness of the human mind. So it is possible to construct a church, academy, and commons that produces truth in physical, truth in the social, and truth in the mind. We need no lies. There is no excuse for lies. Lies exist to profit only from the loss of others. We can sell truth rather than sell fraud. We can remake the west. Because it is these truths that were the original path of western civilization before the great lies were leashed upon us by the great liars of history. Science: truth in the physical. Nature: truth in the commons Law: truth in the market. Stoicism: truth in the mind. We are the people who invented truth. Truth is our religion. We can return to the truth. End the lies Remake man in the image of gods: truth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • No More Books Of Lies

    [N]O MORE BOOKS OF LIES The Vedas were invented to control The Avesta invented to divide The Talmud invented to deceive. The Bible invented to enslave. The Koran invented to conquer. Das Capital to steal. The General Theory to Impoverish. The Truth to set us free. NO MORE LIES. ‪#‎NewRight‬