[Q]uotes —“In practice it appears that choosing secular multiculturalism amounts to choosing fundamentalist Islam.”— Eli Harman —“A force applied to the end of a lever has many times the lifting power of the same force applied near the fulcrum. Generalizing, the same degree of change in a root cause brings many more consequences than the same degree of change in a derivative.”— Michael Philip —“You can very much ignore the truth, but it will lead to disastrous consequences, because your perception of the truth has no bearing on the actual truth.”— Tristan Powers (imperfect language but it does the job. smile emoticon – cd) —“The truth can hurt or tickle, it can be bitter or sweet, it can draw thunderous applause or furious rebuke. But it can’t be ignored.”— Shaun Moss —“Both the US as status quo Power and US as revolutionary Power tend to encourage history-fails. A status quo Power has a tendency to live in an eternal now. A revolutionary Power has a tendency to fixate on its own framing of social patterns and desirable outcomes. Add to that American exceptionalism, and you have a recipe for serial history-fails. As has been particularly obvious in US interventions in the Middle East.”—michael phillip —“The US is at once both a revolutionary and a status quo Power. It is a revolutionary Power in the straightforward sense that it is the only contemporary state seriously trying to export its revolution, apart from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is also a revolutionary Power in a somewhat more subtle sense, in that it produces so much of the technology that continues to transform the world. Which puts the US in a similar situation during its Pax Americana, as Britain during the Pax Britannica: being the premier source of transforming technology while trying to foster international stability. But the US is also a status quo Power, in that the current arrangement of world affairs suits its interests–as the major economic, financial, trading and military Power. It tends to act as the central manager of the international system–its performance as such is very much affected by its own interests, because that’s what Powers do. But precisely because the US has a bigger stake in international stability than any other polity, it tends to be more active in trying to maintain that stability.”— Michael Phillip —“Thought experiments have done yeoman’s work in philosophy ever since the tale of the ring of Gyges in Plato’s Republic. There clearly is a place for them in testing our moral intuitions, yet they have been taken too far down the trolley track in contemporary ethical theory. At issue here is modality: the meaning of the possible for making sense of ethical life. Let me suggest two modes of the possible. One is the merely conceivable, which involves science fiction elements or extraordinarily rare circumstances, things that are not logically impossible or outright violations of the laws of nature. The other mode is the genuinely plausible, scenarios that are either actually possible (because they have happened) or feasible given a reasonable construal of existing realities. I would like to narrow the use of hypothetical to the latter set of plausible cases and coin a new term, hyperthetical, for the merely conceivable.”— Michael Philip Excellent reframing. I would suggest you take my approach of a minimum three points to make an argumentative line, and follow your own sentence structure: 1-Conceivable, 2-Plausible, and 3-Feasible. (I am going to steal it. thanks. ) “—Early in Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler writes that a man under 30 must not – or, ought not to – involve himself in politics. I cannot say that I disagree (although at 17 years the idea seemed rather dated and ageist). Those who deem themselves fit to rule must not only master the great contemporary debates of their time but must have a deep understanding of the conflicting political hagiographies, wedge points and sacred cows.”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Brothers In Arms
[I] care that you are intelligent, an aristotelian, christian, a warrior, speak the truth, and a friend. I do not care about the color of your skin. Just as I hope you do not care about the color of mine. Warriors are brothers all. Most of our conflict is the product of democracy in which political power can be used to obtain privilege by force of law. Otherwise, in the great war to transform the universe into eden, and man in to gods, we fight the universe as brothers in arms.
-
Brothers In Arms
[I] care that you are intelligent, an aristotelian, christian, a warrior, speak the truth, and a friend. I do not care about the color of your skin. Just as I hope you do not care about the color of mine. Warriors are brothers all. Most of our conflict is the product of democracy in which political power can be used to obtain privilege by force of law. Otherwise, in the great war to transform the universe into eden, and man in to gods, we fight the universe as brothers in arms.
-
Q&A: No, I am an Aristocratic Libertarian, not a Bourgeoise Libertarian
[I] do not possess the values of a bourgeoise libertarian, but an aristocratic, martial, advocate of personal liberty. I have been accused of being an aristocratic and intellectual snob for my entire life. It was only by gradually learning to ‘fit in’ after university, and as a necessity of conducting business with common people, and our relocation to rather parochial Seattle, that incrementally forced me to tone it down out of pure utility. So I don’t hold to the fallacy that consumption is a penultimate good in its own. And while I advocate wealth, cooperation and decidability, it’s because I view cooperation as a means of constructing the voluntary organization of experiment, innovation, production, distribution and trade that produces wealth and technology with which a minority of warriors and generals can hold the hordes – often wealthy hordes – at bay. This is the ancient info European (Yamnaya) social economic and military evolutionary strategy. To use advanced technology and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers: to pacify and transform the world. So I see all competitively advantageous products of man as weaponry to be used against competitors. My cognitive process like my heritage is martial. Until I learned economics – the language of equilibria, I used martial terminology – the language of competition. We need kings, generals, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and warriors. But, I do not need the same intuitions as an individual warrior or captain. I need the intuitions of a general and King. Wars are won by logistics. That is why.
-
Q&A: No, I am an Aristocratic Libertarian, not a Bourgeoise Libertarian
[I] do not possess the values of a bourgeoise libertarian, but an aristocratic, martial, advocate of personal liberty. I have been accused of being an aristocratic and intellectual snob for my entire life. It was only by gradually learning to ‘fit in’ after university, and as a necessity of conducting business with common people, and our relocation to rather parochial Seattle, that incrementally forced me to tone it down out of pure utility. So I don’t hold to the fallacy that consumption is a penultimate good in its own. And while I advocate wealth, cooperation and decidability, it’s because I view cooperation as a means of constructing the voluntary organization of experiment, innovation, production, distribution and trade that produces wealth and technology with which a minority of warriors and generals can hold the hordes – often wealthy hordes – at bay. This is the ancient info European (Yamnaya) social economic and military evolutionary strategy. To use advanced technology and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers: to pacify and transform the world. So I see all competitively advantageous products of man as weaponry to be used against competitors. My cognitive process like my heritage is martial. Until I learned economics – the language of equilibria, I used martial terminology – the language of competition. We need kings, generals, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and warriors. But, I do not need the same intuitions as an individual warrior or captain. I need the intuitions of a general and King. Wars are won by logistics. That is why.
-
What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?
(important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.
[pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]
This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?
(important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.
[pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]
This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
If You Don’t Like What I Say – Think About This…
[I] work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”. Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: a proof includes including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements. Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and almost everyone in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood. And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.
[pullquote]But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
[/pullquote]Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto without consent. So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you. I cannot stop you from doing good, I can only prevent you from imposing harm. But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you. And that applies to me as well. So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind. Just as if I disagree with this you must end me. This is the most and best moral position any man can take. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
