[J]ust an insight into one of the many ways authoritarian cosmopolitan pseudoscience of psychology has damaged our world view: introversion is the result of deep thinking, and ‘neuroticism’ (worry) is the result of deep thinking. Both of which are criticized rather than rewarded. Everyone else is just ‘noise’ without the deep thinkers. My work on Propertarianism taught me to see us as locally specialized ants, and that there is no such thing as an ideal individual other than one who does so honestly and knowingly. Our observable personalities advocate for acquisition on behalf of our genes. Because of our different reproductive costs, very desirable males, very desirable females, and every gradation in between, is merely negotiating using his or her necessary strategy. What makes us ‘crazy’ is when we construct lies. MONOTHEISM did this damage via ‘one-ness’. That’s how damaging it is. It’s freaking tragic. Polytheism did not do this to us. This is a profound restatement of the nature of man. We are expensive creatures. We must act to acquire ‘property’ – that which we inventory for our own use and consumption. Cooperation is so disproportionately rewarding a means of acquisition we must bias in favor of cooperation to acquire. But cooperation invites parasitism. So we must act to punish violations of cooperation. And cooperation is always an act of experiment: trial and error. So we must preserve non-cooperation in our genes in order to ensure that unlike lemmings, we break off when cooperation is no longer in our interests. This is man. Everything else is accumulated lie. Most of it from babylonian and levantine deceit. Meanwhile in every epoch europeans seek to overturn this authoritarian deceit and return to our pagan egalitarian origins. Propertarianism tells us how. (a) we are all different and therefore need our own ‘gods’ for use in our own virtue ethics. (b) Monotheism is more damaging because of ‘one-ness’ (and equality) whereas polytheism (correctly) preserves differences (and hierarchy). (c) Perfect rulers are infallible and demand we obey(positivism), and imperfect rules are not always working in our interests and demand only we do not irritate them (falsificationism). Freudian Psychology further expanded one-ness and servitude by demanding conformity to a personality type that could be forcibly indoctrinated through peer pressure, guilt and shaming (and it worked), whereas polytheistic reasoning, and darwinian reasoning, and scientific analysis tell us that we each fulfill niche’s that need exploiting. Monotheism, 20th century Democracy, and Freudian psychology, all perpetuate a catastrophic fallacy of man. But why was this fallacy developed? Well, in Judaism it was developed for the same reason monotheism was developed between the Iranians and the Indians, who were originally the same people: to put them into conflict so that the Iranians could be controlled (by lying). Just as the jews needed a reason to unite different primitive tribes (by lying). Whereas in the west we did not encounter this problem since rule was achieved by arms, not deceit. It was only once Rome was too weak to enforce rule by arms that Justinian closed the schools and imposed christianity on the west. The value of christianity is in that it was ‘germanicized’ and that the central proposition: extension of kin love to non-kin was useful in uniting Europe under christian kings sanctioned by the church. This criticism of ‘monopoly’ and ‘monotheism’ and ‘one-ness’ and ‘equality’ is an application of the propertarian principle of the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy, between the consumptive (feminine) productive (libertarian), and accumulative (conservative) biases, wherein the only means by which we can make use of all available perception, cognition, and knowledge in the spectrum, is to conduct voluntary exchanges between the classes in that division of perception, cognition, and knowledge, just as the only means by which we can make use of the knowledge in the market is by voluntary exchange, money, prices, and contract. This a profound reformulation of the enlightenment vision of man, and the necessary form of government that assists him in production, reproduction, and genetic persistence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Testimonialism, Propertarianism, New Classical liberalism. The Propertarian Institute , Kiev, Ukraine.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Value of Studying Philosohpy
(from elsewhere)(via stephen hicks) [O]nly two regrets I have in life. First was not choosing a degree in philosophy despite my fascination with it – although my study of art and art history has framed my personality and life. I can attest personally that the study of certain philosophy dramatically improves your ability in the work force. It’s a lot like living life as Methuselah. You have all this accumulated wisdom of all these smart folks, and you don’t have to so much learn the hard way as you go along, as work to gather useful information with which to apply that accumulated wisdom. It’s so much easier. 1) Intro-Micro/Macro Economics, History, Philosophy, Grammar, Rhetoric, Art (aesthetics). Combine that series with ANY one of the technical disciplines (learn how to extend your perception with logical instrumentation): 2) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Accounting, Finance, Programming, Mathematics, Law, Econometrics. We should teach western fairy tales, myths and legends, literature and history throughout our youth. If you enter the world literate, with exposure to moral philosophy, grammar and rhetoric, classes on math through geometry, newtonian physics, basic checkbook accounting, money, banking, credit and interest, basics of consumer purchase/sale and contract, and most importantly, classes on cooperation(ethics), friendship, and marriage – then you are armed for daily life. We focus too heavily on trying to make everyone a member of the upper middle class via mastery of abstractions. But those of us with those abilities will succeed no matter what. and instead, we create chaos in our civilization by both destroying the family as the source of wisdom and education on life matters, sending unsophisticated people entirely unready into a world managed by law, economics, finance credit and interest. We screw over our lower and middle classes with the folly of good intentions and false promises.
-
The Value of Studying Philosohpy
(from elsewhere)(via stephen hicks) [O]nly two regrets I have in life. First was not choosing a degree in philosophy despite my fascination with it – although my study of art and art history has framed my personality and life. I can attest personally that the study of certain philosophy dramatically improves your ability in the work force. It’s a lot like living life as Methuselah. You have all this accumulated wisdom of all these smart folks, and you don’t have to so much learn the hard way as you go along, as work to gather useful information with which to apply that accumulated wisdom. It’s so much easier. 1) Intro-Micro/Macro Economics, History, Philosophy, Grammar, Rhetoric, Art (aesthetics). Combine that series with ANY one of the technical disciplines (learn how to extend your perception with logical instrumentation): 2) Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Accounting, Finance, Programming, Mathematics, Law, Econometrics. We should teach western fairy tales, myths and legends, literature and history throughout our youth. If you enter the world literate, with exposure to moral philosophy, grammar and rhetoric, classes on math through geometry, newtonian physics, basic checkbook accounting, money, banking, credit and interest, basics of consumer purchase/sale and contract, and most importantly, classes on cooperation(ethics), friendship, and marriage – then you are armed for daily life. We focus too heavily on trying to make everyone a member of the upper middle class via mastery of abstractions. But those of us with those abilities will succeed no matter what. and instead, we create chaos in our civilization by both destroying the family as the source of wisdom and education on life matters, sending unsophisticated people entirely unready into a world managed by law, economics, finance credit and interest. We screw over our lower and middle classes with the folly of good intentions and false promises.
-
The Return of Wisdom?
[T]he terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion. First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”. An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms? We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise. Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics). Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues. Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe. One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists. So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience. Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences. Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine Source: Curt Doolittle
-
The Return of Wisdom?
[T]he terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion. First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”. An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms? We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise. Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics). Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues. Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe. One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists. So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience. Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences. Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine Source: Curt Doolittle
-
I Am Trying To Repair The Enlightenment
[C]OMPARISONS:
1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
vs European Universalist Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)
vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism
vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.METHODS:
1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).
2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).
3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).
3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).
The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.
Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)
That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.
So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.
That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.
Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
I Am Trying To Repair The Enlightenment
[C]OMPARISONS:
1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
vs European Universalist Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)
vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism
vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.METHODS:
1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).
2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).
3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).
3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).
The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.
Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)
That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.
So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.
That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.
Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine. -
Revolution: The Plan
[W]estern Man is moral man, and moral men need: 1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.)
2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.) 3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.) 4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors). 5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (I need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set. And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service. One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Revolution: The Plan
[W]estern Man is moral man, and moral men need: 1 – A Moral Justification for the application of Violence to institute change. (They are being lied to, and stolen from, and conquered systematically, and I explain how, why, and how to stop it.) (Ideologies require promise of actionable results within the current lifetime.)
2 – A Solution to Demand: a set of institutional changes (concentration of effort) (an expansion of the classical liberal legal order to suppress lying, wishful thinking, bias and error in matters of the political commons; and a reconstruction of the houses of government as a market for the voluntary construction of commons.) 3 – A means of transition from one order to another. (An ordered means of rapid transformation within the status quo.) 4 – A set of tactics for raising the cost of the status quo: insurrection via: nullification (gradual disempowerment and transition to new government), secession(construction of a new government retaining the previous competitor), revolution (replacement of the people in government and modification of institutions eliminating the previous competitor) and civil war (destruction of the government and replacement with an entirely new one, eliminating the previous competitors). 5 – A set of leaders (speakers) to rally action. (I need 100 people. That’s all. I need only twelve who are very good.) Propertarianism and Testimonialism will be a more complete framework than has been produced before, even if we take into account all of Locke,Hume,Smith and Jefferson as a set. And if I fail, then the work sits in books and records until someone decides to use it or create something better. But I will have my good service. One leads a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Purpose of Privatization?
[T]HE PURPOSE OF PRIVATIZATION? (important evolutionary hierarchy) 1) To prohibit consumption (create a commons – the ongoing production of a good or service). 2) To increase cooperation by reducing opportunity for conflict. 3) To eliminate rents and fictions on use of such resources in production. 4) To create efficient organizational use of these resources through competition. 5) To permit rational planning (economic calculation) and therefore complex production. 6) To provide individuals with incentives to produce in order to survive without parasitism, and thereby reducing the incentive to cooperate.
Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine