Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Q: “How Do I Learn Philosophy”

    (really good piece) [Q]: “CURT, HOW DO I LEARN PHILOSOPHY?” A: WELL THAT REQUIRES DEFINING PHILOSOPHY AND CHOOSING WHAT YOU WANT TO LEARN FROM IT. QUESTION

    —“Hey curt, since you mentioned newbies. If an individual was beginning planning a self taught curriculum in philosophy, what would you recommend for sources? And does eastern philosophy like the teachings of the Tao hold any significance in your paradigm?”—

    ANSWER First, we need to define Philosophy. Which I think I can successfully do by stating it’s a set of ideas that assist us in forming a framework of understanding, whether by imitation of others – whether real or mythical (virtue), rules of conduct and decision making(deontological), or understanding of the mechanics of the universe(teleological), with which we can use limited human knowledge and reason for the purposes of acting to achieve needs, satisfactions, and fulfillments, by cooperating successfully in a world of others doing the same.THE OPTIONS This hierarchy of philosophies is important: imitation of virtue, dedication to rules, and understanding of cause and effect producing outcomes, place different demands on the individual. -One’s Experience- i – children and primitive cultures rely on virtue (religion) ii – adults in developing cultures rely on rules (law) iii – the wise in mature cultures rely on outcomes (science) This is the usual progression of one’s personal philosophy through life. As children, adults and at our maturity we make use of virtue, rule, and outcome ethics because that is the best we can manage at every stage of our development. This progression also remains useful, and is why wise me resort to “what would jesus do” or “what would such and such a great man do?”. Because that virtuous wisdom is, at times, the only possible means of decision making with sparse information. Just as we fall back upon rules when we are unsure of outcomes. Just as we rely upon our knowledge of outcomes to make decisions when we have accumulated the knowledge and experience to do so. So it is not a matter of choosing virtue, rule, or outcome ethics. It is a matter of acquiring each so that one can apply each in the circumstances where one possesses the information to do so – and conversely: one can judge the ethics of others by the rules they apply in each circumstance. A child who errs by virtue ethics is forgivable. An adult who errs by rules is forgivable. An wise man who errs despite his vast knowledge of a subject is forgivable. Yet the inverse is not true: a wise man who relies upon rules when he is masterful is suspect, an adult who relies upon virtue is suspect. A child who relies upon anything other than virtue is suspect. -One’s Abilities- There is a reason why women and people of lower IQ favor religion, why people in the liberal arts favor philosophy and pseudoscience, and why men and people of higher IQ favor history and science. That is because they possess the means by which to acquire and use those systems of of thought given their experience and ability. Furthermore, the acquisition of virtue, rule and outcome knowledge is costly to the individual. Not all can afford the investment, and not all have access to the literature or teachers from whom they can learn it. We do not expect feral children to demonstrate any of the ethical frameworks, and it is very difficult not to expect a first world child not to posses at least virtue ethics, if not rule ethics, and we attempt (possibly, if not probably, foolishly) to teach our children outcome ethics in the present era. -One’s control over one’s actions in life- Different philosophies whether virtuous, rational, or scientific are more or less use in different circumstances. We can break philosophies into: 1-religions, 2-disciplines 3-rationalisms(philosophies), 4-laws, and 5-sciences. It is very hard to classify any one of the bodies of thought below because all philosophical systems contain attributes of each category. I’ve organized them the best that I can. -Religions- (faith) — Christianity provides a body of myth and ritual with but one purpose: the extension of kinship love to non kin, as a means of generating universal inclusiveness. It is a religion of benevolent pacification cured only by it’s opposite in the martial nobility. Islam provides rules and virtues for people with limited intelligence to observe and daily rituals to enforce them – although this is a false promise since it achieves the opposite. I am uncomfortable commending on Hinduism since I am not sure I really understand it sufficiently (I see it through buddha’s eyes, as needing reformation), and all other ‘religions’ that I know of have been unsuccessful, or are obviously detrimental. Japan’s Shintoism combines both monarchy, ancestor worship and buddhism to produce fealty to family, clan, tribe and nation, as well as self control. For an homogenous people the combination of history, nature worship, and self control is hard to criticize other than the people are often frustrated and emotionally repressed. –Disciplines– (training) —Buddhism provides a means of achieving personal satisfaction for those who live in worlds where they have few resources, few options, little control over their circumstances. It focuses on the self. Combined with Yoga it is extremely attractive to women. Stoicism provides a means of achieving personal happiness for those who live in civilized worlds but who have little control over their environments. Stoicism is the opposite of buddhism in that buddhism achieves satisfaction by escapism and internal discipline, while stoicism achieves satisfaction by means of creating many small successes in daily life, accumulating in your achievement of virtue independent of the opinions of others. Combined with Sport it is extremely attractive to men. I tend to have a favorable view of both buddhism and stoicism. –Rationalisms— (reasoning) —Confucianism provides a means of obtaining satisfaction by conformity to fixed roles in society and providing us with wisdom for operating within those roles. Unfortunately Confucianism is paired with Sun Tzu: the philosophy of deception, and Lao Tzu: the philosophy of the poor within a hierarchical system. Together they advocate submission to authority as a means of avoiding conflict. Ancient Greco-Roman Philosophy – prior to Aristotle is interesting for the breadth of experiment that occurred in seeking a solution. I recommend The Ethics and the Politics. That’s all. Christian Natural Law Philosophy – Aquinas is interesting, but I would recommend skipping him, reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on Natural Law instead. Anglo Empirical (Moral) Philosophy – Locke, Smith and Hume constitute the enlightenment philosophers of necessity. Continental Philosophy – is reactionary in order to compensate for the disorder produced by the errors in anglo empirical philosophy’s assumption of an aristocracy of everyone. So Continental is little more than an attempt to create a rational rather than supernatural justification of existing moral orders. There is plenty of wisdom in that philosophy, and great aspiration to it. Especially Nietzsche, who is the point of demarcation between christian mysticism and naturalistic philosophy. but it is also the source pseudoscience and lies. Cosmopolitan Philosophy (Pseudoscience, Loading, framing and overloading) Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard. The only cosmopolitan I recommend is Popper and while he is most definitely a cosmopolitan, he adopted Hayek’s information theory. (When I criticize rationalism it is the incremental development of pseudoscience and deceit by justificationism, loading, framing, and overloading that I am trying to reverse with Testimonialism. The anglos philosophers were wrong in their assumptions of man, but right in their method of argument. The continentals were right in their assumptions of man but wrong in their method of argument. The cosmopolitans were dishonest in their articulation of man, and dishonest in their method of argument.) Anglo Ratio-Scientific (Legal) Philosophy – Anglo Common Law, Machiavelli, Jefferson, Pareto, Durkheim, (Popper), Hayek, (Doolittle). Science: The discovery of general rules by repeated observation resulting in accumulated wisdom. Virtue, Rules, Wisdom, where wisdom feeds back to virtue and rules. This is an inter-generational process of empirical refinement. –Laws– (captured rules) —Judaism provides a means for not only exiting their incompetent classes but an entire body of law to master, and overwhelming pressure to remain within the polity which is ensured by the hostility to outsiders and therefore outsider hostility to insiders. Judaism is perhaps the ultimate synthesis of rule based systems and history even if it is a failed system because it lacks the moral content necessary to hold land. It originated with pastoralists and remains a pastorialist (unlanded) doctrine. It lacks intertemporal moral content. That is why the jews cannot hold land. Anglo Constitutionalism expresses philosophy as law and very much under natural law, presumably as logically and scientifically constructed as is possible. Most americans are legalists – the law as religious order. Legalism can be thought of as the struggle to understand the laws of cooperation, just as we understand the laws of the physical universe. All anglo legal theory is an empirical attempt to discover and codify natural law in the absence of human discretion. This is a scientific experiment unique to anglo civilization. It is flawed only by the assumption that it is in the interests of the lower classes to compete meritocratic-ally. The fact is that only with eugenic manorialism or a substitute can such a system function. This is why no other groups use it. They are too weighted down with the lower classes who are incapable of competition and cooperation by moral means. (I tend to view law as the ultimate expression of any philosophy (which as an anglo american I would). But then I am action oriented, from the martial and commercial class, and arguably a member of the lesser aristocracy.) –Science– (investigation) —Aristotelianism (what we call science) is demanding and at times forces us to confront uncomfortable truths, but at least when large numbers of us adopt it, we are able to master reality better than all other philosophies combined. The problem is that it is an aristocratic philosophy because it requires great effort and ability to learn and apply. Which is why we invest so heavily in education: we must. Secondly, science is the study of cause and effect. But scientific analysis implies the ability to act with discretion. At the same time, rule of law exists to prevent discretion, and thereby create rules that prevent others from using discretion to manipulate us. Third, it is contentious open question whether at any scale discretionary action does more harm than good, or whether rule based action prohibits discretion when it may be beneficial. To no small degree this debate between the purpose of social science being the development of rules (conservatism) or the development of discretion (progressivism) is the cause of the political conflict of visions. Hence Sowell’s criticism of the progressive “vision of the anointed’. And it is the source of conflict between the Austrian (do nothing or naturalistic/german), Freshwater (develop rules/anglo) and Saltwater(discretionary/jewish) schools of economics – which is the discipline has evolved into our only social science. RECOMMENDATIONS So when you ask me “Where should I start in philosophy” the above understanding provides us with a framework for answering that question. You can seek to learn virtue, seek to learn wisdom, seek to learn scientific laws. You can seek personal fulfillment independent of the world at the lower end of the spectrum, or you can seek personal fulfillment within the rich competition of the world. Or you can seek comprehension of all – politics – even if you choose to pursue only personal of familial happiness. If you cause no harm by externality then I suppose that I don’t care which you choose. I would recommend that you know the truth first, and then read the ancient texts for insight into the wisdom of each age. But this is mere entertainment. These were old technologies that have been replaced with new technologies. it is sometimes entertaining to study watchmaking in an era of computer science, but it is merely entertainment, not necessary information. I cannot give counsel on that choice. I can give you counsel if you choose law and science. This is partly because I was born naturally analytical and less affected by signals and emotions than most. If you are, as are many women, the opposite, then you may need to choose a different method of achieving happiness. But, if by some chance, if you want to know the truth, regardless of the burden it places upon you then I will recommend that you start here: START WITH THE GOAL 1) The Meditations of Aurelius. Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics. In that order. THEN THE THEORY 1) Popper’s Knowledge and Ignorance and Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society. and Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson which will teach you the basic principle of costs in equilibrium. A brief introduction to Popper’s Critical Rationalism online, even if it is the few paragraphs on my site, In which you will be introduced to the darwinian approach to the evolution of knowledge. At which point you will understand that in the physical, social, and cognitive sciences, we speak in terms of information causing changes in state. Which is, as far as I know, the present, if not final, model of all human understanding about any domain. NEXT THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS 2) The Magna Carta, The Declaration, Constitution, Bill of rights. The Milsom’s history of the common law. Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, and Law, Legislation and Liberty. THEN GO FOR WISDOM : THE SHORT LIST Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans John Keegan: A History Of Warfare Joseph Campbell : The Hero’s Journey Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation Bryan Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe David Hackett Fischer: Albion‘s Seed: Four British Folkways in America Daniel Hannan: Inventing Freedom Alan MacFarlane : Origins of English Individualism Gregory Clark: A Farewell to Alms Matt Ridley: The Red Queen Dale Petersen: Demonic Males Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow Francis Fukuyama: Trust Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed Doolittle: Propertarianism. THE LONGER LIST If you read those works you will be able to both (a) understand testimonialism, propertarianism, and (b) work through the rest of my reading list at www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/ which is, as far as I know, the sum of works worth investment given our current knowledge of the technology of cooperation. And after that it’s just experience and wisdom. And in gaining it, sorting the scarce kernels of wisdom from the vast chaff of human intellectual history. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • A Catalogue of Lies

    Knowledge: Knowing what’s tragic about our current postmodern era, is not the same as knowing what was exceptional about the the modern, medieval, and ancient eras. The Incremental Suppression of Predation: Requires Property-en-toto, The Common law, Rule of Law, Universal Standing in matters of the commons, and an independent and professional Judiciary. Rule of Law: Governments cannot make law, only contracts within the law. All else is not Law, but dictate (command). The Art of Predation: Murder, Violence, Theft, Fraud, Extortion, Externalization, Free-Riding, Conspiracy, Displacement, and Conquest. The Era Of Deceit: The 20th Century will be remembered in intellectual history as an era of mysticism, pseudoscience, innumeracy, propaganda and deceit. The Left’s Program of Deceit: The only reason the left could complete its program of deceit was because we failed to protect the informational commons. Tragedy at each compass point: Progressive lying and theft, conservative ignorance and stupidity, and libertarian cluelessness. Tactics Must Remain Moral: We can morally adopt some of the tactics of the left (shaming). But we cannot adopt their lying The Lie of Non-Violence: There is nothing untrue, dishonest, and immoral in the application of violence for the purpose of restitution. Just the opposite. The Lie of Appeasement: Appeasement of competitors is merely taking a present discount at future cost to your civilization. It’s just theft. It’s deceitful. It’s immoral. Liar The Lie of Conviction: The difference between convenience and conviction is whether you obtain a discount or pay a cost. Anything else is just excuse. The Lie of Tolerance: You’re not showing tolerance. You’re failing to pay the high cost of defense. It is what it is. Liar. The Lie of Democracy: Democracy can choose between priorities in matters of equal interest, but not in matters of competing interest. That’s just majority tyranny, not choice. The Lie of Assent: Like democracy assent is dishonest. The honest question is whether any dissent is moral. Otherwise assent is just creating an mandatory opportunity for rent seeking. The Lie of Equality: Not only are we unequal in ability and interest, but male and female reproductive strategies while compatible are in conflict, and the classes while compatible are in competition. To state we are equal in ability or interest is simply a lie to justify the tyranny of majoritarianism, and by consequence parasitic and dysgenic proletarian rule to maintain a parasitic and entrenched and unaccountable monopoly bureaucracy. The Lie of Conflating individual Law and Familial Commons: The law (a negative) must be constructed for individuals because only individuals can act parasitically, the commons (a positive ) must be constructed for families because only families can reproduce.  All else is mere parasitism off future generations. The Lie of Intergenerational Parasitism (rather than Intergenerational Cooperation): The Lie of Economic Innumeracy: — The Lie of Laundering and Pooling: — The Lie of Rallying and Shaming:  — and many more…  

  • A Catalogue of Lies

    Knowledge: Knowing what’s tragic about our current postmodern era, is not the same as knowing what was exceptional about the the modern, medieval, and ancient eras. The Incremental Suppression of Predation: Requires Property-en-toto, The Common law, Rule of Law, Universal Standing in matters of the commons, and an independent and professional Judiciary. Rule of Law: Governments cannot make law, only contracts within the law. All else is not Law, but dictate (command). The Art of Predation: Murder, Violence, Theft, Fraud, Extortion, Externalization, Free-Riding, Conspiracy, Displacement, and Conquest. The Era Of Deceit: The 20th Century will be remembered in intellectual history as an era of mysticism, pseudoscience, innumeracy, propaganda and deceit. The Left’s Program of Deceit: The only reason the left could complete its program of deceit was because we failed to protect the informational commons. Tragedy at each compass point: Progressive lying and theft, conservative ignorance and stupidity, and libertarian cluelessness. Tactics Must Remain Moral: We can morally adopt some of the tactics of the left (shaming). But we cannot adopt their lying The Lie of Non-Violence: There is nothing untrue, dishonest, and immoral in the application of violence for the purpose of restitution. Just the opposite. The Lie of Appeasement: Appeasement of competitors is merely taking a present discount at future cost to your civilization. It’s just theft. It’s deceitful. It’s immoral. Liar The Lie of Conviction: The difference between convenience and conviction is whether you obtain a discount or pay a cost. Anything else is just excuse. The Lie of Tolerance: You’re not showing tolerance. You’re failing to pay the high cost of defense. It is what it is. Liar. The Lie of Democracy: Democracy can choose between priorities in matters of equal interest, but not in matters of competing interest. That’s just majority tyranny, not choice. The Lie of Assent: Like democracy assent is dishonest. The honest question is whether any dissent is moral. Otherwise assent is just creating an mandatory opportunity for rent seeking. The Lie of Equality: Not only are we unequal in ability and interest, but male and female reproductive strategies while compatible are in conflict, and the classes while compatible are in competition. To state we are equal in ability or interest is simply a lie to justify the tyranny of majoritarianism, and by consequence parasitic and dysgenic proletarian rule to maintain a parasitic and entrenched and unaccountable monopoly bureaucracy. The Lie of Conflating individual Law and Familial Commons: The law (a negative) must be constructed for individuals because only individuals can act parasitically, the commons (a positive ) must be constructed for families because only families can reproduce.  All else is mere parasitism off future generations. The Lie of Intergenerational Parasitism (rather than Intergenerational Cooperation): The Lie of Economic Innumeracy: — The Lie of Laundering and Pooling: — The Lie of Rallying and Shaming:  — and many more…  

  • The Great Error, And The Great Lie To Compensate For It.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
    [A]merica was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot. The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men. The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law. Everyone else is a free rider. The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights. The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests. And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders. All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing. But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history. And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so. This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism. Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960. But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death. All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
    [A]t this point in time we know that the economic benefit of slavery in the states, and the desire of the throne to ban slavery were in conflict. We also know that the americans didn’t want to pay the crown for the defense in the french and indian war, yet the british felt that they had nearly bankrupted the crown to protect the colonies. We also know that the americans were desperate to remain united with the crown. We also know that the crown could not for some reason develop the solution of a separate house for the colonies, or grant them membership in the house. The problem was solvable in 1775, but no one thought about legal dissent instead of democratic assent, or new houses for newly enfranchised interests.  It’s tragic. The tragedy of my people. Makes me sad as hell. – Curt

  • The Great Error, And The Great Lie To Compensate For It.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
    [A]merica was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot. The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men. The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law. Everyone else is a free rider. The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights. The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests. And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders. All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing. But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history. And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so. This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism. Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960. But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death. All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
    [A]t this point in time we know that the economic benefit of slavery in the states, and the desire of the throne to ban slavery were in conflict. We also know that the americans didn’t want to pay the crown for the defense in the french and indian war, yet the british felt that they had nearly bankrupted the crown to protect the colonies. We also know that the americans were desperate to remain united with the crown. We also know that the crown could not for some reason develop the solution of a separate house for the colonies, or grant them membership in the house. The problem was solvable in 1775, but no one thought about legal dissent instead of democratic assent, or new houses for newly enfranchised interests.  It’s tragic. The tragedy of my people. Makes me sad as hell. – Curt

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Is Christianity Deceitful?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”

    —“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—

    ANSWER: [H]ave you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it. If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity. So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead. My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means. The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd. Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought. If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’? What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of. So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful. What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite? What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism? What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies? What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable? So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it. We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries. A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man. But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential – just as we were in the medieval era: “the dark ages”. Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Is Christianity Deceitful?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”

    —“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—

    ANSWER: [H]ave you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it. If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity. So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead. My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means. The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd. Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought. If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’? What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of. So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful. What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite? What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism? What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies? What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable? So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it. We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries. A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man. But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential – just as we were in the medieval era: “the dark ages”. Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • The Architecture of Propertarianism

    [T]hinking through the remainder of Propertarianism. WHICH COMMUNICATION METHOD? 1) Poem / Parable / Story / Novel / Play, (analogy), Dostoyevsky, Orwell 2) Essay(Advice / Preference), Locke, Smith, and Hume. 3) Argument(scholarly persuasion / Necessity), Darwin. 4) Prescription (law, actionable / requirement ), The US Constitution. 5) Bible(Law+Myth, Pedagogy) Koran, Hebrew law. The Western Canon

    ETHICAL METHODS 1) Virtue Ethics (Imitation) – in Youth – Using Story 2) Deontological Ethics (Rules) – at Maturity – Using Prescription(Law) or Argument 3) Teleological Ethics (Outcomes) – when Aged – Using Essay or Bible LIFE EXPERIENCE REQUIRED 1) Youth – Little Experience – virtue ethics – outcomes 2) Maturity – Some Experience – Deontological ethics. 3) Aged – Much : Teleological ethics – outcomes. REQUIREMENTS 1) Durable medium – the longer the better. myths last forever. 2) Pedagogical – can be taught by parable or by rule, or studied to gain wisdom. 3) Hard to criticize – can survive decades if not centuries of criticism THOUGHTS [M]y first draft in 2006 was an essay. The second draft in 2013 was an argument. But both were plagued by ideosyncratic language. So (on advice from hoppe) I rewrote it using standard philosophical language, using the five branches of philosophy as the skeleton. Over the past two years, I’ve been able to condense the arguments substantially, and make them more comprehensible. Mostly through continuing to enumerate a number of spectra. And at this point, Propertarianism is much closer to Spinoza’s extremely parsimonious work than Smith’s windy narrative, and Hume or Kant’s, structured arguments. My intuition tells me that since propertarianism and testimonialism constitute a LEGAL philosophy (a political philosophy expressed as law), that I should not really get into the business of defending each of the propositions. I would lose the reader. And rather than justify the reasoning I should merely DEMONSTRATE it’s explanatory power. I should state the law as “given x, we seek y, by doing z, and this is moral because of w.” Then to follow with examples showing adherence to the rule, then failure to adhere to the rule. Then to address every possible questions of conflict both private and public that I can (like the reformed Torah). The intuition that I should write Propertrianism (Testimonialism) as a legal version of the 48 Laws of Power (book) has been nagging me for years now. And it’s held up consistently enough that I don’t think it’s going to change. I am incapable of writing a novel. Novels, Essays and Arguments are not as durable as laws and bibles. And I want Propertariaism(Testimonialism) to be durable. For centuries. At least. So the big question is: “can I write a bible”. And the answer, I think is yes. Science, Philosophy, Morality, Law, Politics and Religion in a single volume. All identical. All unified.

  • The Architecture of Propertarianism

    [T]hinking through the remainder of Propertarianism. WHICH COMMUNICATION METHOD? 1) Poem / Parable / Story / Novel / Play, (analogy), Dostoyevsky, Orwell 2) Essay(Advice / Preference), Locke, Smith, and Hume. 3) Argument(scholarly persuasion / Necessity), Darwin. 4) Prescription (law, actionable / requirement ), The US Constitution. 5) Bible(Law+Myth, Pedagogy) Koran, Hebrew law. The Western Canon

    ETHICAL METHODS 1) Virtue Ethics (Imitation) – in Youth – Using Story 2) Deontological Ethics (Rules) – at Maturity – Using Prescription(Law) or Argument 3) Teleological Ethics (Outcomes) – when Aged – Using Essay or Bible LIFE EXPERIENCE REQUIRED 1) Youth – Little Experience – virtue ethics – outcomes 2) Maturity – Some Experience – Deontological ethics. 3) Aged – Much : Teleological ethics – outcomes. REQUIREMENTS 1) Durable medium – the longer the better. myths last forever. 2) Pedagogical – can be taught by parable or by rule, or studied to gain wisdom. 3) Hard to criticize – can survive decades if not centuries of criticism THOUGHTS [M]y first draft in 2006 was an essay. The second draft in 2013 was an argument. But both were plagued by ideosyncratic language. So (on advice from hoppe) I rewrote it using standard philosophical language, using the five branches of philosophy as the skeleton. Over the past two years, I’ve been able to condense the arguments substantially, and make them more comprehensible. Mostly through continuing to enumerate a number of spectra. And at this point, Propertarianism is much closer to Spinoza’s extremely parsimonious work than Smith’s windy narrative, and Hume or Kant’s, structured arguments. My intuition tells me that since propertarianism and testimonialism constitute a LEGAL philosophy (a political philosophy expressed as law), that I should not really get into the business of defending each of the propositions. I would lose the reader. And rather than justify the reasoning I should merely DEMONSTRATE it’s explanatory power. I should state the law as “given x, we seek y, by doing z, and this is moral because of w.” Then to follow with examples showing adherence to the rule, then failure to adhere to the rule. Then to address every possible questions of conflict both private and public that I can (like the reformed Torah). The intuition that I should write Propertrianism (Testimonialism) as a legal version of the 48 Laws of Power (book) has been nagging me for years now. And it’s held up consistently enough that I don’t think it’s going to change. I am incapable of writing a novel. Novels, Essays and Arguments are not as durable as laws and bibles. And I want Propertariaism(Testimonialism) to be durable. For centuries. At least. So the big question is: “can I write a bible”. And the answer, I think is yes. Science, Philosophy, Morality, Law, Politics and Religion in a single volume. All identical. All unified.

  • Law: Genetic Pacification: The Problem of Retaliation.

    [I] think that anyone with knowledge of the intellectual history of law is keenly aware of the church’s problem of breaking up the large family holdings, and the law’s problem of preventing retaliation.

    What I think has proven difficult for most people in the conservative and certainly in the libertarian movements, is the recognition that property rights must extend to cover all those impositions that invoke retaliation.

    —-“Frost and Harpending argue that Human nature has been domesticated through breeding out violent men by the state. HBD chick & Jayman are arguing that the state replaced clan violence and directed it toward its enemies. It‘s really a question of whether cooperation with strangers on a mass scale occurred before or after the rise of the state. They agree on most things, “Yes, I see the two processes as being complementary. The dissolution of clannishness was both a cause and an effect of the pacification of social relations.”—-Bret Lynn

    (See http://www.europeanguardian.com/82-uncategorised/science/4-western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification)

    While we consider the central problem the state, the state is the result of suppressing private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

    But the central problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

    First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity.  Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.