Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • DIFFERENCES IN SEXUALITY AND THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES (important) Male sexuality

    DIFFERENCES IN SEXUALITY AND THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

    (important)

    Male sexuality differs from female sexuality (which is ‘mental’) in that it is physical… a need … that increases in intensity with the degree of testosterone (in both sexes by the way).

    Women cannot grasp this whatsoever. In general, women can’t empathize except in social matters. I tell women to compare how a male feels about sex to a MUCH stronger version of the moodiness or ‘cranky-ness’ they feel during their PMS – except it’s ten times more aggressive, and it returns ‘returns’ gradually within three to seven days after the last time they had sex. In other words, men tend to ‘cycle’ about two to four times as fast as women do. And that men have no more control over that impulse than women do over their PMS impulses.

    This explanation tends to help women understand it. We are both victims of those cycles. But we feel attraction very differently. Women cycle slower, and men faster. Men physically and women mentally. Men visually and women experientially. It’s not very complicated.

    So a male with reasonably high testosterone but who, for genetic, psychological, intellectual, cultural, personal, or age reasons is unable to gain access to sex, will seek outlets for this ‘anger’ – and will be a happier and more peaceful person because of it.

    I usually suggest that between low cost protein, msg-saturated foods, video games, and pornography, it appears that we can explain the decline in violence, crime, and particularly sex crimes over the past three decades. Adding ‘robotic sex’ will only increase this effect. (BTW: anti-depressants can solve this problem for men as well, while physical exercise may increase it.)

    Single men unable to obtain sex are very dangerous between 15-25 in the white population, and 13-29 in the black population. They impose DIRECT costs on the society by their frustration and aggression.

    Single women under 25 without children are just as dangerous, but INDIRECTLY dangerous – their ‘crimes’ are those that impose costs on society by externality rather than directly.

    And this is the problem with our education system providing very little value after 6th grade, the extension of childhood rather than incremental participation in the economy, and the reduction of marriage because of extended childhood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 11:54:00 UTC

  • (I realize that you might get a skewed impression of how i much value women and

    (I realize that you might get a skewed impression of how i much value women and what ends I will go to for them. But I am working to solve the problem of conflict between the genders, and the tragedy of democracy. I have a decidedly unhealthy need to care for women and feel unhappy when I don’t.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 13:29:00 UTC

  • GOVERNMENTS IN TIMES OF CONFLICT OR COOPERATION CHANGE/WAR 1) Socialism = centra

    GOVERNMENTS IN TIMES OF CONFLICT OR COOPERATION

    CHANGE/WAR

    1) Socialism = central control of private and commons for the purpose of conducting warfare on one”s own people, for the purpose of transitioning a backward people. Very strong.

    2) Fascism = Central control of the commons. Private control of production. But limited to Autarkic opportunities. Funding of nationalism. (fascism is a means of conducting economic warfare in times of stress). Very strong.

    3) Napoleonism = total mobilization of the public and private economy for military economic and institutional warfare. Very strong.

    —vs–

    STEADY STATE / COMMERCE

    3) Aristocracy / Monarchy (steady state)

    Private ownership of property and commons. but weak.

    2) Republicanism / Oligarchy / Nobility (steady state)

    Private ownership of property and commons but weak.

    1) Social Democracy (steady State)

    Private ownership of property and commons but weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 10:03:00 UTC

  • The Scope of Propertarianism

    THE SCOPE OF MY WORK ON PROPERTARIANISM: Propertarianism’s Natural Law includes: Transcendence, Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Decidability, Markets for Association, Cooperation, Production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies at all levels. Let’s look at that again as a hierarchy: 1) Transcendence (of man to human then to gods.) 2) Agency, (by the production of agency) 3) Sovereignty, (by the demand for sovereignty) 4) Reciprocity, (limiting us to reciprocity) 5) Decidability, (providing us with decidability) 6) Markets: (limiting us to voluntary markets) … Association, … Cooperation, … Production, … Reproduction, … Production of commons, … Production of polities, … Production of group evolutionary strategies at all levels. (and in the end producing eugenic evolution without intentional design) 7) Property (property in toto. The method of commensurability of changes in state via reciprocity.) 8) The Logic, Grammar and Syntax of Cooperation. 9) Testimonialism: the means of warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Western civilization has disproportionately raised mankind out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, tyranny, and disease in short order in both the ancient and modern eras. We achieved this through the use of soverignty, deflationary truth and deflationary organizations, producing competition as the means of testing all possible ideas, information, services, and products. Because we rely on constantly changing markets we can respond to changes in markets, and our institutions must respond to changes in markets for violence, gossip, and remuneration. And we are able to do this because for most of our history we have incrementally expanded natural law – markets into all walks of life, ensuring that we can adapt faster than other civilizations to change – even if that means we have generation long wars in order to change between eras: but at least we change while others stagnate. So while some of us desire the experiential consumption made possible by the west’s civilization, and others desire ‘not to be defeated by evil’, others desire sovereignty, others desire clan, tribal, national, or racial persistence – others desire the transcendence of man. And all of these desires can be fulfilled under natural law as long as we are willing to prevent those who are unwilling and unable to participate in that effort from reproduction. The opposite view is simply the opposite desires across the same spectrum: current consumption, and persistence of one’s genes despite the evidence that they force costs on mankind for eternity. Natural Law completes the sciences up to sentience. We cannot solve sentience with the information currently at our disposal, although it appears that it is on the horizon of our abilities.

  • The Scope of Propertarianism

    THE SCOPE OF MY WORK ON PROPERTARIANISM: Propertarianism’s Natural Law includes: Transcendence, Agency, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Decidability, Markets for Association, Cooperation, Production, reproduction, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies at all levels. Let’s look at that again as a hierarchy: 1) Transcendence (of man to human then to gods.) 2) Agency, (by the production of agency) 3) Sovereignty, (by the demand for sovereignty) 4) Reciprocity, (limiting us to reciprocity) 5) Decidability, (providing us with decidability) 6) Markets: (limiting us to voluntary markets) … Association, … Cooperation, … Production, … Reproduction, … Production of commons, … Production of polities, … Production of group evolutionary strategies at all levels. (and in the end producing eugenic evolution without intentional design) 7) Property (property in toto. The method of commensurability of changes in state via reciprocity.) 8) The Logic, Grammar and Syntax of Cooperation. 9) Testimonialism: the means of warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Western civilization has disproportionately raised mankind out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, tyranny, and disease in short order in both the ancient and modern eras. We achieved this through the use of soverignty, deflationary truth and deflationary organizations, producing competition as the means of testing all possible ideas, information, services, and products. Because we rely on constantly changing markets we can respond to changes in markets, and our institutions must respond to changes in markets for violence, gossip, and remuneration. And we are able to do this because for most of our history we have incrementally expanded natural law – markets into all walks of life, ensuring that we can adapt faster than other civilizations to change – even if that means we have generation long wars in order to change between eras: but at least we change while others stagnate. So while some of us desire the experiential consumption made possible by the west’s civilization, and others desire ‘not to be defeated by evil’, others desire sovereignty, others desire clan, tribal, national, or racial persistence – others desire the transcendence of man. And all of these desires can be fulfilled under natural law as long as we are willing to prevent those who are unwilling and unable to participate in that effort from reproduction. The opposite view is simply the opposite desires across the same spectrum: current consumption, and persistence of one’s genes despite the evidence that they force costs on mankind for eternity. Natural Law completes the sciences up to sentience. We cannot solve sentience with the information currently at our disposal, although it appears that it is on the horizon of our abilities.

  • Through Brotherhood We Transcend Ourselves, Our People And MN

    THROUGH BROTHERHOOD WE TRANSCEND OURSELVES, OUR PEOPLE, AND MAN It is only through the brotherhood of warriors that we can construct the contract of reciprocity, that insures our sovereignty, and as such, as a consequence of that sovereignty, we can only act and speak without violating that contract by use of the natural, common, law of sovereign men, a judicial ‘priesthood’ that masters and evolves the technology of that law, a market for freedom of association and disassociation; a market for reproduction(family); a market for the production of goods, services, and information; a market for the production of commons; a monarchy as a judge of contracts of last resort, and a market for polities under which each clan, tribe, and nation, can construct commons that assist every family, clan, tribe, and nation, in competing against the dark forces of time, ignorance, the vicissitudes of nature, and the devolutionary demands of the ‘lesser peoples’ of this world. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Through Brotherhood We Transcend Ourselves, Our People And MN

    THROUGH BROTHERHOOD WE TRANSCEND OURSELVES, OUR PEOPLE, AND MAN It is only through the brotherhood of warriors that we can construct the contract of reciprocity, that insures our sovereignty, and as such, as a consequence of that sovereignty, we can only act and speak without violating that contract by use of the natural, common, law of sovereign men, a judicial ‘priesthood’ that masters and evolves the technology of that law, a market for freedom of association and disassociation; a market for reproduction(family); a market for the production of goods, services, and information; a market for the production of commons; a monarchy as a judge of contracts of last resort, and a market for polities under which each clan, tribe, and nation, can construct commons that assist every family, clan, tribe, and nation, in competing against the dark forces of time, ignorance, the vicissitudes of nature, and the devolutionary demands of the ‘lesser peoples’ of this world. Curt Doolittle The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • The Greater Good? Three Branches of Economics, Three Group Strategies

    Apr 28, 2017 2:50pm THE GREATER GOOD???? We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism. Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders. By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment. By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature. In the literature we find: 1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy. 2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information. 3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function. 4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics: a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”. b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School” c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School” I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.

  • The Greater Good? Three Branches of Economics, Three Group Strategies

    Apr 28, 2017 2:50pm THE GREATER GOOD???? We do not ever know the ‘greater good’ and we are continually saturated with lies as to possible ‘greater goods’ and impossible greater goods. And it turns out that all successful appeals to ‘greater goods’ are in fact, merely pretenses for parasitism. Because we are forever ignorant, we cannot know goods, or truths, only bads or falsehoods. As such the greater good can only be obtained by removal of known bads: the natural common law of torts. The demand for reciprocity. And the punishment of offenders. By this (via-negativa) removal of bads, only voluntary market-produced goods can be brought into existence, in any form, whether as material goods, services, or information for consumption or as material goods, services or information for direct investment, or for material goods, services, or information for the production of commons as an indirect investment. By profits from the (via-negativa) removal of bads, and the production of the voluntary organization of production of private, semi-private, and common goods, services, and information, we are then able to insure one another against the vicissitudes of nature. In the literature we find: 1) Totalitarianism of the underclass socialists to use discretion to organize production and perform discretionary redistribution of proceeds as a means of aggressive transition of people from a state far behind competitors; This approach requires existential information to make use of, and is indifferent to the demographic quality, and absence of market economy. 2) The progressive ‘representational’ use of pareto optimums to justify forcible redistribution and the expansion of the dead weight of the underclass (Rawlsian social democracy) as a means of using population to defeat competitors. This approach requires existential market economies to make use of reduced production of information. 3) And we find the conservative ‘aristocratic’ use of Nash equilibriums (classical liberalism/contractualism under natural law) to justify meritocracy and voluntary cooperation and eugenic reduction of the dead weight of the underclasses as means of remaining ahead of competitors. This approach requires existentially reduced lower classes, existential market economies, and existential high trust within that economy to function. 4) To support these three literatures we find three branches of economics: a) the “Saltwater and Discretionary School”. b) The “Freshwater and Rule of Law School” c) The “German/Austrian Political Economy School” I can answer further questions about political models, demographic demands, and the supposed wisdom of crowds, but you wouldn’t believe how much of the totality of political thought is contained in those few paragraphs.

  • Noah J Revoy Ruthless selfishness is not an advantage to a group. In-group prefe

    Noah J RevoyRuthless selfishness is not an advantage to a group. In-group preference however is. Whites are still by far the strongest race as judged by what we produce (inventions, culture, GDP), we are still histories best warriors and we can easily take over the whole world if we wanted to. The problem is that we have lost our will to power. Generation X is however a return to our roots. They are pissed off that the Baby Boomers squandered the sacrifices of our ancestors and they are willing to take back our birth right. Whites have hit bottom and we are now starting to turn it around.