Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Religion provides social and psychic goods

    Religion provides social and psychic goods

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 04:23:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747646492874248192

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez @EndTaysachs @garrettlgray @Flatland_USA @Alt_Left @wolfe_fan @nunzioni @faktisk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747580920320819200

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747580920320819200

  • MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits hi

    MAN IS MERELY RATIONAL

    Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation.

    Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-26 13:28:00 UTC

  • Nietzsche’s Morality Isn’t

    Nietzche had little understanding of law(dispute resolution), and less understanding if not no understanding of its opposite: economics (cooperation). When he says ‘morality’ he means ‘convention’. and in that sense, convention may or may not survive moral scrutiny. That does not mean that there are no moral statements. It’s easy to define them. The question is instead whether moral action serves the desired purpose. Just as whether violence serves the desired purpose. Just as whether deception serves the desired purpose. Convention places no limits on man other than the cost he bears for abridging it. Not all our purposes need be moral, as long as the cost or benefit of immoral action is worth it to us. That is different from saying that we cannot determine moral actions. We can. But whether we DESIRE COOPERATION or not is a test of morality. Whether something suites our PURPOSES or not is a question of utility and the cost of it. This is where almost all philosophers are confused. They treat moral as the equivalent of good, rather than moral as what is necessary to achieve good through cooperation. But if the proposed good that might come from cooperation is undesirable, or a net negative, then moral action is not useful. What do these words mean? Moral = preserves or encourages cooperation by the non-imposition of costs. Immoral = inhibits or discourages cooperation by the imposition of costs. The fact that the MORAL is approximately equal to the good for ingroup members, with whom we wish to cooperate, has no bearing when we DO NOT WISH to cooperate with members ingroup or outgroup. Non cooperation is merely a question of cost. Is cooperation more or less valuable in the achievement of our ends? If we do not wish to cooperate, then the moral or immoral is little more than an assistance to us in judging the long-term consequences of our actions because of the possible retaliation of others in times when we are not as strong as we are now. I hope this helps because this appears to be a subject of confusion in the Nietzchean community. Morality is a fairly simple, reasonably scientific fact at this point. Whether a moral action is GOOD or not is a very different question. It may or may not be Good. Just a violence may be moral or immoral, the moral may be useful or not useful. It may be beneficial or it may be harmful. In my work I state that the moral is necessary for long-term competitive survival because of the productivity of labor in the production of everything from food to warfare. In this sense, the moral is good because it makes a group more powerful than others in every dimension – assuming they wish to allocate production to competitive ends. I state that all disputes are resolvable by objectively moral judgments. And it’s true. But this only matters if we want to resolve disputes peacefully, so that we can continue to cooperate and gain the projected benefits of cooperation. That says nothing about whether we want to cooperate – either as individuals or as groups or as nations, with other individuals or groups or nations. We may. Or we may not. I argue only that those who cooperate more, will eventually be more powerful than those who cooperate less. And power enables us to bring about what we desire. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Nietzsche’s Morality Isn’t

    Nietzche had little understanding of law(dispute resolution), and less understanding if not no understanding of its opposite: economics (cooperation). When he says ‘morality’ he means ‘convention’. and in that sense, convention may or may not survive moral scrutiny. That does not mean that there are no moral statements. It’s easy to define them. The question is instead whether moral action serves the desired purpose. Just as whether violence serves the desired purpose. Just as whether deception serves the desired purpose. Convention places no limits on man other than the cost he bears for abridging it. Not all our purposes need be moral, as long as the cost or benefit of immoral action is worth it to us. That is different from saying that we cannot determine moral actions. We can. But whether we DESIRE COOPERATION or not is a test of morality. Whether something suites our PURPOSES or not is a question of utility and the cost of it. This is where almost all philosophers are confused. They treat moral as the equivalent of good, rather than moral as what is necessary to achieve good through cooperation. But if the proposed good that might come from cooperation is undesirable, or a net negative, then moral action is not useful. What do these words mean? Moral = preserves or encourages cooperation by the non-imposition of costs. Immoral = inhibits or discourages cooperation by the imposition of costs. The fact that the MORAL is approximately equal to the good for ingroup members, with whom we wish to cooperate, has no bearing when we DO NOT WISH to cooperate with members ingroup or outgroup. Non cooperation is merely a question of cost. Is cooperation more or less valuable in the achievement of our ends? If we do not wish to cooperate, then the moral or immoral is little more than an assistance to us in judging the long-term consequences of our actions because of the possible retaliation of others in times when we are not as strong as we are now. I hope this helps because this appears to be a subject of confusion in the Nietzchean community. Morality is a fairly simple, reasonably scientific fact at this point. Whether a moral action is GOOD or not is a very different question. It may or may not be Good. Just a violence may be moral or immoral, the moral may be useful or not useful. It may be beneficial or it may be harmful. In my work I state that the moral is necessary for long-term competitive survival because of the productivity of labor in the production of everything from food to warfare. In this sense, the moral is good because it makes a group more powerful than others in every dimension – assuming they wish to allocate production to competitive ends. I state that all disputes are resolvable by objectively moral judgments. And it’s true. But this only matters if we want to resolve disputes peacefully, so that we can continue to cooperate and gain the projected benefits of cooperation. That says nothing about whether we want to cooperate – either as individuals or as groups or as nations, with other individuals or groups or nations. We may. Or we may not. I argue only that those who cooperate more, will eventually be more powerful than those who cooperate less. And power enables us to bring about what we desire. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN. Group solidarity, mem

    MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe.

    Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members.

    For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal.

    It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium.

    So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about.

    In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests.

    There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies.

    SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes.

    This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias.

    Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics.

    Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future.

    For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12.

    Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women.

    There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity.

    Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must.

    This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth.

    The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women.

    You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies.

    We do not reason we fight.

    Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership.

    Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce.

    Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 02:32:00 UTC

  • Men, Women, And Why Men Must Fight To Constrain Our Women.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe. Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members. For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal. It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium. So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about. In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests. There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies. SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes. This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias. Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics. Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future. For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12. Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women. There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity. Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must. This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth. The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women. You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies. We do not reason we fight. Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership. Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce. Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Comments

    Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

  • Men, Women, And Why Men Must Fight To Constrain Our Women.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe. Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members. For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal. It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium. So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about. In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests. There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies. SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes. This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias. Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics. Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future. For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12. Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women. There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity. Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must. This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth. The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women. You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies. We do not reason we fight. Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership. Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce. Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Comments

    Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

  • WE’VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE WRONG INSTITUTION (important piece) Group evolution is

    WE’VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE WRONG INSTITUTION

    (important piece)

    Group evolution is not a matter of specialization, of but the addition of layers of competency in increasingly abstract techniques.

    One cannot abandon the militia for the state.

    One cannot abandon rule of law for market expansion.

    One cannot abandon land holding for the commercial universalism..

    The milita must exist hold the territory and limit the law.

    The Law must exist to hold the nation and limit commerce.

    The Church must exist to hold the mythos and

    The state- that which we call government – is a temporary organization for the purpose of producing temporal commons.

    And that is all. it is a purely utilitarian entity with short term objectives.

    We are focused on the wrong institutions. Government does not matter. Church, law, and militia do.

    Church, and family.

    Law and Nation.

    Militia and Land

    THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

    WE START WITH THE CHURCHES.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 08:35:00 UTC

  • Expert Opinion May Influence Fact, But Not Contract

    Expert opinion may clarify facts, but says not thing about cooperation. Gay marriage is not a matter of fact but a matter of contract. The government forced an involuntary contract (again).
    My opinion is that 1) constructively, marriage consists of (a) reciprocal power of attorney (b) formation of a corporation into which both parties contribute the totality of their assets. (c) reciprocal insurance against vicissitudes of life.
    And that (2) the origin of marriage appears to have been (a) retention of property as the division of labor (merit) increased. (b) a means of preventing fratricide, (c) a means of controlling female reproductivity by preventing her from forcing costs onto the tribe, and (d) an institutional means of absorbing lower class males.
    And that (3) marriage remains either (a) a corporate long-term investment, (b) utility for those who have property, and (c) a disutility under redistributive government.
    And that (4) the purpose of gay marriage can be solved by (1). And that the difference between gay and heterosexual marriage is substantial for the reasons listed above.

  • Expert Opinion May Influence Fact, But Not Contract

    Expert opinion may clarify facts, but says not thing about cooperation. Gay marriage is not a matter of fact but a matter of contract. The government forced an involuntary contract (again).
    My opinion is that 1) constructively, marriage consists of (a) reciprocal power of attorney (b) formation of a corporation into which both parties contribute the totality of their assets. (c) reciprocal insurance against vicissitudes of life.
    And that (2) the origin of marriage appears to have been (a) retention of property as the division of labor (merit) increased. (b) a means of preventing fratricide, (c) a means of controlling female reproductivity by preventing her from forcing costs onto the tribe, and (d) an institutional means of absorbing lower class males.
    And that (3) marriage remains either (a) a corporate long-term investment, (b) utility for those who have property, and (c) a disutility under redistributive government.
    And that (4) the purpose of gay marriage can be solved by (1). And that the difference between gay and heterosexual marriage is substantial for the reasons listed above.