Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • The Militia Separates The West From The Rest

    by ‎Ryan Williams‎ The militia is the institution that is the causal source of the West’s success – that which separates us from the rest of the world.

    To be a Propertarian is to prosecute lies To prosecute, you must have the means to coerce To coerce you must have weapons To use weapons you must have skill To have skill you must practice To practice you must have discipline Leave the momentary pleasures behind, and go sharpen your tools. We have work to do. “Teach him he must deny himself,” said Lee. That was the general’s advice to a young mother who brought her infant to him after the War Between the States to receive his blessing.

  • Our Medieval Religion as Specialization in a Market for Rule of Classes

    In evaluating our medieval religion, we must separate the term “religion” into the strategy, the philosophy, the mythology, the administration, and the rule. And then we must compare it to the alternatives developed in the ancient world, and our traditional religions prior to their destruction by the ancient world. The christian religion was a source of ignorance by providing a false high context narrative that impeded the advancement of knowledge, and imposing the ability to rule by deceit.

    The church was a source of (weak) administration. The church’s philosophy was adequate for uniting european tribes. But it was not in any way a replacement for greco-roman civilization, or the megalithic-pagan civilization that both so diligently exterminated. The church was not in fact all that hostile to science. The state was an advocate, and investor in technology. The state and the people were more dependent upon law and technology than religion and the church. The church created an informational monopoly then as the academy/media/state monopoly now, tended to produce all the narratives – almost all of which are false histories. The restoration of our ancient civilization provided the restoration of our technological knowledge (low context high precision), but what we struggle with today, is providing the narrative (high context low precision) by which we identify and seize opportunities. Demonstrably, our ancient religion (super-normalism), philosophy (stoicism and epicureanism), epistemology (science, reason, naturalism), cooperation(natural, common, law of torts), and virtues (heroism, truth, goodness and beauty), were superior to the medieval church’s. The church provided government for the underclasses just as the warrior aristocracy provided a government for the aristocratic classes. It was this combination that served our people such that both the warrior aristocracy, the practicality of commercial government, and the rule of the underclasses could for ‘specializations’ in a ‘market for rule’. Demonstrably, they are superior to all other cultural portfolios, in one dimension or the other. Unfortunately, our technology needs a narrative. And the one provided by the cosmopolitans is … to put it bluntly… “Evil”.

  • Islam and Byzantium: The Economic and Intellectual Dark Ages

    There are very good reasons that Justinian and Constantine, from the safety of Byzantium, used Syrian and Judaic thought to attack the Greek and Roman Institutions of learning. They did it with malice, intent, and forethought, and while it is true that islam caused the ECONOMIC dark age, the SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL dark age is impossible to divorce from the rise and fall of Christianity. That’s just the evidence. I don’t see any ‘good’ in christianity that was not in roman and greek thought prior to christianity: Aryanism.

    Lies: false promises of utopia in an afterlife, like false promises of economic and status equality, are cheap means of government and parasitism. Rule, using Rule of Law by Natural Law, under the promise of violence, in exchange for taxation (commissions) for the creation of increasingly profitable markets is about as truthful as one can get, for the simple reason that it contains no via-positiva promises, and leaves choice of pursuits to the ruled.

  • Islam and Byzantium: The Economic and Intellectual Dark Ages

    There are very good reasons that Justinian and Constantine, from the safety of Byzantium, used Syrian and Judaic thought to attack the Greek and Roman Institutions of learning. They did it with malice, intent, and forethought, and while it is true that islam caused the ECONOMIC dark age, the SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL dark age is impossible to divorce from the rise and fall of Christianity. That’s just the evidence. I don’t see any ‘good’ in christianity that was not in roman and greek thought prior to christianity: Aryanism.

    Lies: false promises of utopia in an afterlife, like false promises of economic and status equality, are cheap means of government and parasitism. Rule, using Rule of Law by Natural Law, under the promise of violence, in exchange for taxation (commissions) for the creation of increasingly profitable markets is about as truthful as one can get, for the simple reason that it contains no via-positiva promises, and leaves choice of pursuits to the ruled.

  • Aryanism: The West Consists of Nation States or Ceases to Exist

    Anyone can build an empire with resources and technology to do so. You just can only live under the type of rule, institutions, and culture, necessary to maintain an empire. And that means european civilization retains many small nation states or it ceases to exist. Because you cannot have a high trust heterogeneous political order. It’s not possible. —“If your people are organically organized, clannish, tribal, egalitarian and have a thing for “purity” then they will also have high trust. You can expand, but you can’t build an empire or you’ll destroy it. Empires require bureaucracy and hierarchy as well as the extension of kinship to others. People that can’t (and didn’t!) do extended families can’t do empires. I guess It should be obvious.”— Markets for nations. Markets for regions. Markets for whatever we want – among our kin. We can build a civilization but we cannot build an empire.

    An empire by definition crosses ethnic and cultural lines. a civilization by definition is defined but ethnic and cultural lines. America is an empire and cannot therefore persist as a european civilization under common law.

  • Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws

    Let me help you. Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?

  • Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws

    Let me help you. Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?

  • Correcting the Term “Government”

    Rule and Government are two different things. Nomocracy = Rule of Law (by Judges). Therefore under nomocracy (judge rule), ‘government’ provides laws. What we call ‘government’ more correctly provides a method for the construction of commons. We have conflated the functions of government and commons production, whenever the functions of judicial and commons production are combined into a monopoly. (a crime against reciprocity – most often because of technological and cultural incompetence at identifying reciprocity, or the intentional violation of reciprocity for the purpose of predation).

    We can construct commons the individual authority, oligarchical choice, representative choice, or market choice. (And, yes, I know, I am ‘correcting’ a lot of past colloquial language and that this is hard to learn.)

  • Solving the Google, Facebook Wikipedia Problem, and News in the 21st Century

    As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces. There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.

    The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile. Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not. So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons. Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world. Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice. WHY DON’T THEY?

  • Solving the Google, Facebook Wikipedia Problem, and News in the 21st Century

    As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces. There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.

    The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile. Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not. So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons. Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world. Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice. WHY DON’T THEY?