Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST I think we can look at the problem of

    ITS HARDER FOR WOMEN TO FIND MEN TO TRUST

    I think we can look at the problem of developing high trust social orders with high economic velocity, as an even worse problem for women.

    I mean, women have a smaller number of closer friends who are less divergent in sentiments. Men have a larger number of less close friends who vary more greatly.

    Men speak in ‘facts’ and women speak in experiences. We convey different information. Women speak in synthesis and men speak in compartments. Women’s information is related, and men’s information is isolated.

    Women cannot trust many men easily. (Hence the value of gay men to all women). And they tend to empathically understand only that category of men they are familiar with. And they tend to respond genetically to attraction rather than rationally. JUst as they respond genetically to their offspring rather than to the merits of their offspring.

    Women’s minds are interrupt driven with lots of sensation. Men’s minds are relatively quiet and goal driven with few sensations.

    Women think about dozens or hundreds of different things, and men think of just a few related to their goals – and almost nothing else.

    Men lie to women all the time to increase their chances of getting access to sex with the women or her network of associates.

    If men are weak they cannot build trust with women. if women are weak they cannot be honest with men. The only men a woman can usually trust are those that have no reproductive interest in her: her father and her brothers.

    Men have a much easier time, since if we can trust our mothers, and physically retaliate against our sisters, we simply need women to help us understand other people’s interests.

    And frankly women aren’t that hard. If they are interested in you and not trying just to use you as an ATM just love them, listen to them, and help them when they ask.

    Women will love you back, and more so if you give them lots of small signals that you are ‘thinking of them and their concerns’.

    I have no problem returning to a world where women are our slaves. I have no problem with my sons ruling that world. I have a problem with my daughters returning to that world, and living in it.

    Men need to be taught to love women and limit the damage they can do but not attempt to ‘correct’ how they think. They need to think as they do or they cannot raise families of impulsive unpredictable children.

    Women must be taught that men do not think as they do, should not thing as they do, and if they did, they will be useless to them. (I usually say ‘you need girlfriends for that, not me. I am a man.’).

    If mothers fail to raise a man capable of being a good husband it is their fault. If a father fails to raise a woman capable of being a good wife, it is his fault. These are the only gender-relations we can trust.

    We spend all this time training social nonsense, and pseudoscience, and none of it on how to be a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister, a father, and a mother, and even less on being a homemaker, a craftsman, a businessman, and a financier.

    We educated our generations to be nothing more than tax slaves. Seriously. If you critically examine our schooling that’s its purpose.

    Tax slavery.

    What we need is just the opposite.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 14:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY???? EXCELLENT QUESTION! 1) the majority of societ

    Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY????

    EXCELLENT QUESTION!

    1) the majority of societies allowed for polygamy of one sort or another, but the problem is:

    i) women are damned expensive. so few men can afford them.

    ii) most of the time it exists to absorb excess women for home and farm labor because of a shortage of men due to warfare, much like taking in relatives or god-children. WE forget that through most of history, people died a lot.

    iii) because of the nature of women’s characters they tend to form a hierarchy. There is always a ‘first wife’. And women seem to kill one another in polygamous marriages pretty often.

    iv) normies really, really, really, do not like it in their ‘midst’ because it provides a malincentive to men. Flip it around and having a second wife you fuck now and then (or don’t) is different from having a woman in your midst who you fuck instead of your wife. So polygamy is rarely what we assume it would be through our modern senses. It’s either a means of increasing your children so that you can hold together a monarchy, a sign of ostentatious wealth to display your status and power, a means of supplanting household and farm labor, a means of absorbing excess females, or a means of obtaining additional household sex and labor without discrediting your first wife. The mormon thing is an outlier (because there were a lot of mormon women and not many men) but unfortunately it’s our first reference point.

    v) we aren’t poor enough any longer that people prefer that type of arrangement over having their own apartment and ‘fooling around’. In other words, women have a demonstrated preference for not engaging in polygamy. In fact, as far as we know, humans (out of evolutionary necessity) seem to naturally gravitate to serial marriages. And if the law assisted us in that by eliminating the pretense of permanent marriage and eliminating common marital property (using merely powers of attorney for certain affairs) then we might be able to return to serial marriage more easily. And economically and socially and legally it seems the right answer.

    2) it’s still pairing off: There is still a market exchange made. Otherwise it’s slavery.

    3) if it’s an assigned marriage that violates natural law. The purpose of assigned marriage was traditionally to keep property in the family in propertied civilizations, or to preserve and build family networks prior to propertied civilizations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 11:40:00 UTC

  • I have been working on post-democratic political institutions since 1992. There

    I have been working on post-democratic political institutions since 1992. There are exceptional alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 02:38:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804877534110380032

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803523215662415872

    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/803523215662415872

  • THE “COMPLETE” ESTATES OF THE REALM (THE CROSS) POSITIVE: ……Priests, Intelle

    THE “COMPLETE” ESTATES OF THE REALM (THE CROSS)

    POSITIVE:

    ……Priests, Intellectuals, and Artists (opportunity and consensus)

    NEGATIVE:

    ……Judges, Sheriffs, and Warriors (violence and law)

    PRODUCTIVE

    ……Scientists, Entrepreneurs and Laborers (exchange and contract)

    CONSUMPTIVE:

    ……Mothers, Children, and Aged (birth, education, and care)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 12:52:00 UTC

  • THE ESTATES OF THE REALM: TRIPARTITION OF SOCIETY —“The tripartition of societ

    THE ESTATES OF THE REALM: TRIPARTITION OF SOCIETY

    —“The tripartition of society actually goes way back in Aryan mythos: Sun, Fire, Lightning | Above Time, In Time, Against Time | Priests, Workers, Warriors.”— Josh Jeppeson

    (i know nothing about the time thing: https://www.savitridevi.org/lightning-03.html )

    While other civilizations may have been narratively monolithic, the church was merely one component of the system of cooperation between the classes that constituted the informal structure of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 12:39:00 UTC

  • SUGGESTION RE: “LOSS OF METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS”. @Dr Jordan Peterson While oth

    SUGGESTION RE: “LOSS OF METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS”.

    @Dr Jordan Peterson

    While other civilizations may have been narratively monolithic, the church was merely one component of the system of cooperation between the classes that constituted the informal structure of western civilization.

    (a) The estates of the realm existed under manorialism (cooperation between classes) replacing more costly aristocracy, freemen, and slaves. Each estate often spoke a different language, each used a different narrative, and each a different ‘scripture’. Latin remained the language of the intellectual class. Christianity itself provided a convenient excuse to justify Aristocratic Expansion and their heroic cult and mythos. The common law remained as the primary means of decidability. The christian religion remained as a public religion. The ancient myths and legends remained as the religion of home and hearth. The west has always been poly-philosophical if we categorize religion as a sub-category of philosophy. Why? Because western civilization never engaged in conflation, but preserved the estates of the realm. Hence why there are three cults in china (Confucius, LaoTzu, Budda), the castes in india, the estates in the west, the three classes of islam under one book, and the single class of judaism under one book and one set of laws. But the west has many many books, and only the common law, the philosophy of the intellectual class, and the religion of the lower classes persist. The philosophy of the aristocratic classes was only captured in narrative and handed down from father to son for millennia.

    (b) anglo enlightenment causes chain of events that undermines the unwritten cult of the aristocracy (sovereignty).

    (c) liberal revolutions undermine the contract between the aristocracy and the middle classes (rule of law becomes discretionary law)

    (d) proletarian revolutions undermine the contract between the middle classes and the lower classes.

    (e) church is weakened by (a)+(b) and put to death by darwin.

    (f) Poincare(mathematics), Maxwell(science), Dawin(anthropology), Spencer(social sci), Karl Menger(econ), Nietzche(aesthetics) and the pre-rapaelites (art), Wagner(theatre and opera),and others try to provide a new ‘map’ on the ancient model, in scientific rather than rationalism, reason, and platonism.

    (g) Cantor (mathematical platonism), Boaz(anthropology and sociology), Marx (economics and sociology), Mises (economics), Freud (psychology), Adorno+Co (aesthetics), combined with democracy, women’s entry into the franchise, and the academy’s seizure of moral authority from the church by selling diplomas rather than indulgences – create a competing utopian suite of narratives ready to sell to the new members of the consumer classes. The entire cosmopolitan corpus however, is composed of nothing but pseudoscience.

    (h) Early soviet successes despite the greatest human death and destruction in history, and the soviet emphasis of spending 85% of its intelligence budget on funding intellectuals who advance the Frankfurt school’s propaganda for the purpose of subversion (creating conflict between the classes), plus a compliant intellectual class, seeking even greater wealth, status, and power, succeed in capturing the narrative from the Continentals, and solidify it with the defeat of the Fascists (who are themselves merely a reaction to the same pseudosciences and breakdown of class cooperation.)

    (h) Postwar economic boom in the states allows funding of expansion of the academy by turning ‘schools’ in to ‘colleges’ and ‘colleges’ into ‘universities’. And profits from the sale of pseudoscientific religion to a generation lacking empirical traditions.

    (g) Produces crisis of the 1960s, followed by reaction in the late 1970s as policy failures accumulate, yet the movement had been successful for the first time in history, in replacing the martial aristocracy from membership in the competition for power, not realizing that they had merely replaced the military industrial complex’s productivity and empirical epistemology with the academy, media, state complex and their pseudoscientific epistemology.

    (h) 1999’s surprising bow shot by Pinker provides the first substantial scientific counter to expand upon the previous generation’s political retrenchment against pseudoscientific politics. From 2000 until the present we are incrementally expanding the criticism of the pseudosciences overthrowing and reforming the hard sciences, while the pseudoscientific academy’s three generations of professors, four generations of teachers, and first generation of ‘snowflakes’, comes into maturity. We have been assisted by the demonstrated failure of the Keynesian economic and mathematical pseudoscientific program, and the assumptions of ongoing prosperity that the progressive postwar narrative had been constructed upon.

    (i) Today there are a number of us working in different fields to end the pseudoscientific era, and the destruction of reason.

    WHAT’S THE POINT?

    The point I want to get across here is that while other civilizations may have been narratively monolithic, the church was merely one component of the system of cooperation between the classes that constituted the informal structure of western civilization.

    even today the fallacy of equalitarianism, equalitarian democracy, and universalism merely continue this utopian deceit. Instead of a market for exchanges between the classes provided by multiple houses of government and the church, we conduct a war of disinformation and deception because our method of government is not suitable for the construction of agreements – only defeats.

    So while we have plenty of class narratives, scientific, philosophical, political, military, entrepreneurial, artisan, laborer, and dependent; and we have founding narratives: Indo European, Homeric, Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Arthur, and Germanic, Jeffersonian; and they all derive from the fight against the (middle) east (steppe and desert people), or their retaliation against Aristoracy (christianity, judaism, islam) and we have plenty of methods of argument: art, myth, literature, religion, philosophy, science, and law – And we still speak in a language comprised of three: latin-english for the intellectual class, ‘french-english’ for the middle class, and german-english for the common people, WE LACK THE NARRATIVE THAT EXPLAINS THE SYNTHESIS.

    So that is the point I want to get across.

    You cannot recreate christianity. The vulgar speech of the postmoderns, the ‘Church of TED’ and the ‘pseudoscientific academy/media/state complex, cannot be replaced with one institution.

    We have a founding mythos.

    We just need to talk about it scientifically, make pseudoscience illegal, and make suppression of scientific truth illegal. ( And that is what I have worked on for the past twenty years.) It turns out that it’s quite possible to use the law to demand warranties of due diligence on political speech(information) just as we demand warranties of due diligence on products and services. The law is exceptional at lie detection. We need only put it to work on detecting this category of lies.

    The rest will sort itself out. We don’t have to DESIGN a solution. We have to design a PROHIBITION. The solution is already out there waiting to hatch.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 12:26:00 UTC

  • FUNCTION OF NATURAL LAW —“Natural Law provides measures and operations across

    FUNCTION OF NATURAL LAW

    —“Natural Law provides measures and operations across normative and formal institutions for decidability.”— Bill Joslin

    Natural law provides individuals, jurors, and jurists with a method of commensurability, and therefore a method of decidability, between differing personal, normative, and formal judgements of reciprocity, similar to how money provides commensurability in the form of prices, volume provides commensurability between shapes, and unitary distances commensurability between spaces, and natural numbers between quantities.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:33:00 UTC

  • And the only way of producing markets in everything is w/ natural,judge-discover

    And the only way of producing markets in everything is w/ natural,judge-discovered,common law of non-imposition.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:45:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804139374942240775

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • And the only institutions that are possible under sovereignty are markets – mark

    And the only institutions that are possible under sovereignty are markets – markets in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:44:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804139105189773326

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • THE PROPERTARIAN ‘BRAND’ a) people try to use ‘propertarian’ to add ‘cache’ to t

    THE PROPERTARIAN ‘BRAND’

    a) people try to use ‘propertarian’ to add ‘cache’ to the fact that they’re just rothbardian libertarians, and we’ve pretty much ended rothbardian libertarianism as a viable strategy.

    (b) Propertarianism provides a complete philosophical system and a formal logic. I chose ‘propertarian’ because there were very, very, few extant uses of the term, and because I wanted to capture the evolution from Locke->Rothbard->Hoppe to my self. So technically speaking if you reduce all social science to statements of property then categorically you could say your a follower of the propertarian. That said, there is a very great difference between locke, rothbard, hoppe, and myself (property in toto) and the claims we make.

    So Unless a person can articulate which of those scopes of property he is referring to and why I would tend to describe him as saying the equivalent of ‘libertarian or anarcho capitalist’ or ‘undecided libertarian’.

    We tend to use the terms ‘Aristocratic Egalitarian’, Propertarian, or Natural law. And we certainly expect people to try to usurp the term just as liberals stole liberal, and rothbard stole libertarian we expect people to try to steal propertarian. Its ok. it is what it is.

    I suppose the fact that I own most of the permutations of the domains propertarian*.* is enough of a testimony. But it’s not like I care. all advertising is good advertising.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 19:28:00 UTC