Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • because you guys got nothing but sermons and inspiration. Political change requi

    because you guys got nothing but sermons and inspiration. Political change requires institutional solutions. Not inspiration.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-02 15:50:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749269001302339584

    Reply addressees: @JohnRebel14

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749187668345487360

    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/749187668345487360

  • Religion creates norm/law in exch.for psychic rew

    Religion creates norm/law in exch.for psychic rew.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-28 05:58:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747670469629861888

    Reply addressees: @FreeRise @mdavilamartinez @EndTaysachs @garrettlgray @Flatland_USA @Alt_Left @wolfe_fan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/747653072558645251

    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/747653072558645251

  • DEFINING “BAD” Whenever profit takes precedence over commons. Whenever financial

    DEFINING “BAD”

    Whenever profit takes precedence over commons.

    Whenever financial markets take precedence over culture.

    Whenever law takes precedence over family.

    Whenever government takes precedence over industry.

    Whenever state takes precedence over tribe.

    Whenever empire takes precedence over nation.

    The British press are whining about the short-term impact of financial markets.

    The British people are worried about the long-term consequences to family, commons, culture, nation, and people.

    The madness is endemic.

    Kill the Napoleonic state.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-24 00:45:00 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

  • NIETZCHE’S MORALITY ISN”T. (promoted to post so I don’t lose it) Nietzche had li

    NIETZCHE’S MORALITY ISN”T.

    (promoted to post so I don’t lose it)

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 14:19:00 UTC

  • We’ve Been Focused On The Wrong Institution. We Need the Church

    (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

  • We’ve Been Focused On The Wrong Institution. We Need the Church

    (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

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.