(FB 1542218822 Timestamp) HEROISM AND COSTS by Luke Weinhagen Heroism is the application of virtue where that application has a potential direct cost to you. It is hard to train for directly because people interpret virtue so subjectively but training the foundation, overcoming inaction in the face of costs, is something anyone can do. Expose yourself to situation where you have a strong possibility to fail. Fail. Get back up. It is best if your parents do this for you as young as possible, but nowadays most parents don’t. So it is likely up to you. Find something you are motivated by (so you have a reason to get back up) that also offers you the likelihood of initial failure and overextend yourself into it (ideally not something that will kill you is you are just beginning to embrace failure).
Theme: Responsibility
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542218822 Timestamp) HEROISM AND COSTS by Luke Weinhagen Heroism is the application of virtue where that application has a potential direct cost to you. It is hard to train for directly because people interpret virtue so subjectively but training the foundation, overcoming inaction in the face of costs, is something anyone can do. Expose yourself to situation where you have a strong possibility to fail. Fail. Get back up. It is best if your parents do this for you as young as possible, but nowadays most parents don’t. So it is likely up to you. Find something you are motivated by (so you have a reason to get back up) that also offers you the likelihood of initial failure and overextend yourself into it (ideally not something that will kill you is you are just beginning to embrace failure).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542213632 Timestamp) JOHN MARK: MEASURING OTHERS’ PROGRESS IN THE JOURNEY That spectrum/journey is the journey from hope in the ability to teach/shame/influence people into acting in a responsible and beneficial (reciprocal) manner (in accordance with natural law), to realizing that only the law (violence or threat of it) can do that. Now that I see it, I see it everywhere. So often I see people saying things like “The solution is for people to realize that (xyz)…” or “The solution is we have to teach people that (xyz)…” I recognize instantly that they are not far enough along on the spectrum/journey. –John Mark — He’s Referring to this — THE ARISTOCRATIC (RESPONSIBILITY) SALES FUNNEL All of the people who start out edgy, tend to move back up the sales funnel (wider audience) because they perceive they are doing more good with wider reach, by driving more people into the sales funnel. Everyone has to move thu the ‘sales funnel’ from well meaning fool to man of agency. I did it and it sure seems like most other men do. “Nice Person” > Social Democracy > Classical Liberalism > Libertarianism > anarcho capitalism > Neo Reaction > Propertarianism > (some version of , fuck it, let’s just impose it.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542289756 Timestamp) THREE IMPORTANT IDEAS: (1. I’m not the same as my online persona, 2. I’m restoring violence to the discourse in order to teach the law, and 3. the law I have written recasts libertarians as the judges of the commons.) Stellar conversation with James Fox Higgins this morning. 100 minutes. Can’t wait to share it whenever he releases it. I learned a few things that I need to get across to the audience.
- Um. Please be respectful just to maintain my incentive to invest heavily in being available, but do no not be afraid of me. I am very conscious of what I am doing. When I argue online i’m acting as a judge and prosecutor on one hand, and a disciplinarian of rowdy boys on the other. I am more accommodating as a CEO and even more so as an ordinary guy in conversation. My online personality is my JOB. It is not ME. I am very different in my roles as conversationalist, CEO in business, theoretician-professor, and Prosecutor-Judge.
I am very consciously restoring violence to the discourse, and a lot of my persona and positioning is to do so. Obscuring the fact that violence to force people into markest is the origin of that order we call civilization. It’s not that I enjoy or advocate violence, It’s that upon entry of women in the the political and commercial arena we overly-softened the fact that it is violence alone that creates it, and that the non-violent are RIDERS on that order created by that violence. Conversely, a very small number of men can easily alter the status quo – and have, for millennia.
One of the reasons I set out to destroy the libertarian movement is to restore it to leadership of the conservative movement, by eliminating the attraction of the pacifist narrative of the rothbardian (common property marxist) message. In other words, I worked to deny libertarians the field of ideology and return them to the field of law. Biologically and socially, libertarians serve as the JUDICIAL minority between feminine consumptive, and male conservative genetic interests, by insuring that trade is remained. I WROTE THE BOOK OF LAW TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT POSSIBLE. Ergo, I need to drive libertarians into roles as JUDGES of the LAW, under european high trust “commons” law, not semitic low trust “ghetto” law. And that is what my work does: I wrote THE LAW. The one law of reciprocity from which western civilization evolved and out-competed other civilizations in rates of adaptation and innovation.
Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542289756 Timestamp) THREE IMPORTANT IDEAS: (1. I’m not the same as my online persona, 2. I’m restoring violence to the discourse in order to teach the law, and 3. the law I have written recasts libertarians as the judges of the commons.) Stellar conversation with James Fox Higgins this morning. 100 minutes. Can’t wait to share it whenever he releases it. I learned a few things that I need to get across to the audience.
- Um. Please be respectful just to maintain my incentive to invest heavily in being available, but do no not be afraid of me. I am very conscious of what I am doing. When I argue online i’m acting as a judge and prosecutor on one hand, and a disciplinarian of rowdy boys on the other. I am more accommodating as a CEO and even more so as an ordinary guy in conversation. My online personality is my JOB. It is not ME. I am very different in my roles as conversationalist, CEO in business, theoretician-professor, and Prosecutor-Judge.
I am very consciously restoring violence to the discourse, and a lot of my persona and positioning is to do so. Obscuring the fact that violence to force people into markest is the origin of that order we call civilization. It’s not that I enjoy or advocate violence, It’s that upon entry of women in the the political and commercial arena we overly-softened the fact that it is violence alone that creates it, and that the non-violent are RIDERS on that order created by that violence. Conversely, a very small number of men can easily alter the status quo – and have, for millennia.
One of the reasons I set out to destroy the libertarian movement is to restore it to leadership of the conservative movement, by eliminating the attraction of the pacifist narrative of the rothbardian (common property marxist) message. In other words, I worked to deny libertarians the field of ideology and return them to the field of law. Biologically and socially, libertarians serve as the JUDICIAL minority between feminine consumptive, and male conservative genetic interests, by insuring that trade is remained. I WROTE THE BOOK OF LAW TO MAKE THAT JUDGEMENT POSSIBLE. Ergo, I need to drive libertarians into roles as JUDGES of the LAW, under european high trust “commons” law, not semitic low trust “ghetto” law. And that is what my work does: I wrote THE LAW. The one law of reciprocity from which western civilization evolved and out-competed other civilizations in rates of adaptation and innovation.
Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542909901 Timestamp) LAW CHANGES HUMAN BEHAVIOUR FIRST. SOCIAL SHAMING SECOND, REWARD THIRD. by Bill Joslin Law changes human behaviour first. Social shaming second, reward third. Subsumed in a world of business people who manage by leaning on the crutch of “incentives”(bonuses, commissions etc) I’m often aghast at how blind they are to the strength of disincentives in average workers. People, when under stress, will gladly take on opportunity costs to avoid pain (lose that bonus to avoid the continual abuse of a shitty client). We’re wired to avoid costs and mitigate risk almost to the point of death. When disincentives are suppressed (when we’re trained to behave properly), incentives come into play.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542909901 Timestamp) LAW CHANGES HUMAN BEHAVIOUR FIRST. SOCIAL SHAMING SECOND, REWARD THIRD. by Bill Joslin Law changes human behaviour first. Social shaming second, reward third. Subsumed in a world of business people who manage by leaning on the crutch of “incentives”(bonuses, commissions etc) I’m often aghast at how blind they are to the strength of disincentives in average workers. People, when under stress, will gladly take on opportunity costs to avoid pain (lose that bonus to avoid the continual abuse of a shitty client). We’re wired to avoid costs and mitigate risk almost to the point of death. When disincentives are suppressed (when we’re trained to behave properly), incentives come into play.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543246953 Timestamp) —“Ever worry that the drive to establish the “Law” makes you into the abrahamic deity you claim to despise?”—Noel Fritsch Well, you know, (a) Odin was, it appears, a real person, as was aristotle. Over the centuries, we seem to have made odin into a ‘god’ in the traditional (ancestor spirit) sense, if not the abrahamic (abstract deity) sense. We have made aristotle into a hero bordering on a demigod in the traditional if not abrahamic sense. All civilizations have law-givers. The question between them is only the GRAMMAR of the law, the contents of that law, and the consequence of that law. As far as I know, I set out to write, and have written, the Law of European Peoples: The Natural Law, as a continuous, consistent, coherent extension of the Laws of Nature. In some sense, I suppose this would make me a law-giver if by some chance I am successful in influencing in the present or future such law as a reformation of the Anglo Common Law, Anglo Saxon Law, Germanic Law, Proto-germanic Law, and West Aryan Law. But that law is via negativa: like evolution – fully adaptive. Not a reflection of time and circumstance, but as eternal as the natural sciences and logics. We have incrementally prohibited parasitism and predation and now in the present, we are capable, with the knowledge we have today, of incrementally prohibiting those predations, parasitisms and harms caused by falsehood, deceits, and lies. What one does positively with the truth is a market question not a truth question. So I don’t worry about being cast as a Proxy Ancestor for Liars. And If I was lucky enough to be remembered as a Law Giver, then I can think of no greater honor that history could grant. Although I kind of doubt such a thing will or can happen, and it wouldn’t be an ambition. (b) I despise abrahamism: false promise, straw manning, undue praise, pilpul, critique and the Three Great Fictionalisms to enforce conformity by submission. In other words, the Great Lies. I do not see how ending the abrahamic dark age of lies is the same as creating a new dark age of lies. (c) deities don’t exist as other than literary and mythological characters in our narratives. It’s not that they aren’t useful to some degree. But they are clearly more useful as law givers, generals, scientists, engineers, poets and artists than deities in an era where those of us with any literacy are aware that these deities are but fictional characters for simple illiterate ignorant minds. (FWIW: I have a god by the way. I don’t know his name. But I talk to him every day. Often. He is, as I undrestand it, the god of my people, or a ‘face of’, or instance of, that god that I can comprehend. But my understanding of his existence is purely scientific: as information. That does not limit his utility, any more than imagining whether my grandmother would approve of my behavior at the dinner table. ) (d) Taking the place of the gods? The same was said about every one of the scientists and sciences and look how positive was that outcome. We are now the gods we sought to please. As were the gods of yesteryear the kings they sought to please. (e) The entire world converges (thanks to anglos largely) on the universal language of truth telling (science) which evolved (thanks to anglos largely) out of anglo law of tort, and the empirical tests and testimony under that law. So I see my work as completing the european project of converting all disciplines as subdisciplines of truthful testimony under the law. I mean, you have to find a way for justifying falsehoods, deceits, and lies, that does not at the same time say that those who require them are insufficiently human, because they are insufficiently possessed of agency, to as a consequence possess sovereignty, in display word and deed. I am perfectly ok with a multi class society where we reverse democratic and christian universalism, and return to the traditional hierarchy of Aristocracy, Nobility, Citizenry, Freemen, Serfs, Slaves, Domesticated animals, and undomesticated animals with demonstrated agency providing the privileges of rank – because this appears to be the truth. However I am equally ok with high investment education in fitness, intuition, reason, knowledge, and occupation (skill), such that these ranks are fluid under rule of law and markets. Both of these are forms of ‘truth’ expression.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543246953 Timestamp) —“Ever worry that the drive to establish the “Law” makes you into the abrahamic deity you claim to despise?”—Noel Fritsch Well, you know, (a) Odin was, it appears, a real person, as was aristotle. Over the centuries, we seem to have made odin into a ‘god’ in the traditional (ancestor spirit) sense, if not the abrahamic (abstract deity) sense. We have made aristotle into a hero bordering on a demigod in the traditional if not abrahamic sense. All civilizations have law-givers. The question between them is only the GRAMMAR of the law, the contents of that law, and the consequence of that law. As far as I know, I set out to write, and have written, the Law of European Peoples: The Natural Law, as a continuous, consistent, coherent extension of the Laws of Nature. In some sense, I suppose this would make me a law-giver if by some chance I am successful in influencing in the present or future such law as a reformation of the Anglo Common Law, Anglo Saxon Law, Germanic Law, Proto-germanic Law, and West Aryan Law. But that law is via negativa: like evolution – fully adaptive. Not a reflection of time and circumstance, but as eternal as the natural sciences and logics. We have incrementally prohibited parasitism and predation and now in the present, we are capable, with the knowledge we have today, of incrementally prohibiting those predations, parasitisms and harms caused by falsehood, deceits, and lies. What one does positively with the truth is a market question not a truth question. So I don’t worry about being cast as a Proxy Ancestor for Liars. And If I was lucky enough to be remembered as a Law Giver, then I can think of no greater honor that history could grant. Although I kind of doubt such a thing will or can happen, and it wouldn’t be an ambition. (b) I despise abrahamism: false promise, straw manning, undue praise, pilpul, critique and the Three Great Fictionalisms to enforce conformity by submission. In other words, the Great Lies. I do not see how ending the abrahamic dark age of lies is the same as creating a new dark age of lies. (c) deities don’t exist as other than literary and mythological characters in our narratives. It’s not that they aren’t useful to some degree. But they are clearly more useful as law givers, generals, scientists, engineers, poets and artists than deities in an era where those of us with any literacy are aware that these deities are but fictional characters for simple illiterate ignorant minds. (FWIW: I have a god by the way. I don’t know his name. But I talk to him every day. Often. He is, as I undrestand it, the god of my people, or a ‘face of’, or instance of, that god that I can comprehend. But my understanding of his existence is purely scientific: as information. That does not limit his utility, any more than imagining whether my grandmother would approve of my behavior at the dinner table. ) (d) Taking the place of the gods? The same was said about every one of the scientists and sciences and look how positive was that outcome. We are now the gods we sought to please. As were the gods of yesteryear the kings they sought to please. (e) The entire world converges (thanks to anglos largely) on the universal language of truth telling (science) which evolved (thanks to anglos largely) out of anglo law of tort, and the empirical tests and testimony under that law. So I see my work as completing the european project of converting all disciplines as subdisciplines of truthful testimony under the law. I mean, you have to find a way for justifying falsehoods, deceits, and lies, that does not at the same time say that those who require them are insufficiently human, because they are insufficiently possessed of agency, to as a consequence possess sovereignty, in display word and deed. I am perfectly ok with a multi class society where we reverse democratic and christian universalism, and return to the traditional hierarchy of Aristocracy, Nobility, Citizenry, Freemen, Serfs, Slaves, Domesticated animals, and undomesticated animals with demonstrated agency providing the privileges of rank – because this appears to be the truth. However I am equally ok with high investment education in fitness, intuition, reason, knowledge, and occupation (skill), such that these ranks are fluid under rule of law and markets. Both of these are forms of ‘truth’ expression.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543510113 Timestamp) ZERO TOLERANCE. THE WHITE LAW IS ABSOLUTE – INCLUDING IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH. —“… but the church did [x good thing], right?”— (Regarding the prohibition on cousin marriage) Oh yeah. Sure. But the reason they did so was to break up the great aristocratic families, so that they in turn could appropriate their land incrementally and cheaply. Which led to half the capital in europe being dead assets of rent seekers against the interests of our people. So it’s not that the church was doing good. It’s that it produced a good by doing an evil. Even then, it’s the corporation under manorialism that produced the good since we were an homogenous peoples in europe along atlantic, germanic, finnic, southern, and slavic lines: the children of the Aryan Conquest of Europe. Again, deflating the church into Content Taught (ideas), Method of Teaching (sophism (ABRAHAMISM)), and Governance by Teachers (action), and Consequences (externalities) – as a governor the church consisted of men who governed reasonably well. A broken clock is right twice a day. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did good things as well, marxists, postmodernists, and feminists each contributed at least one non-bad idea. Jews and Gypsies did things that weren’t entirely destructive or evil. They church was terrible for western civilization compared to the greco-roman civilization. The church was imposed by violence upon our people via an underclass revolt started by the jews (justifiably), and as an act of war by the underclass old europeans (remains of the greek empire). Hellenic greece was european until Alexander’s conquest infected us – and him. But there is and was nothing western about the eastern empire. There was and is nothing european about the church. The uniqueness of western civilization is our natural religion, natural law, law of nature, law of men, and markets in everything that rose from them. Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Natural Law and Markets In Everything, producing truthful speech, reason, logic, empiricism, science, and now – Testimonialism (complete science). So no, I do not look at the great evil that is the semitic revolt and conquest of our people by that plague we call the abrahamic cults, as a replacement for our ancient unique order that is the envy of all humanity. I do not ‘forgive’ a dark age, the destruction of the great civilizations, and a billion deaths. I have one purpose: to rediscover, write down for eternity, that which is uniquely ours, which has dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of all it’s primitivism – including that ocean of semitic evils – and to exterminate every remnant of those evils from our people, lands, histories, and even memories – if not (with the help of the far east (our only peers)) from this earth. Is that clear enough? Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute