Theme: Truth

  • OUR CAUSE IS TO OVERTHROW AND PREVENT THE GREAT LIES FROM EVERY HARMING MANKIND

    OUR CAUSE IS TO OVERTHROW AND PREVENT THE GREAT LIES FROM EVERY HARMING MANKIND AGAIN

    (important piece)(read it and weep)

    I had a transformative conversation just out of college with an activist lesbian, and close friend of my girlfriend, who – upon my statement that I tried to be objective and neutral in matters of politics – responded by saying that neutrality is a luxury of those who can afford it.

    I think the consequences of that conversation were subtle, but cumulative – and that the only solution to fulfillment for all, is not a monopoly of commons -universalism – but a market for commons. And that such a market for norms requires territories in which to plant, maintain, and harvest that which we desire from them – while at the same time paying the full cost of their development and maintenance rather than supporting one’s preferred norms by parasitic survival on the norms of others.

    So while universal negative commons exist: the natural law of non-imposition of costs. Universal positive commons are impossible. because the commons advances the group evolutionary strategy, and within that strategy, the life experience, of the population.

    Furthermore, just as groups of all men and all women produce exaggerated behaviors, and their own externalities, groups that favor different compositions of wants(short) and interests(long) will produce their own exaggerated behaviors, and their own externalities. And so these people are either kept in check by their wants and interests, or they will, as western man has done, discover superior means of organizing, superior wants, and superior interests, and modify their norms accordingly.

    Ergo, the more ‘diverse'(heterogenous) a single society, the less knowledge is gained, the most redistribution possible, and the most parasitism performed. While the most homogeneous a single society the more knowledge is gained, the most redistribution possible and the least parasitism performed. Because we will fund our wants and interests through redistribution but we will not fund our competitors willingly.

    We developed truth telling, sovereignty, and high trust norms, traditions, and institutions out of self-interest. And we domesticated man as a consequence. Because he was drawn to our order out of his own interest in exchange for abandoning parasitism.And where he was not drawn to his order, we out-competed him into adapting it. And where he was incompetent at adaptation we imposed it upon him by colonialism, political coercion, or outright conquest.

    And this is where we failed. Because we are not liberating man from oppression. We are suppressing his native parasitism, and domesticating him no differently than we have domesticated plants, animals, and most of the earth’s land, sea, and air.

    And this domestication is not in the interests of those who cannot compete in the production of norms, traditions, goods and services, that further extend non-parasitism in concert with our ever-expanding innovations in production, technology, market, and political orders, and the corresponding means of parasitism we also evolve along with them.

    Just as the Jews had to invent a false promise of eternal salvation in heaven in order to rebel against our ancient greco-roman ancestors who had dragged man out of ignorance and poverty with truth and contract, the descendants of these same people, in their reaction to the enlightenment, had to invent a false criticism of the west, and a false promise of utopia on earth in order to create a rebellion against our Anglo-Germanic-Italian-French ancestors, who likewise had dragged man out of ignorance and poverty upon finally defeating the curse of mysticism that

    Man must be domesticated into prosperity. He must be domesticated into national(genetic interests), contractualism(productive voluntary exchange), productivity(non-parasitism), and eugenic reproduction(non-harm) through the organized use of violence to produce normative, traditional, and formal institutions of domestication. And we must not only domesticate ourselves, but all those who would return us to barbarism through genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional means.

    We have insufficiently domesticated man and attempted to rest on the laurels of our ancestors – living in the luxury they have made for us. We have perhaps worse, insufficiently domesticated women – whose parasitism is indirect, consumptive, political, normative, and reproductive, rather than conducted by theft and violence of men. And we must next domesticate ‘those who lie’ so that never again is mankind doomed to the lies of the people who lie – because they cannot compete in innovation, production and reproduction, and so must poison the well of competition in order to succeed.

    We must bear arms and defend man, and his future, from the animals that seek to restore the order of animals. And we must make new constitutions, with new laws that treat the informational commons upon which each of us relies, and our future relies, from another cataclysmic grand suite of lies.

    THE FIRST GREAT ERA OF LIES: SUPERNATURALISM VS REASON

    The First Truthful Civilization: Greco(rational)-Roman(legal)

    The First Great Lies: Mysticism: Abrahamism, Christianity, Mythology including Monotheism, supernaturalism, and a holy book of supernatural myth and law, and the promise of life after death in a paradise.

    THE SECOND GREAT ERA LIE OF LIES: PSEUDOSCIENCE VS SCIENCE

    The Second Truthful Civilization: English-Anglo-Saxon-Hanseatic-Lotharyngian)

    Pseudoscience: Boazian anthropology and mythology, Marxist economics and mythology, Freudian psychology and mythology, Cantorian Mathematical Metaphysics, Frankfurtian sociology and mythology, and a promise of a paradise on earth.

    We must never gain allow ourselves, or others, to subject mankind to dark ages caused by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and prevent our transformation into the gods we aspire to be.

    The end of history is not Democracy. The end of history is the Truthful Civilization, in which none of us prey upon one another, because none of us need to prey upon one another.

    Western greatness was achieved through the imposition of non-parasitism, and the demand for productivity in exchange for reproductive possibility.

    The problem facing the rest of the world, and a problem the Marxist-socialists have given them because we lacked either the understanding of our domestication of animal-man, or we lacked the courage to state it in the face of our Christian mask of compassion over the face of our Aryan Domesticating Universalism, and lose the self-congratulatory status signals we obtained from the illusion. (Albeit, such acknowledgment may have created in-group cognitive dissonance against our lower classes. )

    We must defeat the great lies, with the great truths that we lacked either the knowledge or the courage to admit to ourselves, and advocate to others: that we have since the time of the horse and wheel, dragged man out of ignorance, poverty, and disease by the simple act of governing conquered territories such that we could kill his predators, replace his rulers, and constrain the reproduction of his lower classes leaving only the good behind.

    Because the uncomfortable truth of man is that just as each of us can only produce so much excess production above that which we ourselves need, those who organized production in the legal, financial, entrepreneurial, managerial, clerical, and laboring classes cannot compensate for large numbers of the underclasses who parasitically exist by constant warfare against our norms, traditions, myths, institutions, nations, and genes. There is a very simple mathematics to this process in that we must alter the rational choice to engage in production by purchasing that incentive by rewards. But that means that the percentage of people that can be incentivized to engage in non-parasitic actions is determined by the productivity of the nation (group), and its institutions. And if relative competitive productivity of the group declines, then the productive classes that remain will no longer be able to incentivize increasing numbers of the underclasses to refrain from parasitism. Ergo: we must constantly cull the lower classes if we wish to maintain the prosperity that the productive classes seek, and that is necessary for creating the incentives that create the order, that produces the luxury under which we now live.

    So it is not just the ecology of the earth that is limited in the population it can support. It is the ability to produce incentives for a population necessary to maintain the status quo.

    We fight not just the red-queens of disease, competing tribes, the of the earth, the aging of the earth and sun, but we fight the red queen of productivity upon which the ability to organize society voluntarily using those incentives we call capitalism, depend.

    This is what the pseudoscientists wished to hide with their second great era of lies: darwin found the truth and this truth was too much for the parasitic peoples to bear since it meant their extermination.

    So we must rule out of self-defense. Not just for us. Not just for our ancestors. Not just for our descendants – but for all mankind. And until we know we are not alone in the universe, for all eternity. We may be little more than gods-in-making. A calculation that the universe makes in an attempt to save itself from the laws that govern its limits, just as our intelligence has allowed us to save ourselves from the laws that govern our limits.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 05:57:00 UTC

  • FACTS A fact is to a description of observations as theory is to a description o

    FACTS

    A fact is to a description of observations as theory is to a description of a general rule.)

    Observations -> Criticisms -> Facts (surviving observations)

    Hypotheses -> Criticisms -> Theories (surviving general rules)

    There is only one epistemological method regardless of causal density (scale).

    The scale of facts is smaller than the scale of theories. That is all.

    Facts and Theories have survived criticism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 14:26:00 UTC

  • THE WEST’S OTHER FIRE: THE FIRE OF THE MIND: “TRUTH” Prometheus may have stolen

    THE WEST’S OTHER FIRE: THE FIRE OF THE MIND: “TRUTH”

    Prometheus may have stolen fire. But we gave mankind the Fire of The Mind: Truth.

    And from the Fire of the Mind, we gave mankind debate, reason, rationalism, science, physics, medicine, and testimonialism. We gave him testimony, the jury, natural law, the common law, the independent judiciary, the constitutional order: the contractual-order of mankind.

    To hell with equality and those who appeal to it – it’s a deceit by the weak to return us to dysgenic barbarism. We domesticated the human animal, and raised him from mysticism, ignorance, poverty, starvation and disease.

    We domesticated man through the incremental suppression of his natural parasitism, leaving productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange in the market as his only possible method of survival: survival through the service of others. Using the common law, we changed the behavior of those we could. And we hung those we could not. And we built walls and armies to resist those who wish otherwise.

    We have no equals. We either rule or are rule by and preyed upon by our inferiors, who, by their sheer numbers, like locusts, are parasites upon this earth, that with every birth, prevent man from achievement of his promise: godhood.

    Kill them all. Revel in your defense of man from another dark age of dysgenia, mysticism, ignorance, and suffering.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 02:50:00 UTC

  • Forms of argument evolve just like mathematics did: adding layers of precision M

    Forms of argument evolve just like mathematics did: adding layers of precision

    Myth (narrative analogy)

    Internally consistent myth ( religion )

    Reason ( possibility )

    Rationalism. ( justificationism )

    Analytic rationalism. ( Consistency )

    Existential criticism ( Operationalism)

    You see. In hindsight it’s obvious.

    It wasn’t though 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 15:37:00 UTC

  • PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF. Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is n

    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/992320.shtmlCHINESE PROPAGANDA RAG – COULDN”T CONTAIN MYSELF.

    Well, let’s just be HONEST (which is not a very Chinese thing to do) and truthful (which is also not a very Chinese thing to do), and state that while it is in the Chinese military INTEREST to claim the south china sea is it’s territory – because the south china sea is the strategic means of starving out the Chinese in case of war – the fact remains that many OTHER nations had PREVIOUS claims on this same territory and China STOLE IT FROM THEM.

    Now China could say (maybe) that it was a previous possession of some sort, but then by the same logic the USA could say that if the Chinese have such claims to previous state’s property then they ALSO have responsibilities for previous state DEBTS. And the Chinese owe Americans TRILLIONS of dollars now that were unpaid by the previous government.

    It is a very Chinese habit to lie. Lying is a part of the culture. Delay, deceit, and lying are the primary strategy of the Chinese when dealing with other peoples and often with themselves. Lying and deceit are raised to the status of ‘good manners’ by the art of ‘face’ (denial of reality).

    So please forgive us in the West – those of us who have built a high trust society because by and large we try to speak truthfully even when we are foolishly optimistic – if we do not take any Chinese words very seriously.

    The fact of the matter is that china used ‘aggression’ to capture territory of other neighboring nations that were too weak to resist, and by that aggression, has stolen that which was the property of others.

    So if we are not making moral arguments any longer we are only making arguments to strategic necessity, then given china’s murderous record against even its own people, we should not take a moral stance either, and we should prevent china from taking control of this territory which would make it possible for one of the world’s most dishonest and murderous people to extend their reach beyond their coast line.

    Right?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-05 12:47:00 UTC

  • The proper response to being wrong is: “Wow. You’re right. Damn. Thank you.”

    The proper response to being wrong is:

    “Wow. You’re right. Damn. Thank you.”


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 04:31:00 UTC

  • EPISTEMOLOGY OF FIGHTING —“Russians only understand things properly after a go

    EPISTEMOLOGY OF FIGHTING

    —“Russians only understand things properly after a good fight”— Dmitry Chernov (Priceless)

    The epistemology of fighting has high empirical content and can be trusted. Contrast with the anglo epistemology of commerce. Maybe that is a great way of communicating the difference between our cultures given our vastly different levels of trust.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 02:37:00 UTC

  • Propertarian argument is sort of what Mises dreamed praxeology to be. With pract

    Propertarian argument is sort of what Mises dreamed praxeology to be. With practice it makes you *look* smart. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 14:25:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748885221693468672

    Reply addressees: @JohnRebel14 @Lead_Farmer7

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748877923457896448


    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/748877923457896448

  • “Every philosopher can point out influences of which he may call his teachers or

    —“Every philosopher can point out influences of which he may call his teachers or derive his ideas from. Nietzsche for instance read Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Plato, and Heraclitus among his other influences. So let us hear yours. How many people have you read, and who do you derive your thoughts from? (Btw, wikipedia level understanding does not count. You can’t cite someone as an influence unless you have read his works)”—

    Well I answer this question a few times a year. And it might surprise you but I read science, economics and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle class criticism of the status quo. So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

    My reading list is pretty extensive and published on my site. And I’ve read everything on it I think. Ramsey keeps all of the works in digital form in our library. And recently he has added new works to it that are relevant but that I have only skimmed.

    I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms just as we study physics now as information not forces.

    But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that asfrom the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal.

    So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse.

    The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasnt quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere.

    It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty if due diligence in matters of the commons.

    So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the wilsonian synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law.

    What I am writing is natural law.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 12:50:00 UTC

  • We do not judge religions by what they claim, but by differences. Same with scie

    We do not judge religions by what they claim, but by differences. Same with science. Same with epistemology. Name != Cause.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 07:09:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748775618372706304

    Reply addressees: @LibertarianMike

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748754129485377536


    IN REPLY TO:

    @LibertarianMike

    The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion — George Washington & John Adams, in a diplomatic message to Malta.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748754129485377536