Chemistry, and Doing The Dishes

The subject I know the least about is chemistry. Why? For very simple reasons: while there is an intellectual component that is akin to three-dimensional puzzle-solving, the existential feature of chemistry is dishwashing.

Now, aside from the fact that as an autist I really don’t like to get my hands dirty – it’s over-stimulating in a way that normals can’t understand; as a child, we had to wash the dishes after supper, and my father was a bit of a tyrant about it.

Chemistry involves dirtying a lot of dishes that need cleaning, and that unlike the joy of cooking, produces all sorts of smells, and burns, and other nasty consequences that someone with intense experiences just has a problem with.

I can diagnose a Ferrari engine pretty accurately just by listening to it idle in an enclosed space. I can criticize any artwork past or present. I’m an adequate if messy cook. And I’m hella-scary with what we can claim is true or not.

But I’m comfortable not working with chemistry really. Because I’m uncomfortable doing dishes.


Philosophy: Continental Imaginative Literature(positive) Priests Vs Analytic Critical Law(negative) Judges

Philosophers function as intellectual police, detectives, judges, and sometimes executioners. Although I have had literary (nonsense) philosophers criticize me for the position, endlessly.

If philosophy does not consist in the study of how to speak the truth by discovering how we avoid error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit, then it is just fiction-writing that conflates religion, literature, and pseudoscience.

Just as judges may discover general rules (natural law) by solving problems of conflict; and just as physicists discover general rules of determinism by solving problems of extending perception (physical laws); our philosophers discover general rules of reason (rational laws) by solving problems of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit.

Our function is to police the intellectual sphere for error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

I am not sure we can classify literary dreamers, hypothesizers, inventors as philosophers. We do. But they give us a bad name.

This is the correct positioning of the philosophical disciplines. Aspirational Literary Religon and Critical Analytic Law.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute


Repositioning Economics, Sociology, Philosophy and Law

So today I have discussed repositioning economics as social science, and social science as pseudoscience. And repositioning philosophy as positive aspirational literature of rationalist priests, and negative critical law, of empirical judges.

This mirrors the epistemological method of creative free association to arrive at hypothesis, and criticism to test theories in the hope of discovering laws from that survives.

This mirrors the moral method of doing unto others as we would like done unto us(aspirational), and not doing unto others that which we would not want done unto us (critical).

Economics is merely the method by which we voluntarily cooperate in order to accumulate and use the knowledge from all individuals across the reproductive spectrum.

But it ignores the three roles of Negative force, neutral exchange, Positive advocacy.

Ergo: Women’s Dreams, Brother’s Trades, Father’s Limits.

Yin(female) and Yang(male) do not balance in static harmony. We move through time in a continuous process of discovery. It is this difference that separated static east from dynamic west.

Lover, warrior, judge, King <—> Queen, teacher, mother, lover.
…………………..Brother, Partner, Maker, Trader……

Not bad work to accomplish before lunch. ;)

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute


An Anarcho Capitalist Society In The Long Run… Nope. Impossible/

—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

Let’s take a look:

(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.



Our New Church: Lets Frame This Question Of The Church Correctly


Myths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.)

There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins.

I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism,

That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series ofEgyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought.

Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization.

The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin.

It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence.

This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia.

Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us.

Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advancedFASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth.

It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies.

The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free.
Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west.

No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap.

Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor.

The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.
( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )


Natural Law, Expanded by Doolittle

(with updates by Doolittle)

Natural Law – What is Law?

Natural Law
Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).
Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.
Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

Natural Law – The History

The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The Stoics — The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians — Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)


The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016)
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American.

The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.


Natural Law – The Conclusion
In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.


The Rule of Degeneracy...

The *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism):

– “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive”

– “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical”

– “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.”

– “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.”

– “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.”

– “Any system of thought that is not explicitly eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.”

(Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)


Methods of Criticism: Falsehood vs Theft


In most arguments it is a given that they are false. Instead, seek not to prove the leftists false, but seek to prove them thieves.

Then respond with, why are you not willing to trade with me? Why must you lie and steal from me?


Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?

–“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling

It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it.

What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.

Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.

He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.

Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:
1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses)
2) Critical Rationalism: we can
3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.
4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test
5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.


Unempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.

Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.

Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.

Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass.

Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.
Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)

The Cycle
Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete.

The correct structure is:
Perception(random) ->
…Free association (searching) ->
……Hypothesis (wayfinding) ->
………Criticism(test – individual investment) ->
…………Theory (recipe/route) ->
……………Social Criticism (common investment) ->
………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->
…………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->
……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )

This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:
1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)
2 – Question (Problem)
3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! )
………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis.  Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea.
………..criticism / theory / personal use
………..testing / law / general use
………..recognition / survival / universal use
………..identity / tautology / integration into world view.

The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”)
– categorical consistency (identity)
– internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets)
– external consistency (empirical correspondence)
– existential consistency (existential possibility)
– moral consistency (symmetric non imposition)
– scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites:
– error in its many forms
– bias – wishful thinking in its many forms.
– suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting
– obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading
– lying and deceit in their many forms.

Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES.


I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here.

So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give.

The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure.
Which kind of floored me actually.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute


Q&A: Curt: Why Is Western Civ Eugenic?

Aristocracy, Meritocracy, Rule of Law, Market Economies, Manorialism(controlled access to land), voluntary mate selection, late marriage, nuclear family, migratory skilled labor, Low Tolerance Policing/high trust requirement, aggressive hanging, militial warfare (volunteer infantry), harsh winters, mathusian farming production, plagues, economic shocks, and disasters, have the following effects:
1 – force improved long term, mate selection
2 – lower generational rates of reproduction
3 – limit reproduction to those who are in the genetic ‘middle class’ and upward.
4 – redistribute resources upward to middle class and away from lower class reproduction.
5 – cull lower classes aggressively.
Which is important, because every person that’s ‘problematic’ at the bottom is six times as costly as every person that’s ‘beneficial’ at the top.

The basic math is like this: to organize a society in the voluntary organization of production you must get 80% of the resources in to 20% of population, and that 20% of the population must be ‘intelligent’ enough to make use of it. That means you must get your median IQ somewhere in the 100-106 range before you can really do much toward developing a high trust market economy. And you want to get as close to 112 to 115 if you want to out-compete the rest of the planet with innovations sufficiently to live what we in the west consider a marginally different quality of life.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine