The Principle of Exchange Makes Philosophy Much Easier

Political Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that all goods are hypothetical, all bads are not, and that the only means of accumulating the knowledge to determine good from bad is exchange. This eliminates the fallacy that any of us know what is in fact good for all, other than institutions that allow us to choose any possible good but prohibit us from pursuing any known bad are a de facto good by prohibiting bads.

This is contrary to human cognition because we evolved for negotiating cooperation not truth telling. It is contrary to human desire, because we desire consensus. It is contrary to political incentive because it limits political power.

We all think we are ‘right’. But the only ‘right’ we can know is trade. Just as the only way we know whether we engaged in production or engaged in waste, consumption, or entertainment, is if others trade for what we create.

Information and volition tell us what ‘right and wrong’ do not.


The Pentatuch, Bible, and Constitution?

There is very little difference between the negotiated construction of the Pentateuch, or the Bible, and the American Constitution: they were the product of committees constructing the criteria for civil law. This is quite contradictory to the Indo European Tradition in which law EVOLVES.

But these things are constructs of man for the purpose of governing man.


Who Invented The Big Lie?

We start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

—“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will.
The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds.
Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33]
In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth.
Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods.


There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”.

There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism).

There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods.

So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie?

Who invented the Big Lie?

—” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land.

Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea.

A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief.
The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard).

And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom).

We cure the big lies with truth.

Over and over again.


Evolution of Various Technologies of Cooperation

The Technologies of Cooperation

1) Tribal Hunter Gatherer -> Steppe/Desert -> Agrarian -> Urban -> (Slum?)
2) Headman -> Chieftain -> King -> President/Prime Minister -> (Judge?)
3) Memory -> Oral Tradition -> Written -> Printing -> Media -> (Digital Records?)
4) Norm -> Religion -> Law -> Credit -> (Digital Reputation?)
5) Spiritualism-> Mythos-> Religion-> Reason -> Pseudoscience -> Science -> Truth
6) Animism-> Polytheism-> Monotheism-> Reason-> PseudoScientism-> Trade.
7) Property -> Barter -> Money -> Interest and Credit -> Fiat Money -> (Baskets?)
8) Property -> Wealth -> Partnerships -> Banks -> Central Banks -> ( stocks?)
9) Pairing-Off -> Counting -> Recording -> Balanced Accounting -> Financialization -> (?)
10) Tribal -> Serial -> Poly -> Paternal -> Traditional -> Nuclear -> (Individual?)


Q&A: The Bicameral Mind?

—“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ thesis materials. Seems to jive with your theme, Curt. You alluding to a similar theme when referencing the Pentateuch, or the Bible?”—Mark Palmer

Great question Mark. Great Question.

Well, I don’t really agree with how Jaynes is stating it, but I agree that the ‘separateness’ of the mind, and it’s self criticism, is a fairly recent invention in human history. You can see it if you talk to native americans and unexposed south american indians. Their distinction between the dream world and the rational (self critical) world is not bifurcated. It took me a while to understand this. They’re also far less verbally capable. So I suspect that the evolution of language and the evolution of the mind from from intuition are produced by the same evolutionary consequences.

I mean women are definitely unable to control the noise in their heads as well as men are – this is the difference in our operating methods. I’d have a nervous breakdown if I had to be a woman for a day.

Well, I’m trying to make the statement that the both the hebrew and the christian-greek-roman bible were constructed by means very similar to the construction of the constitution.

But why is there such a difference between the content of archaic religion and the content modern of law? Or between the regulation of the roman empire, and the regulation of women, slaves, and the masses of mediterranean poor?

The difference is PROPERTY. The asset of poor people is charity and cooperation. The asset of propertied people is property.
Religion for regulation of norms (opportunity and insurance) and law for regulation of property (physical things).

So what does that mean for our future? I think I have that figured out. But I want to eliminate the artificial distinction between Law(aristocracy), Philosophy(middle class) and Religion(poor).

These technologies all serve the same purpose: regulation of classes.



Isn't America a Germanic Not Just Anglo Country?

(important piece)

(I will write more on this later. But it will explain my emphasis on operationalism and strict construction)

Before about 1830, when the British Empire adopted commercial universalism, Britain was a member of germanic, north sea, hanseatic, civilization.

We tend to compare our British ancestors to Today’s Britons who are heavily catholicized and franglicized, and certainly members of socialist cults of hyper signaling through quests for artificial moralism.

But the majority of anglo immigrants arrive before the civil war, and the majority of german immigrants before the second world war. And the majority of white americans trace their history to germanic origins.

Our warriors in our wars – all of them – are largely germanic. Our Teutons (warrior caste) have been our great leaders.

Our founders had far more in common with their german counterparts in pre-unification Germany, than they did with middle class and commercial victorian Britons. They may have spoken English. They may have learned French. They may have ridiculed the ‘backwardness’ of the Germans. But for all intents and purposes they were Germanic, Protestant, Hanseatic, North Sea peoples with germanic aspirations and germanic values. And because of its libertarian political structure, Hanseatic Civilization (of the north sea peoples) does not receive historical treatment that the statist era the destroyed it under napoleon, and with napoleon set the destruction of western civilization in motion.

The american states had more in common with the german principalities than they did with their British ancestors.

Our indoctrination into the ‘frame’ of war-making-nation-states obscures too much information from us. There is some truth that in the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds, there was an acknowledge conspiracy between today’s catholic(mediterranean trade) states that the germans be left alone so that they defended the frontier from the barbarians of the east. But we are a germanic people – a north sea people. Water ways determined evolution more so than land masses since it is waterways that provide routes for discounted conduct of trade.

The american civil war – over control of the continent with slavery as the excuse – and Lincoln’s destruction of the germanic states, and their conversion to Napoleonic centrality, was the second great tragedy of Europe. And the attempt to unify Europe under a federal government the third great tragedy.

We can now only struggle to overthrow the failed Enlightenment projects, and return to polycentrism which was the competitive cause of western political, military, and commercial innovation.

Scale increases the promise of mutual insurance in exchange for the stagnation and systemic parasitism that results from all organizational certainty. Only change and conflict strengthen (see Taleb), and certainty increases fragility.

So we can also state that libertarian sentiments of our anglo saxon ancestors were artificially protected just as the libertarian sentiments of our Icelandic and american ancestors. And that it is only our Scandinavian(middle ages) and Prussian(enlightenment) ancestors that held europe’s indo-european warrior traditions as central cultural values. (This is an uncomfortable truth that libertarians will have difficulty swallowing.)

America is a Germanic Country, Conquered by French Nation-statism, Invaded by The Second Great Jewish Lie of Pseudoscience, The Great Deceit of Postmodernism that followed, and saved only by the challenge of overcoming the nearly but not fully, strictly constructed Anglo Saxon Common Law. Hence my radically analytic pursuit of Truth, and Strict Construction (operationalism) so that it is possible to reform our ancient germanic polycentric government so that it cannot be changed by political means, can may only evolve methods of voluntary cooperation.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Q&A: "Curt, What Do You Think of The Alt Right Authors?"

—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—

Chris, (all)

Great Question Chris.

We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests.

The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it.

Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government.

And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me.

Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all.

The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience.

These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say).
I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution.

Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there.

But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science.

(As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. )

I hope this helps.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute


Creating a Moat Around Russia: Six Points Explaining Why Putin Is Acting Strategically


1) The fall of Ukraine was unexpected and Putin feared a spread to Moscow. Rather than call up the USA or Merkel and offer to lease Crimea for 99 years with an option to renew, and offer to exchange the Donbas (The Don Basin) for a large discount on gas for the same period, he ‘flinched’ because of the fear that he would lose his only warm water port.

2) He did expect some difficulties from the west but not the severity of impact on the economy. This was surprising to him – and everyone else for that matter. He is painfully aware that the west could shut off financial transactions with Russia and that would cause the rest of the economy to collapse. While he can threaten to turn off the oil to the west, this hurts him far more than the west – who merely has to buy more expensive oil on the world market – whereas Russia rapidly runs out of money to conduct trade (and internal bribes).

3) Putin wants to restore Russia to peer status in the world. He saw his civilization collapse and it framed him forever. He is not alone. To do this requires that he monopolize the oil revenues so that he can manage the economy through payments (dependents) the way germans manage with duty, brits with morality, and americans with law. Russia does not share our high trust traditions and so he must run the country as a mafia state until he can mature the institutions sufficiently that he does not need to use 50% of revenues to buy influence in order to keep the country running. This is a job that is very difficult that is hard for westerners to understand. Russia is and always has been run as a mafia state – for the same reason souther Italy was run as a mafia state: because no one in or out of the administration was trustworthy.

4) Putin (correctly I believe) wants to provide his people (and the world) with an alternative to the ‘suicidal decadence’ of the democratic secular hedonistic west. Prior to ‘flinching’ in Ukraine, he was the most respected politician in the world. He can quite easily enfranchise the western right and accomplish that goal if he lets go of Ukraine. He may not see that Ukraine is forever gone – the people have turned against Russia forever. (I live here in Ukraine). And that Ukraine will want membership in both the EU and NATO and if not, then the eastern european countries will form an alternative to NATO.

5) He has a muslim problem greater than that of Europe and America, and worse yet, he depends on Chechen muslims to do much of his ‘dirty work’. So he is empowering enemies. His reason for acting in Syria is three fold: (a) he wants to kill off as many muslims as possible so that they don’t expand to Russia. (b) most maps don’t show this well, but most of the oil in the world that is profitable to take out of the ground is in a narrow region between the saudi Peninsula and the Barents sea. Now,it’s one thing if radical muslims hold the southern half of that territory, but not if they terrorize Russia and get hold of the northern half. (c) Russia has not been able *yet* to produce a diverse economy so he needs no to fight a world war with muslims over the oil fields when he is in weakened position.

6) Russia’s most severe problem is that it cannot develop businesses because as soon as they are profitable some member of the upper echelon steps in, drives it to near bankruptcy and then buys it for a song. This has become the most serious issue to the economy other than the permanent problem with rule of law. The problem of ‘modernizing’ Russia is very difficult and he has actually made pretty significant progress during his tenure.

We must not misinterpret Putin’s actions in Ukraine as a strategy, rather than an act of panic at the possible loss of the manufacturing base of the Russian military (in the Donbas) and the only warm water port possessed by the Russian military (crimea).

Otherwise, Putin has a long term plan to create a traditional Russia by restoring the orthodox church, providing an impassable and state sponsored method of resisting islam,(400 new churches in Moscow alone), slowly reforming rule of law, and after the sanctions are lifted (they will be) using money to diversify the economy. (Russia cannot duplicate the Silicon Valley Model because of the low trust society and pervasive corruption, but it has the talent to do so. Russian psychology – skepticism, cunning, and pride – is very useful in the development of engineers.)

Putin is making sure that Russia is an island insulated from Islamic brutality and Western depravity. He is building a fortress of defense against threats to his people. A better example is that he is building an Ark that will survive the coming turmoils.

If you see it from this perspective, Putin is profoundly consistent, strategic and rational in the pursuit of his objectives.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


The Templars Did It Right: Room And Board


And you see ISIS doing the same.
And we see Ukrainian Volunteers dong the same.
And you saw american revolutionary soldiers doing it.
And you saw european soldiers throughout history do it.

The central problem of raising an army is not weapons, it is merely the money necessary to supply room and board for those men who prefer to fight for change rather than do whatever it is at their disposal.

If you ask men to bring a weapon, they will. But you must be able to feed, shelter, and direct them.

Once you have men and weapons, you have an army, and an army can take whatever it wants or needs. And by the act of merely taking, it disrupts the economy so significantly that little else need be done.

What the Islamists do well is (a) live on few resources, and (b) distribute money effectively through channels, and (c) make use of a vast surplus of men.

Western men are in surplus. Money, Distribution, and Communication are not complicated.

Moral authority. A set of Demands, A plan. Room and Board.

Simple men think in tactics. General think in logistics.

You see, the more advanced an economy, the more fragile it is.


I'm Not Trying To Start a Cult - But To Restore The West By Starting A War.

(from elsewhere)

I don’t understand Shaun.

I think people who have been following me for a few years know why I use FB and why I run all these “tests”. Maybe it isn’t obvious any longer. I construct theories. I test them. These theories are designed to help me understand what I don’t. So I will spend a year making some set of arguments until nothing new is coming back..Ad move on to another of the same. I worked my way through the libertarian. I worked through the nrx. i’m working through the alt-right – and I try to understand.

Along the way I need to pick up a few people who can construct arguments. That’s happening.

I am not trying to start a cult.

(i’m trying to create a plan to start a war)”