A Very New Cut On Intellectual History


So Zoroastrianism was constructed to divide the Persians and indians who were both southern indo european peoples.

Then the Talmud was constructed as a lie to justify retention of property after the end of the babylonian conquest.


The greeks invent reason, truth, science, politics for the management of people at scale.

The Romans, seeing the ‘verbalism’ (immorality) of the greeks, resist greek idealism and embrace practical and empirical means.


Then judaism evolved as a means by which to justify parasitism upon host civilizations while maintaining group cohesion.

Then christianity was constructed as a rebellion against the empire, that had deprived primitive people of their local status signals.

Then the bible was constructed to manage the hordes through false promise now that production by slavery was no longer possible.

Then the koran was constructed to unite the tribes and conquer the peninsula (and then the exhausted Byzantines and Sassanids, and North Africa, and then Spain. )


The Carolingians failed to construct an economic and political order. although the trade routes from Italy to the Netherlands and then to the north sea peoples created incremental organic evolution.

The Templars created the legal and credit system and were destroyed by the authoritarian church who was their debtor.

The Hansa recreated the legal, credit, and trade system. But were out-competed by the territorial powers that largely adopted their methods.

The development of the new world and colonies allowed the financing of the transition of the west to economic modernity. (despite that there was little long term benefit to western nations, and strangely enough quite a considerable benefit to colonies depending upon who colonized them.)


Then the anglos responded with the enlightenment, empiricism, and the restoration of truth (science).

The french responded with … rousseuan pseudoscience and pseudo morality, as a means of creating the terror, and attempting to unify all of europe under their despotism.

The germans respond with restating christian mysticism as kantian rationalism. And create a new vehicle for obscurantism.

The Jews responded by converting the hansa/templar system to their advantage in the territorial wars between Britain and France (Napoleonic wars) creating the Rothschild and consequent systems of order creation by using our own capital stock and lending it back to us.

Westerners responded with the nation-state, an attempt to construct professional bureaucracy, the gold standard, empire and the industrial revolution. Most importantly, american constitution and it’s somewhat failed attempt at natural law expressed as a formal logic of cooperation.

Jews responded with an attack on the academy and polity by creating the great pseudosciences: Boazian Sociology, Marxist Economics and Politics, Freudian Psychology. All of which were constructed to universalize separatist judaism or justify hosting jewish separatism despite it’s parasitisms. This merely taking the argumentatitve innovations of the french and germans combining them with the same obscurantist ‘preaching’ technique used to distribute Christianity, except now using the power of the printing press.

BRANCH : We branch now into various evolutions upon this new religion – faster innovation in the technologies of truth and falsehood.

Branch 1 – Jewish
Then the second wave: Popperian philsophy, Misesian Economics, Randian/Rothbardian Libertinism. (the half-failure/half-success)
Then the third wave: straussian neo-conservativsm and expansionary militarism of the ‘new rome’. (the madness of power)

Branch 2 – Neo Puritan
Then the adoption of Keyneisan Economics as the new innumerate pseudoscience. and Rawlsian Ethics as the pseudo morality.
Then the adoption of postmodern philosophy in academia.

Mises in economics, Brouwer in Mathematics, Bridgman in Physics (science), Popper in philosophy, A HOST of authors in Law. And a total catastrophic absence in Politics since majoritarianism was still influential everywhere.

RESTORATION: Science catches up with the deceit and starts to disprove it.

The various cognitive scientists, and neurologists, are largely responsible for our reframing of jewish monopoly conformity to western distribution of talents and abilities.

EO Wilson states that a synthesis of biology, morality, politics and economics – all the sciences – should be possible.

Archaeologists and historians and evolutionary biologists in our social orders.

Haidt, the empirical psychologists, and the anthropologists in the evolution of cooperation.

Doolittle in Economics, Politics, Ethics, Sociology, Psychology, Epistemology and Metaphysics.

In retrospect this is my view of the evolution of history as a competition between the different european tribes, most of which practice morality and one of which practices immorality. And the reason being that if we hold land we can construct moral rules because we must in order to create the commons of land holding. A parasitic people that does not need or cannot hold land need not create commons because they can use the host’s.

Law is for individuals. Individuals must be able to act in their interests, limited by the prohibition on parasitism.
But policy must exist for the production of commons that perpetuates the family, kin, tribe, and nation, or else it is just a lie to justify conquest.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


The Family Institution...

Without the family we create great incentive for defectors, and we increase vastly the cost of individual housing, insurance, and sustenance and survival, That’s all.

Marriage makes people wealthier by lowering costs, and creating a higher barrier to reproduction that prevents the underclasses from reproductive parasitism.

So it is less important that our BEST breed a LOT, than it is for our worst not to breed even a little.



Continental -> Postmodern Philosophy -vs- Analytic -> Testimonial Philosophy


You see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory?

This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data.

So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein.

But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language.

I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying.

But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.)

Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment.

Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning.

Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth.

Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them.

Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions.

Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


There is a Reasong for Interpetive Differences in Religion

The need for interpretation is evidence of the fallacy of a statement.

—” find it very hard to believe that you will enable you to quickly and accurately interpret the Qu’ran when there appears to be much disagreement even within adherents to the religion”—

That’s because no amount of study will achieve anything other than self indoctrination and hypnosis into a series of internally inconsistent falsehoods.

Truth is non-contradictory. Thats' how we know truth.
falsehood is contradictory. That's how we know falsehood.

The fact that the koran requires ‘interpretation’ because it is internally consistent, is demonstration of the fact that it is falsehood.

This is one of the great ways in which falsehoods are spread. “there is great wisdom here’.

Then you have to just assume so many falsehoods but never reach the truth.

The reason is that there was never any truth.

The entire purpose was to get you to believe a series of falsehoods by the promise of future truth.

This is the secret to all religious lies.

The promise of eternal life is the same. If you believe all these falsehoods, then you will find immorality.

The promise of heaven is the same: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find heaven.

The promise of reward: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find virgins awaiting you.

The lie of the devil to faust and the lie of muhammed to muslims:

“I will give you stuff now if you give me something later” (faust).

“I will give you something later if you give me something now” (allah).

Whereas the entire purpose is to use you as a useful idiot to achieve immoral ends, and never pay you the reward you have been promised, because it does not exist and never did.

There are no gods that are not just stories. There are no heavens that are not just false promises. There is no good in islam.

The gnostics were right. Jehova was the devil and the Talmud, The Bible, and the Koran are his most successful works.

There is only one prophet who does not lie. His name is Aristotle.

And the one true god is truth itself.


Speaking the Truth


You can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim.

Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another.

If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered.
But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability.

If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence.

We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans.

What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation”

So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak.
So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience.

You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible.

Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean.

Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness.

So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence.

This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence.

So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for.

You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard.

I hope this was helpful to you.




The Market Determines The Level of Suppression Necessary for a Stateless Polity

Now, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do?

They retaliate. That’s what they do.

If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically.

You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES.

Not sure why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity.

As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy.

This is natural law.


Disease Gradients Impede Cooperation

(Via Francesco Principi)

“The xenophobia expressed in environments with high pathogen severity creates barriers to intergroup cooperation. These barriers cause greater poverty in environments with increased pathogen severity, in addition to the direct effects of disease on the human capital that is essential to economic growth. Xenophobic groups in competition for resources are unwilling to resolve this competition through cooperative means, and they are more likely to resort to violent conflict.”

This idea has legs.


Classification by Advertising Rather Than Content

We have this tragic categorial bias in the west wherein we classify religions by their advertising rather than their content.


Eli on Love (Great Post)

I think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s.

And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing.

If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long.

For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of.

But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive.

Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.”

So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.”

—Eli Harman



—-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

This is an interesting example, so lets use it.

You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question.

Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law

This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable.

So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes.

We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism.

Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically).

Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood.

So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference
There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations).

But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex).

This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH.

Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error.

It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions.

So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements.

What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions.

When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it.

So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons.

One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.