The Purpose of the Technologies of Truth and Falsehood.

The purpose of that technology that we call ‘Truth’ is largely one of persuasion. The purpose of that technology we call ‘falsehood’ is largely the prevention of persuasion by imaginary, erroneous, biased, wishful, or deceitful means.

In any scale beyond the directly perceivable – meaning beyond no more than 150 people – we cannot rely upon persuasion but instead must rely upon falsification: reason not to do something.

There are few known goods. There are some known good processes.

At any scale assent is the default. Falsification by the imposition of costs not assent by majority rule.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


The Battle We Face Today: Non-Parasitic Production of Commons

(important piece)

I know I’m not the first person to say this, but it’s pretty clear that Russia is not only the ultimate expression of postmodernism (lying), but that it evolved to this state by reforming jewish strategy, philosophy, and law: destroy the trust of the outsiders in order to create demand for authority and group cohesion, thereby creating opportunity for predation.

While the founders of Russia were disproportionately jewish, and while their secret service was disproportionately jewish, what is more important is that the jewish strategy was useful for the Mongolian/Tatar/Islamic authoritarianism that is the source of Russian political culture. Russia combines ‘white’ people, Steppe totalitarianism, and jewish deceit (propaganda) as the complete economic, social, political and martial expression of the jewish strategy: destroy the higher trust societies and create demand for authority, and create opportunity for predation.

If we go back through history and see the success of lying created through zoroastrian monotheism: jewish, it’s revolutionary reformation: christianity, and it’s counter-revolutionary authoritarianism: Islamism, then it’s modern branches in Marxism, Western Postmodernism, Russian secular judaism, and anglo progressive pseudoscience and outright lying, then

We can not only cure ourselves, but we can disarm the world: TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

The Truthful and Trusting society may not be the end of history, but social democracy is certainly not.

There are three means of production of commons:
– Truthful and Trustful (libertarian: rule of law, civic society)
– Pragmatic and Utilitarian (social democracy)
– Deceitful and Parasitic (authoritarianism)

We have focused our efforts too long on the economy. Consumer capitalism has won the battle for the production of goods and services.

We no longer fight that battle. And focusing our efforts on it is a waste of energy. We won not by arguments but by resisting the state long enough so that the logically obvious could result in the empirically demonstrable: the voluntary organization of production is the only successful technology for the production of consumer goods and services.

Instead of the battle for a voluntary economy, the battle we face today is the suppression of parasitism in central bureaucracy and the expansion of trust and thereby increase of economic velocity.

We must create the non-parasitic voluntary production of commons just as we created the non-parasitic voluntary production of goods and services.

At present there is only one way we know of by which to destroy all parasitism, increase trust, increase economic velocity, increase prosperity, ad therefore increase choices. That is universal standing under the common law, the legal prohibition of parasitism, by mutual insurance: the exchange of guarantee of defense and restitution of property-en-toto.

But we must also provide for the construction of commons by voluntary means, by changing what is currently a monopoly constructed by majority ascent into a market wherein any non-parasitic exchange between the classes, or objective of the classes can be constructed.

We succeeded in transforming humanity into the voluntary organization of production of goods and services we call consumer capitalism.

Our next mission – purely out of self defense – is to transform our government into a voluntary organization of commons.

This project is eminently possible. It will forever render the corporeal state to the dustbin of antiquity, categorically relegated to another attempt at pseudoscience for the purpose of pure power accumulation and nothing more.

We have a very simple mission then. To reform every possible constitution such that the judiciary shall prohibit all parasitism without exception. And that the provision of commons be one of adjudication of differences, not of ascent. And that the defense of the realm be the province of every man, under universal standing under the common law.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Apriori and Rational vs Empirical and Operational

—“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba


The Limits of Intelligence and the Challenge of Error

(life’s wisdom)

At some point, it seems that greater intelligence is less influential than lack of wishful thinking, lack of accumulated error, accumulating knowledge, the time you invest in problem-solving, and choosing a narrow field of inquiry.

We believe true things, but largely we believe partly true things, some what true things and false things. Every time we USE one of these not-entirely-true beliefs to make a judgement, we produce, remember and habituate errors. We create a frame: “pattern of decision making”, worldview, and metaphysics, unconsciously.

One can be quite bright, but never express one’s intellectual potential for no other reason than accumulated error.

We all believe in unicorns.

The trick isn’t so much believing anything in particular, as it is not believing so much that is false.

Most smart people I meet suffer from wishful thinking and accumulated error.


The Purpose of Aristocracy: Parenting Man


Our function is to incrementally but consistently evolve our people (and prevent their devolution) by preventing parasitism, and forcing productive cooperation. We force the development of markets for good and services by prohibiting parasitism. We force the production of markets for commons by prohibiting parasitism.

There is a great difference between RULE (conflict resolution) and GOVERNANCE (production of commons). Our function is to RULE (judiciary, rule of law, property rights, property en-toto.) The entrepreneurial aristocracy’s function is to organize PRODUCTION using the voluntary organization of production. Our gossip class’s function is to ADVOCATE for the allocation of resources to particular ends. But in all cases we must prevent parasitism.

It is epistemologically impossible for an aristocratic minority to police all of these functions for parasitism without tyranny. It is on the other hand, trivially easy for individuals to police these functions for parasitism without tyranny. The means by which we engage individuals in the process of policing is to grant them universal standing in the prosecution of parasitism, expressed as the right to property-en-toto, and to include them in the restitution under conspiracy if they fail to prosecute parasitism.

Our function is to create order by prohibiting parasitism- to create the first commons: cooperation (property-en-toto). Not to advocate. Others’ functions are to produce goods and services for the commons, and advocate for and produce commons.


You’re Demonstrably Incapable of Self-Rule if Your People are Running to the West


Either fix your problem at home, hire us to fix it for you (it’s quite easy if you’re honest to fix a society). And if you do neither, out of defense, we must start a new program of colonization and modernization out of our own self-defense.

It’s not our burden. It’s our defense.

You have no right to externalize your failures.

And we have no right to externalize our failures (democracy and equality)


Patriarchy: Your Mission is to Create A Market for Commons

(important piece) (challenge of the patriarchy)

Your Charter.  The demands of your revolution :

1) All cults (religions) require ceremony. They create enfranchisement. Mythology and ritual produce ownership. The more costly to the participants the mythology and ritual, the longer the group will persist, and the more impervious it is to competition. (This rule is invariant through history)

2) Those monarchies that have retained ceremony persist, and those that did not do not.

3) Those groups that maintain monarchies retain economic superiority over those that do not. (their governments are also often suicidal in no small part as a means of competing with the monarchy for power, which they rightfully see as a threat.)

4) The reason that the monarchies fell was that they failed to copy the British method of creating additional houses for newly enfranchised classes. The British failed to add a house of women, and one of proletarians. The Americans not only reversed the division of classes by directly electing the senate, but also failed to add new houses for proletarians and for women.

5) This error is reversible. The common law of property rights is universal to man (and any other sentient creature for that matter). the martial aristocracy requires martial and legal order, the productive aristocracy requires a multitude of trade policies and commons, and the proletarians and women require a multitude of forms of mutual insurance.

We succeeded in creating a market for goods and services, but we failed to create a market for commons because the enlightenment fallacy in the french, german, jewish and anglo models all sought majority rule (numbers) in order to seize power (all power) from the martial and landed aristocracy.

The problem is monopoly. Even monopoly under democracy. It is not government per se. Since commons are as desirable as are businesses and industries. The problems are (a) that under monopoly (majority rule) classes cannot construct (measurable honest) trades. And (b) that ascent (voting) creates opportunity for rents, rather than criticism (legal suit), which prevents parasitism.

But counter to the suggestion that ceremony is frivolous, the demonstrated evidence in all social orders from civic associations, to communes, to cults, to governments, and to religions, is that the higher the cost of ritual, the more permanent the behavioral investment in the association.

Monarchy lacked numbers, and a solution to the ascent of the middle class. It was a technological failure that brought down the monarchies. Not only their incessant warfare. The solution was to create a market for commons, while retaining rule of law in the monarchy. Instead, we ended up with ‘government’ monopoly conflating law (conservative), commons(libertarian), and morality(progressive).

This error mandated the success of the progressives, since undesirable women plus beta males outnumber conservative and libertarian males.

The monarchies created markets by imposing unwanted pacifism on the peoples – for profit. It was an exceptionally rewarding business. And an exceptionally rewarding business for mankind. But as our productivity increased and our desire for consumption increased, we failed to create a market for commons equal in productivity to the one we had created for goods and services.

So, restoration of paternalism: parenting society between generations, is to provide an institutional solution to the participation of nearly all in the markets for reproduction, the market for production, and the market for commons, while at the same time PROHIBITING violations of the one rule that makes reproductive, productive, and commons markets possible: the prohibition on parasitism articulated as rights of prosecution and restitution that we call ‘property rights’.

There is no other alternative that is known and possible and not in itself yet another immoral monopoly.

Every parasitic and forced transfer is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial exchange.

The PATERNITY’s future is to use violence to raise the cost of the status quo such that it is cheaper to provide houses so that classes with different reproductive interests can conduct exchanges, than it is to maintain the monopoly of the proletarians and women that are destroying out civilization from within.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine / London UK.


A Hierarchy of Argumentative Structures

(useful) (learning propertarianism)

The next ten arguments you make, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.

1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

9) TRUTHFUL: categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.

Curt Doolittle’s “Degrees Of Political Argument”*1, from least to most substantive: *1[ 2011]


A Hierarchy of Argumentative Truth

(very useful) (learning propertarianism)

So, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.

1) MEANING (Awareness)
….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
….True enough for me to feel good about.
….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.


Racism, Loading and Framing

I was going to point out that it is possible to conduct racist statements through loading and framing for the purpose of rallying or shaming.

The problem is that the kind of people who make empirical statements (us), tend not to make morally loaded and framed statements. Since those of our political persuasion do not, and we tend not to be influenced by them, we forget that most argument (if we call it that) is not empirical, even if it is, its correlative and subject to selection bias. Humans are moral creatures. Humans seeks status more so than anything but life.

Racism + Morality *vs* Truth + Empiricism

Whether an argument is moral or not is a reflection of the individual’s reproductive strategy. So in a sense, any moral argument that consists of rallying and shaming is in fact a truthful expression of one’s reproductive strategy. The problem is that our reproductive strategies differ. And moral arguments are incommensurable. As such moral arguments are meaningless. And they only necessary under political monopoly.

Yet if we conduct exchanges rather than monopoly, and we force no costs upon others in the process, then we are acting cooperatively (morally) with those we disagree with (reproductively) but not sacrificing for them, and we cooperate with those we agree with (reproductively) and may choose whether or not to sacrifice for them.

SO the problem we face is that while we have used monopoly government to construct a market for goods and services, we have not also used that monopoly to create a market for commons – leaving the only monopoly the rule of law.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

(PS: when someone fights an empirical statement I usually just ask them why they’re liars. How can liars and lying be a moral action? How can they say they do good by lying? Is lying good then? etc, etc… But every response has to return to the central question: why are you a liar? )

FWIW: I don’t do racism. try to fix our civilization, not blame others for pursuing their interests by taking advantage of our failures.