3.3-Epistemology · Core · Uncategorized

What Does The Word ‘Is’ Mean? (The “Copula”)

” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “

The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat it will appear to reflect the color black to you, or anyone else that observes it.”

If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings.
1) Exists (identity)
3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time)
2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties)
4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories)

We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts.

We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order
1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject.
2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy.
3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost. (Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.)
4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions.

The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies.

***The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties***

Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property.

It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything).

So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties.

But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen.

(chapter inclusion quality)

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Response To Tom Woods Speech To Libertarians

I love you Tom, but we have two over invested generations alive today grasping at the straws of the hippie generation promise of libertarian communes.

But Liberty and sovereignty have only been constructed and only can be constructed by the organised use of violence to prohibit the alternatives.

Wishful thinking will die with the generation of over invested wishful thinkers – buried by the empirical evidence that Liberty, personal responsibility under Liberty, and the costly use of violence to obtain and hold that Liberty, is the desire of but a few.

And so called libertarians may desire Liberty, may willingly carry the individual responsibility, but when it comes to paying the high cost of using violence to obtain and hold Liberty, they run away from that cost as rapidly as socialist run away from individual responsibility.

So I see no difference between wishful thinking by socialists on the economy and personal responsibility, and wishful thinking by so called libertarians on the government and the high cost of violence needed to secure Liberty.

Both are acts of fraud using moral pretence to attempt to excuse the payment of a cost necessary to obtain their desires.

Fraud is fraud no matter what moral pretence it is wrapped in

That socialist will fight, but not compete in the market. The libertarian will compete in the market but not fight.

The conservative will both fight and compete in the market and bear the cost of norms and laws that place the inter generational family ahead of the temporal individual.

As far as I can see conservatives are the only people willing to pay the cost of Liberty: normative, economic and military.

Everyone else is a fraud.

Curt Doolittle.
The Propertarian Institute.
Kiev, Ukraine.

5.7.6-The Reformation Of The Military

The End Of The Westphalian Order

“You guys (Marines) are now 0 and 4 against guys in bathrobes and flip-flops running around with AK’s.”

“The state finds itself in an increasing crisis of legitimacy”

“The state has become the private hunting preserve of the establishment” (the deep state).

“The Establishment is just Kabuki for the people in flyover land.”

“Establishments can’t make things work. it’s one of serial failure.”

“The establishment absolves itself from its failures.”

“It cares only about remaining the establishment What happens to the rest of society is of little concern.”

“The cultural marxism of the Frankfurt school.”

“The purpose since 1919 has been the destruction of western culture and the christian religion.”

“People are transferring their loyalty away from the state, and to those groups that they belonged to prior to the Westphalian peace”

“We need an alliance of states against 4th generation groups. ”

Of course, I think the opposite: that we need to restore our ability to participate in local fourth generation warfare.

“The good news is that the money already has run out.”

“[The military is] The grandest middle and upper class welfare scheme ever conceived.”


5.7.3 Reformation of Education · Uncategorized

Grammar Can Be Taught As Testimony

But the problem of our era is the elimination of pseudoscience and deceit put forth by Marxists, Socialists, Feminists, and Postmodernists.

So there is no reason we cannot teach grammar as not just ‘the good manners of victorian expression’, but as ‘the art of preventing the pollution of the commons by those who would produce deceptions in vast numbers with ease.

5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion · Uncategorized

The ‘Good’ In Religion Is The Civic Ritual. Not The Content


There is nothing in the bible that made the church good. They could have read greek legends and done good with them. It’s the ritual that matters, not the content. What the church spread was literacy, and diplomacy, and eventually natural law. The rest was a bucket of catastrophic lies.

What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing

The Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, were invented to defeat the aristocracy using false promises to rally women and proles.

Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media were used to defeat aristocracy, by using false promises to rally women and proles.

Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are nothing more than an attempt to use secular language as ancients used mysticism: for deceit.

The western tradition consists is in heroism, empiricism, the oath (truth and non parasitism), the common judge discovered law, the jury.

We have been attacked in our duress (post our european civil war) by the same method that the romans were attacked: invasion, new ‘mysticism’ in the form of pseudoscience. And attacked the same way the byzantines were attacked after their war with the Persians by islam.

Christianity ushered in a thousand years of ignorance. Islam has ushered in nearly a thousand, and has no sight of stopping.

Is there any greater evil than the false book of Abraham?

5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion · Uncategorized

We Already Had The Second Coming…


**What’s the difference between the Apostles, the Council of Nicaea, The Pulpit, and Boaz/Freud/Marx, The Frankfurt School, the Media? Nothing.***

The difference is one of technological sophistication. The great lies of Jewish and Christian Mysticism, and the great lies of Secular Pseudoscience.

They feared the truth of Jupiter, Aristotle and Roman Law. They feared the Truth of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche.

They created great lies to compensate.

The great lies in the hands of women and proles are as powerful as the great truths in the hands of the aristocracy.

5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion

The Failure of Traditionalists


At present we have traditionalists that don’t understand the content of their traditions, only that through mandatory indoctrination and ritual do we behave aristocratically – in the western tradition.

The Patriarchy for example, is popular primarily by appeal to traditional (aristocratic) aesthetics. Under the assumption that the church was the originator rather than the recipient and beneficiary of the aristocratic tradition.

The Traditionalists do the same. But the church is just a temple for the weak side of the aristocracy. It’s not that we don’t need our great temples, and that we don’t need our great artistic achievements, but that

My point is not to demean the church or advocate for atheism (individualsm) rather than a civic religion (familialism). Nor is it to deny that commercial empires have been as damaging for western civilization as has been our great wars, and our invasion by christian mysticism.

My point is that we can create a civic religion out of truthful content rather than lies. Why? We do not need to appeal to a fantastic utopia that may be the home of false gods.


We need no gods. Only heroes. And we have legions of them.


Monotheistic Religion requires submission and submission is incompatible with sovereignty. And the experience of Liberty requires existential sovereignty.

I don’t reject natural law. I don’t reject extension of kinship love. I don’t reject prohibition on inbreeding. I don’t reject aristocracy and paternalism.

I do reject mysticism. I do reject the great babylonian, egyptian and jewish lies. and most importantly I do reject submission.

And furthermore, so does the vast majority of the population.

One need not respect or propagate mysticism in order to extend kinship love, reject prohibition on inbreeding, or reject submission.

One does need natural law, common law, and civic rituals.

No one requires civic rituals that include mysticism.

The feeling of spirituality occurs whenever a body of people move, speak, or think in unison. That’s where it comes from: running with the pack.

The church as it stands is the enemy of europe and the european peoples.

It is not that we do not need a church, nor to to reform the church, it is that the church has failed us since the reformation. And continues to fail us.

Why? Because enlightenment and literacy and knowledge make mysticism not only no longer possible, not only unnecessary, but it’s antagonistic to the population.

So, how should the church reform?

John Kersey:
Most traditionalists I know also reject the Reformation, being either traditionalist Catholic or Orthodox. The Church did not fail us until it fell victim to secularism. Also, mysticism is not all there is to the church, indeed mysticism has generally been very tightly controlled by the church. Submission is characteristic of some religious beliefs, and is integral to Islam. But it is not the basis of Christianity, which rests not upon compulsion but on a voluntary, free-will relationship between God and man created in His image. That relationship is nothing more than drawing ourselves closer to the essence that made us and that governs and knows our every impulse.
Putting aside submission to the will of God, and putting aside the failure to adapt to secularism (science)… Then if you cut all the nonsense out of Christianity what would you teach from the pulpit. My view is that the church can teach from its history without the need for superstition. The catholic encyclopaedia is a pretty good canon.