Understanding Ourselves by Comparing Jewish and Aristocratic Philosophy


It’s not hard. You can turn all jewish philosophy on its head:

A poor, migratory, pastoral people, with high inbreeding, high clannishness, reverse sexual dimorphism, and who experienced their age of transformation as slaves, never adapted to land-holding, or developed land holding virtues, norms, institutions, laws and traditions, nor through selection developed a masculine aristocracy, or permanent warrior class, then industrialized the lying and wishful thinking of slaves, and upon obtaining literacy, selected for amplifying all their reverse sexual dimorphism (female reproductive strategy), and supporting values, and through their males, weaponized the reproductive strategy of women: wishful thinking, gossip, and deceit, by which to bring about a restored primitive matrilineal order. In other words, just as women evolved gossip to rally males against alphas, jews continued this strategy of gossiping

Just as women make their men weak if give the opportunity, jews make their hosts weak if given the opportunity.

Just as women ridicule, shame, gossip, and rally, jews do so but on an industrial scale with great deal of sophistication.

Just as women are superior at speech and men at action, jews are superior at speech, and aristocracy superior in action.

Just as women are petty and treat each other horribly if empowered, jews are petty and treat others horribly if empowered.

We have already had one jewish empire: the soviet union. And we must never have that happen to mankind again.

So no more Abrahamism: judaism, christianity, islam.

So no more Cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Rand, of the millions of jewish propagandists.

No more postmodernism: Foucault, Derrida, and all.

No more feminism and its history of lies. Reciprocity and Meritocracy are as they are, without the wishful thinking and parasitism of women.

We know the name of pandora: Abrahamism of the Jews, and its cancerous impact on the christians and muslims and by consequence, the rest of the world.

How do we stop abrahamism, cosmopolitanism, and the ridicule, shaming, rallying, and gossip of women?

Reciprocity, Truth. Testimonialism. Natural Law. Punishment. Zero Tolerance.

The via positiva law of Reciprocity (natural law):
The via negativa law is non imposition of costs
The via positiva of words is truth, of actions is exchange,
The via negativa is zero tolerance

And that is the aristocratic (white) version of Sharia.
Meaning that zero tolerance, requires mastery of violence.
Mastery of violence is expensive.
Therefore it must be profitable.

Aristocracy’s first industry is violence for the purpose of conducting zero tolerance of impositions of costs, by words or deeds, directly or indirectly,

The common people need only rule of law to protect them – when empowered they are parasites. all else can be produced by voluntary rather than coercive organizations.

The people who demonstrate productivity through reciprocity of production need means of developing commons by which to create multipliers of their productivity. They require a market for the production of commons: houses of the commons.

The people who demonstrate productivity through defense of reciprocity: militia and army, sheriff and judiciary, regional nobility and the monarchy, require a house of government to limit the houses of the commons.

With courts of reciprocity under universal standing and universal application a market for reciprocity can form without the monopoly rule of government to fabricate it. Then government can be used for its only moral purpose: the creation of contracts for the production and maintenance of commons – where these contracts must survive the market for reciprocity we call the courts.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


To National Socialists

(re: criticisms that I am anti-religion)

Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree.

Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence.

Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry).



Rothbardianism? Build a Model. Go Ahead, Think It Thru.


Build a model. Go ahead. Try it. You have an opinion. Prove that you’re not a fucking idiot.

What will occur if you could manage to put 1000 rothbadians in a small city on a trade route, tomorrow, what would happen? model it out.

1) it’s easy to find 1000 people to claim they are rothbardians.
2) it’s IMPOSSIBLE to find 1000 people who DEMONSTRATE they are rothbardians.
3) but lets assume for a minute that you can, by luck, get given some land along, say, the new silk road. And you want to set up a rothbardian society. How will you do that?

Here is how your conversation will start: “if some rich person (please mommy or daddy), or some nation (please king, or government) will fund (pay me to play around) a libertarian order (a place where I can keep my meagre earnings outside of a major market) I will (I fantasize) move there (away from all the creature comforts of an empire and a mixed economy) to a place only other losers like me will go to, and feel good until we fail and blame it on other people who don’t come for not having our fortitude (subsidy).

So, why do people come? What will they do? Why will they choose it over the alternatives? how will you create private defense, private, courts, private property, and how will your courts determine what private property, and what contract terms, they will rule in disputes over, and what not?

How will you prevent a nearby city, state, or empire from boycotting you via trade barriers? how will you stop organized crime? How will you stop an influx of people who prey upon nearby cities, states, empires by violence, fraud, conversion, immigration, or fiancialization, or some other scheme?

Why will WOMEN want to move there? or live there?

If you can’t get 100 libertarianis to agree to the scope of non aggression, or the definition of private property, despite 50 years of trying, how will you get them to take real life and property and commercial risks together?

In other words, how can you OPERATIONALIZE rothbardianism? How can you bring it into existence in the real world instead of the fantasy world of silly teenagers and immature young males?

I mean, if you can’t operationalize your ideas, you (anyone) is just saying that youre stupid ignorant and fantasizing over hot girs on porn sites, right? I mean what’s the difference between envisioning yourself with some hot chick, envisioning yourself as some athlete, envisioning yourself as some warrior, envisioning yourself as economicallly successful, envisioning yourself as a leader of men, envisioning yourself as a politician, a king, a despot?

I mean, if you can’t OPERATIONALIZE some objective and demonstrate that it’s at least POSSIBLE then you’re just masturbating to political porn the way young men masturbate to car porn, gun porn, chick porn. RIght?

“I’m a libertarian” is, like “I’m a Marxist” just signaling that you masturbate to political porn unless you can state some strategy for operationally constructing what it is that you desire.

I’m pretty smart and I CANNOT OPERATIONALLY CONSTRUCT A LIBERTARIAN ORDER. I CANNOT locate a candidate geographically, discover any incentives that would produce membership, discover sufficient means of organization to produce the minimum commons (rule of law, defense) discover a means of constructing sufficient comparative advantage that it is possible to attract and maintain population (particularly women). Or discover a means of preventing such a territory from being populated by raiders of nearby or remote markets who then seize power until the external markets prey upon them.

I can’t do it. Tell me how it can be done. Show me people will do so. Show me rational incentives to do so. And the answer is, that you can’t. All yo ucan do is say “i would prefer to wok on the borderland where I exchange limited regulation and taxation for much lower standard of living and much higher opportunity costs – so high that I can only survive by parasitic remote subsistence on remote markets. Why? subsistence farming by an individual is fucking hard and libertarians aren’t exactly the hardest working folk you know.

ROTHBARDIANISM IS NOTHING MORE JEWISH SEPARATIST PARASITISM sold to young ignorant men who have a touch of intelligence, but are of little associative, reproductive, commercial, military, and strategic value, precisely because there is something WRONG (undesirable) about them.

it’s just that this parasitic argument, like marxism before it and christianty before it promises the impossible to people not smart enough to falsify that vast overloading and framing that the propaganda is constructed from.

It sucks to admit you were played. That you’re not that smart. But libertarianism played a pretty good sized group of people. Not enough to make a political movement. But enough to make a cult for misfit boys.

Grow the fuck up.

Men fight. They kill. They destroy. They take. They rule. They profit from their rule. They decrease the cost of profiting from their rule. They profit more so.

If’ you’re a free riding effeminate loser unwilling to fight, kill, destroy, take, rule, profit from taht rule, and build a civilization that constantly decreases the cost of profiting from that rule then you are just a fucking whinny little bitch.

Lift. Run. Explosively Sprint. Read about war. get a weapon. And when the time comes be the first guy to sprint to an opportunity to fight, kill, destroy, take, and rule.

Otherwise youre just a child. Not a man.

Thus Endeth The Lesson.


Refresh: What Is Propertarianism?


What is Propertarianism?
A scientific, meaning descriptive, statement of Natural Law.
What is Natural Law?
A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?


In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.

In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the the accounting thereof.— James Augustus

Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.

why didn’t we use Natural Law or Reciprocity, or Sovereignty, and why did we use Propertarianism?

We used propertarianism because property, like money, provides the unit of measurement – the test – of changes in state caused by our actions. Property in toto, (that which others have born costs to obtain an interest without imposing costs upon the interests of others) like money, like any standard of measure in any field, provides a perfect test of reciprocity: cooperation.

Natural Law has been ‘tainted’ by various authors, so we had to differentiate ourselves from those previous authors.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Transcendence and Sovereignty Were The Last Pieces

Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces.

In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations.

The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men.

The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes.

And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war.

And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests.

There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation.

The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle.

We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives.

He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.




1) Numbers render countable objects commensurable
2) Measurements render relations commensurable
3) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.
4) Money renders goods and services commensurable
5) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
6) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.