Author: Curt Doolittle

  • I am working on this popper/critical rationalism/context post because I was insp

    I am working on this popper/critical rationalism/context post because I was inspired by a FB friend’s criticism of popper (justifiable) the other day. And I can only tolerate doing it for 15 minutes at a time.

    My body does not wanna work today….

    Too bad…. write -> web site -> write-> help documentation -> repeat.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:57:00 UTC

  • I LOVE WOMEN. OMG. LIKE FLOWERS. NEVER ENOUGH OF THEM IN THE WORLD. F_ck the fem

    I LOVE WOMEN. OMG. LIKE FLOWERS. NEVER ENOUGH OF THEM IN THE WORLD.

    F_ck the feminists. All women are beautiful. Just stop putting so much crap in your mouth, and spend more time prattling about nonsense. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:44:00 UTC

  • THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem

    THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR

    In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner.

    The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women.

    But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress.

    One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms.

    What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction.

    Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.

    So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium.

    Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? 🙂

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:34:00 UTC

  • OMG I’m offensive today I think. lol

    OMG I’m offensive today I think. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:04:00 UTC

  • Q&A: EUGENICS AND RACE? —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to r

    Q&A: EUGENICS AND RACE?

    —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

    Because eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties.

    1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism)

    2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism).

    3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics).

    The first is simply non logical and immoral.

    The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable

    The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable.

    Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism.

    Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males.

    So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters.

    Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males.

    Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement.

    A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity.

    But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine.

    Does that hurt?

    Well, you know it’s just true.

    The data is in.

    Women have no place in politics.

    It’s suicidal.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:04:00 UTC

  • What Love About Ashkenazi Genetics – But What Does It Mean? It’s pretty simple:

    What Love About Ashkenazi Genetics – But What Does It Mean?

    It’s pretty simple: verbal acuity persists into the lower classes, whereas verbal acuity in my people seems to decline quickly in the lower classes. The ability to observe mental projection and narrate it at the same time is just so common in that gene pool. And it seems to persist through substantial outbreeding.

    Its just so much EASIER to talk to someone in ANY class if they have the ashkenazi gift of language. They have much higher verbal comprehension and much higher empathic comprehension than their white peers. And as the depth of cooperation increases (the size of the economy) this talent increases in value. (even if the talent for deceit increases as well). Outlier genetics produce outliers in all directions remember.

    It’s very different from the East Asians. They lie and cheat like — like always — but they are terrible at it. And they have no ability to use verbalism to rally and lead. So aside from the fact that they’re more racist than we can imagine (that’s a good thing), they are not disruptive or difficult to organize with. You do not want an asian lawyer, and I would be very nervous about an asian accountant, but an asian engineer or employee is almost always a good thing – especially for those of us who like to heap praise on good performers, because they’re so damned appreciative of it. Our heritage as egalitarian warriors does not facilitate our complimenting subordinates all the time. (I love working with the Japanese and the Russians. )

    Here in Ukraine, and especially here in L’viv, which was at one point very close to the capital of Ashkenazi civilization, (as a border protectorate under the governance of greater powers – or a ghetto at greater scale with a better economy because of it, or a crusoe’s island) we have a LOT of people with minority jewish heritage (just as Afghanistan does by the way). And you notice it here as much as I notice it in america. If you can get a catholic with minority Ashkenazi genes that convey that verbal ability it seems to produce pretty interesting results. So as I’ve said for a long time now, the jews have been ‘capturing’ superior genes for a long time the same way we have been creating them through constant hard work.

    Lack of jewish artistic creativity is equally obvious for reasons I understand both culturally (art is a moral commons) and genetics (visualization). But not just here – everywhere. And a lot has been written about it both by westerners and jews. And we still see it in the dominance of (immorally biased) jewish script writers and financiers, and (morally biased) christian designers, actors, and directors. And the dominance of jews in pornography, comedy, and pulp, and the dominance of christians in the moral (horror/scifi) and high arts. And perhaps it is an unfair comparison given western excellence at physical creativity. Just as it is unfair to compare other cultures to jewish verbalism. But genes express themselves in culture and in our commons. Jews are overrepresented in every criminal field perpetuated by verbal means, and every deceit field (academia, media and press) just as they are overrepresented in a few non-criminal fields (hard science). Why is it that the jewish people are so excited by scamming and free-riding and that whites are so excited by production? (Thats just data. Don’t kid yourself. i work with data. If you haven’t got a LOT of data, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.)

    And this ability – the ability to introspectively narrate experiences versus introspectively construct visualizations is what provides the interesting utility of our cultures (races) to one another.

    So I’m stuck on this issue of mutual accommodation. I know that it is possible to eradicate jewish cultural immoralism through the application of incremental suppression by outlawing untrue, unwarranted, immoral (parasitic) speech in matters of the commons. I know that it is possible to outlaw the Talmud and the Koran (and possibly the bible) if they propose competition to law, versus competition to spirit. Both the Talmud and the Koran are objectively immoral books, with objectively immoral laws. And as books of law they are not as is christianity, a book of wisdom but a book of commands. And as such are not religions but competing political systems. The west was reliant upon natural law before the church gave it a name. It is the law of our indo european ancestors.

    I suspect that a verbally articulate ashkenazi underclass over represents itself dramatically because the competition in that underclass is non-existent from the host. They are natural leaders of the underclasses by the simple virtue of putting sentences together. The west has eradicated those people from our own polity if they ever existed. This leadership ability creates a long term problem for the western ethic that unconsciously tests verbal ability for ‘rank’. Where we must convert to judging moral action and conformity as rank insulated from eugenic suppression.

    To do that we must know objectively what immoral and moral, true and false statements are, so that we can prosecute immoral and false statements such that a culture predisposed through indoctrination, culture and genetics, to verbal criminality (specialization in parasitism and free riding by various acts of fraud and entrapment) finds the incremental suppression of their ability more costly to contend with than to engage in productive and moral activity despite their ‘feminine’ group reproductive strategy.

    So I am fairly sure that the demand for truthful and moral speech in matters of the commons is sufficient to eliminate the abuse of verbal ability just as westerners have limited our excellence at martial ability (we’re heroic, we don’t run, and most importantly we hold formation and act as one – and there is some sort of awareness of where we are in space that allows us to act in concert more readily).

    I don’t know however how frustrated that population would become if they had to find alternative means of income, or if like women whose strategy the Ashkenazi have exaggerated to perfection, whether they cannot help it and will represent a constant problem to our civilization.

    Our great experiments at the underclasses, catholics, jews and women, and now third world underclasses, has been a failure. We assumed that western man’s truthfulness (science) and natural law was a universal if given voice. This is not true.

    Mankind evolved fastest wherever the incremental suppression of free riding was most active. Man PACIFIES the universe, including himself.

    We pacified women first, then our underclasses, then competing civilizations.

    When we stopped pacifying we lost.

    Back to pacification.

    Back to paternalism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 04:43:00 UTC

  • Progressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And

    Progressives cannot tell the difference between wishful thinking and deceit. And when they came they prefer deceit.

    Lying is necessary to frame kleptocracy as virtuous, theft as moral and dysgenia as good.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 02:39:00 UTC

  • JUSTICE VS MORALITY VS LAW? IT STUMPED SOCRATES, BUT SHOULDN’T – THE ERROR OF ID

    JUSTICE VS MORALITY VS LAW? IT STUMPED SOCRATES, BUT SHOULDN’T – THE ERROR OF IDEAL TYPES OVER SPECTRA

    The terms Justice, Morality and Law refer to spectrums, not states, and that is why the subject is confusing to people when it should not be.

    Natural Law (logically necessary), customary law (evolved), legislation (commands), and regulations (insurance)

    vs

    Objective morality (logically necessary), customary morality (evolved), normative reality (practiced), moral theory (advocated)

    vs

    Objective Justice (logically extant), Evolved Justice (unintended), procedural Justice (intended), subjective justice (imagined)

    Humans evolved instincts for managing the extreme value of cooperation.

    Moral instincts prevent free riding and therefore preserve the incentives to maintain cooperation.

    Justice instincts do the opposite: they tell us if our cooperation has been accounted for. Cooperate requires sacrifice (payment) and rewards (returns).

    Law is the means by which we resolve differences between positive moral action, and individual perceptions of justice.

    That this is simply an accounting system provided for by evolution so that we preserve the incentives to maintain the extraordinary benefits of cooperation is somehow… well, depressing.

    So morality is the positive and negative instinct. Justice is the sense of whether morality has been preserved in the face of violation and law is the logical means by which we resolve disputes.

    The reason that it’s confusing is that while necessary morality, justice and law are logically decidable, as information becomes less visible and less ‘correct’ opinion’s differ.

    Some cultures solve this through authority. Westerners solve it through jury. But to solve it by jury requires a largely moral people. which is why some cultures have juries and other cultures have three judges to make bribery more difficult.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 01:33:00 UTC

  • WATCH, MAYBE TWICE: MOLYNEUX ROCKS IT ON THE CRUSADES

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4MUST WATCH, MAYBE TWICE: MOLYNEUX ROCKS IT ON THE CRUSADES


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-05 18:48:00 UTC

  • What is the Difference Between Information and Statement

    [I]’m working through Kripke again because I know it’s a half truth and I can’t quite put my finger on what’s missing. I know what is wrong with analytic philosophy (sets): their construction destroys information, causation, and operational construction, and therefore existential possibility. I know what’s right with information analysis: marginal difference (cause of change in state). So analytic philosophy is a sort of dead end in the sense that language is always informationally incomplete. But his understanding of names is correct. Even if his examples are not (the referent Aristotle isn’t identical to the referent Aristotle if he dies at age two and never creates the set of properties Aristotle). We cannot construct the references to the two year old without the reference to the man Aristotle. Therefore operationally, the example cannot exist. I can refer to Aristotle at the age of two, but I cannot refer to a greek two year old with the name of Aristotle. and convey any meaning without the existence of the aforementioned Aristotle as an accomplished adult. Meaning does not tell us much about truth – if anything. And the verbalists (analyticals and rationalists) are working with too little information to achieve much. Existence tells us a great deal about truth. Even if other methods tell us a lot about meaning. But even where they tell us about meaning, they tell us nothing about truth. And I think this is the area of confusion, because of hermeneutic conflation. We see this coming out of judaism and christianity and into law, where it did not previously exist. But this conflation of truth and meaning has imposed a catastrophically damaging influence on western thought. And in both the ancient(agrarian), modern(industrial), and current (information) eras, it has constituted a revolt against truth and the undesirability of truth for the parasitic and unproductive classes, peoples, and cultures. Meaning is dependent upon the content of one’s mind, and analogy to experience, but has little to no dependence upon truth content. Truth is dependent upon reality that is independent of the content and mechanism of of one’s mind – even if it is dependent upon the reduction to analogy to experience so that the mind can grasp it. But meaning is required as part of the process of free association. It is useful in obtaining information (hypotheses) that we may pursue and turn into truth candidates. It is useful in the transfer of experiences whether or not those experiences contain truth content. We must construct hypotheses out of concepts we can grasp, and we can only grasp concepts reducible to analogies to experience. So we must accumulate analogies to experience in sufficient number that we are able to run tests for possibility. This is one of the reasons for the value of scientific thinking (theories of general rules) since they reduce the informational content we must process in order to identify patterns and test perceptions and information against them. My hope (my suspicion) is that truthfulness once practiced like any other set of general rules will have an equally influential impact on human demonstrated intelligence and cooperation as has science. My concern is that we have passed peak human and are damaging our gene pool, and that we must reverse our century and a half of dysgenia before the accumulated damage is not correctable through assortative mating. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Lviv Ukraine