Author: Curt Doolittle

  • ITS DONE: NOW THE ONLY SOVEREIGNTY IS NUCLEAR WEAPONS Well, it’s done. Putin has

    ITS DONE: NOW THE ONLY SOVEREIGNTY IS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    Well, it’s done. Putin has managed the west and conquered eastern Ukraine, first by direct conquest of crimea, second by organizing insurrection, supplying it, holding an election and invading it. The matter appears done. What could have been accomplished by purchase was accomplished by destruction. He is, and has proven he is, one of the most powerful men in the world.

    (Western fools, eastern fools, a world of fools.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:50:00 UTC

  • Warrior, Judge, Chevalier (caretaker), Artisan. Thats enough to master for any m

    Warrior, Judge, Chevalier (caretaker), Artisan. Thats enough to master for any man.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if you went to university, to expressly develop each of these skills?

    We used to do that you know.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:47:00 UTC

  • At least in matters or argument, it is much easier to defeat your enemies when y

    At least in matters or argument, it is much easier to defeat your enemies when you are right.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:43:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE OBTAIN LIBERTY? THE ANSWER IS IN TRANSACTION COSTS The answer to the q

    HOW DO WE OBTAIN LIBERTY? THE ANSWER IS IN TRANSACTION COSTS

    The answer to the question of how we obtain liberty is found in transaction costs: At what point are local transaction costs sufficiently suppressed that the remote and explicit costs of a state, no longer preferable to the local costs of everyday existence?

    You would think that this would have been OBVIOUS to a group of philosophers who depend upon economics, and lay claim to the superiority of economics as the means of achieving prosperity, and therefore upon prosperity for the justification of their arguments.

    But instead they get lost in an endless circular discussion of ‘morality’ – in a remembrance-ritual for a church that has abandoned us to universalism and mysticism.

    Whereas, morality is reducible to the evolutionary necessity of prohibiting the imposition of costs on others.

    And where transaction costs determine the demand for an authority in the form of a state to either impose an order, or to prohibit retaliation, or both.

    And where rule of law reliant upon property-en-toto, provide means of resolution of conflicts (retaliation), and therefore a reduction of demand for an authority to impose order, or prohibit retaliation – the state.

    So the only question is, how much suppression of the imposition of costs is necessary for the rational choice between transaction costs of criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial actions, and the payment to an authority that imposes order, metes punishments, and prevents retaliation?

    The answer is, that you’re going to have a society that looks a lot more like classical liberalism than one that looks like anarcho-capitalism.

    In retrospect it’s one of those things that should have been stupidly obvious.

    Apparently the appeal of justifying one’s biases is greater than the appeal of ascertaining necessary causal properties of reality.”

    Justification always rules.

    Curt Doolittle

    Liberty: The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:41:00 UTC

  • F_ck ‘To each his own’ and ‘Forgive and forget’. Instead, Never forgive, never f

    –F_ck ‘To each his own’ and ‘Forgive and forget’. Instead, Never forgive, never forget, ‘Punish the wicked’, and punish them relentlessly—


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:24:00 UTC

  • (I like this one better as the Aristocratic Egalitarian Challenge) “I do not nee

    (I like this one better as the Aristocratic Egalitarian Challenge)

    “I do not need your permission to attack you.

    I don’t seek your negotiation, approval, or your consent,

    I seek your defeat. And I seek to defeat you completely.

    If you fear your defeat you may seek to understand,

    And if you come to understand, then you may pay restitution;

    And you may end your immoral words and deeds.

    But until you pay restitution, and end your immoral words and deeds,

    I will defeat you by words.

    if I cannot obtain your restitution with words.

    Then I will defeat you with violence, and take it from you.

    Because morality demands that I defeat you.”

    I’ve been working on this for a bit. Not quite there yet.

    It’s all sitting there in history to pick up and be converted into rational language. The problem is it’s wrapped in pseudo-religious poetry of the church. Economics is the language of morality. Even if economists use it to practice immorality.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:23:00 UTC

  • ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-

    ALTRUISM IS NOT POSSIBLE AS A GENERAL RULE – IT CAN ONLY BE PRACTICED AS A HAND-CRAFT

    (choice words)(great paragraphs)

    —“Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith independent of measurement – it is a hand-craft to be mastered by individuals, and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.”—

    –“Redistribution of dividends from the respect for property rights, and contributions to the normative and physical commons that make the voluntary organization of production we call capitalism possible – is not a matter of altruism. It’s merely a matter of COMPENSATION. Yes we compensate each other in exchange when engaged in investment, production, distribution and trade. But for investment, production, distribution and trade to be possible we must possess property rights, and we possess property rights only because they are paid for by the forgone opportunities of all of us whether we are engaged in production or not. So what is the cost of constructing the voluntary structure of production we call capitalism, then? It is the difference in wealth between anarchy (no respect for property) and the respect for property, minus the wealth created by those engaged in production. The consequence of this logic is quite obvious: taking care of those who respect all norms necessary for the formation of property via dividends is merely just compensation for service performed. Conversely, those who do not, deserve nothing – and those who do not conform to the full spectrum of norms that reduce transaction costs in all walks of life, necessary for the formation of that voluntary organization of production, are not contributing ‘diversity’ but merely thieves. Race is irrelevant to the degree that one’s impulses are marginally indifferent. But norms are not. If you do not adopt the norms you are seeking rents, and are not due dividends.”–

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:11:00 UTC

  • NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS If we look at the middle of any business women com

    http://adage.com/article/agency-news/women-aim-increase-creative-ranks-3-conference/295744/?utm_source=agency_email&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage&ttl=1415988872FEMINIST NONSENSE – CREATIVE DIRECTORS

    If we look at the middle of any business women compete exceptionally and often displace men, if for no other reason than women integrate into organizations more easily. If we look at the margins, both at the most troublesome and most exceptional, the ratio of men to women rapidly increases. We have known why that is the case for many, many years, and there is zero chance of altering it. As far as we know, saturation in the workplace has been achieved. There are not enough women at the upper or lower ends, to compete with men at those ends..Women are not held back. It’s just how evolution made us: men in the top percentiles in every field, and in the bottom percentiles in every field, rapidly exceed ten to one, and at some points achieve 40 or 50 to one. That’s pretty hard science and there isn’t any material chance of changing it.

    There are great women creative directors, but the ratio will always remain fairly constant. Its’ a function of distributions not of ability or bias. The best we can do is make the best of each other as individuals – we have spent too much time making gender irrelevant to make female gender any particular consequence.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 16:54:00 UTC

  • I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN It’s a very simple philos

    I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN

    It’s a very simple philosophy: Speak Truthfully. Respect Property-en-toto. Assist all who agree to liberty. Punish the wicked until you defeat them completely.

    SCORE?

    You are a: Objectivist Libertarian Total-Isolationist Nationalist Moderate

    Collectivism score: -100%

    Authoritarianism score: -67%

    Internationalism score: -100%

    Tribalism score: 33%

    Liberalism score: 0%

    THERE ARENT ANY MEANINGFUL ARISTOCRATIC QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY. They assume the status quo.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 15:05:00 UTC

  • ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED You know, I lucked

    ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED

    You know, I lucked out sort of. I solved a set of very complicated problems. I solved those problems only because my cognitive bias favored solution of them. As a mild aspie I cannot stand disorder, and raised in high conflict household I cannot stand conflict. There are always compromises (exchanges) to be made. It is these exchanges, when they are not obstructions or rent, that eliminate conflict. We must always understand that we cannot have perfection, only what we can have without costing the interests of others.

    I remember telling something like this to Walter Block many years ago “Sometimes I think I am just a child observing a machine inside me that god created for the sole purpose of solving a problem I am not even sure I can name or describe.”

    I look back at my work now, and I understand the import of it in the context of human history, and I understand how powerful an argument it is against the catastrophe let loose by the combination of the enlightenment, and the rapid expansion of scientific knowledge that we rationalize but is still, for us, very close to magic, and our reason cannot quite compensate for it yet.

    BACK TO CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM

    A man will build character if he focuses on his works. He plans his day. He performs his day. He analyzes his success and failure for that day. And he repeats this process perpetually, without regard for confusing, competing nonsense that pervades human society – all of which is little more than an attempt to rally support for the purpose of persuading one group to prey upon another, or compete with another. All of which works by rallying framing and guilt. When in fact, if all of us merely focus on what it is that is in front of us, we would organize as we need to without attempts to circumvent those efforts with mere verbal deceptions and promises.

    WORKING IN THE COAL MINDS OF PHILOSOPHY

    I approach work very simply. I want to provide a language for conservatives, so that they can argue their ancient group evolutionary strategy in rational terms. I want to give them an argumentative means of resisting the tragedies that have been visited upon our people by all three of the enlightenment cultures – even though I consider the german of little more than a distraction, anglo universalism as a mere error, and cosmopolitan pseudoscience, obscurantism, overloading, lying, parasitism a second act of genocide against the western people as damaging as christianity: it takes advantage of our strength: trust and altruism – because we have extend the in-group kinship ethic to all – and turns it into a liability, by preserving the altruism but destroying the structure of our myths and language that require us tot ell the truth.

    Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith – it is a craft to be mastered and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.

    So the cosmopolitan attack on the west – on made entirely out of unconscious perpetuation of pre-modern evolutionary strategy – is a specifically crafted, genocidal attack on western commons as a means of preserving ‘separateness’ which by its nature, without exception, is a violation of the very principle that drives western altruism – togetherness: the extension of in-group trust to all members of the polity and the demand for universal integration in extension for that trust.

    There is no such thing possible as liberty or freedom that is compatible with a state of separatism, because liberty requires equal contribution to the commons even if we do not provide equal contribution to production.

    We are either able to construct a uniform and unified, homogenous, and high trust polity, without exception or we must construct walls between us to prevent precisely this form of degenerate attack – this second genocide against the west. Either we are kin or we are not. If we are not kin, then we are competitors, for whom cooperation is merely a more productive means of conducting war.

    CRITICAL RATIONALSM

    I just work as a scientist does: I sort of stumble onto a theory, and the try to construct arguments. If I cannot construct an argument (a propertarian, operational argument – which would equate to a praxeological argument that also corresponds to the evidence) then I have to abandon it. Once I can construct an argument of any kind, then I must try to break it. If it survives breaking, then try to find its limits.

    The secret in this technique is to assume you know nothing, and just prosecute the idea endlessly. If it survives all that then it is a candidate.

    If it is a candidate and it seems not to conflict with all other candidates in the same degree of contextual precision, then it seems to survive every test I can put it to.

    This does not make the same assumptions as do critical rationalists (as I understand them) in that they do not require operational construction or testimonial truth and they think that platonic abstract truth matters rather than that we construct many puzzle pieces that fit together as a set of (sort of) interlocking gears or wrenches or levers, and put them to use to solve real world problems, rather than we even pay any attention to the fact that this particular set of pieces is the most parsimonious possible.

    Because economically that is nonsensical -and possibly one of the reasons why jewish civilization, despite its early literacy, accomplished nothing despite it’s centuries of advantage, while, every time westerners managed to circumvent levantine authoritarian verbalism and mysticism, within a few hundred years we developed science and reason, and technological revolutions.

    They had their own problems. I don’t criticize people for survival, I criticize our people for our stupidity – our humility. It’s unwarranted. It lets parasites claim that hey have high status. And it has led to our genocidal failure in this century.

    MORE

    More later since my headache is just getting out of hand… lol


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 10:43:00 UTC