Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • “DEEP STATE” STRATEGY TOWARD RUSSIA (by charles hugh smith) (see curt’s commenta

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_HistoryAMERICAN “DEEP STATE” STRATEGY TOWARD RUSSIA

    (by charles hugh smith) (see curt’s commentary for libertarians at bottom)

    –“

    1) Frustrate Moscow’s ambitions to dominate Eurasia. The operative strategic analyses employed are MacKinder’s World-Island Theory as subsequently and heavily modified by modern hydro-carbon fuel economics: The Geographical Pivot of History.

    2) Continue to improve the EU’s Central European position with respect to its hydrocarbon fuel supplies. The Neocons were already deeply worried about the growth of NATO dependence on Gazprom and the eastern pipelines in the mid-1980s. This has been on their radar for decades.

    The overall objective is to destroy Putin’s capacity to set marginal natural gas prices in Europe. If pipelines under the Baltic and Black Seas are feasible so are pipelines under the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to France, and from the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean to Greece and southeastern Europe. Add some LPG terminals and European shale gas operations and this is achieved.

    There may be a third goal in trying to set an example for domestic Russian opponents, which exist in great numbers. I think it’s more likely the Russian Federation’s Deep State will find another leader first.

    “—

    CURT’S COMMENTARY FOR LIBERTARIANS

    We should never fool ourselves into thinking that the neocon’s are stupid. I write aristocratic libertarian philosophy, but with a distinctly mercantile bias. Conservative aristocrats do not have this mercantile bias but a MORAL bias in favor of security. Conservatives see risk abatement the way we see opportunity. It is genetic. It will never change. We are all different breeds of ants. Conservatives are the warriors.

    The aristocratic, paternal, moral, secure vision, is not a stupid one. It’s an alternative allocation of capital. We want it for our consumption. The progressives want tit for lower class consumption and upper class status. And the conservatives want it as ‘stores’.

    Conservatives think geopolitically. This is but one example of the long running imperial theme of the anglo conservatives.

    if it isn’t clear, I don’t really mind if they do this kind of thing. I only mind that I get the choice to do something I prefer. After all, unlike conservatives, libertarians are info-vores and novelty hunters. And I want to be able to chase my ant-intuitions just like I am happy to let them chase theirs.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 15:12:00 UTC

  • CHARLES HUGH SMITH ON THE NET EFFECT: RUSSIA’S LOSS OF MARKET (Smith is one of t

    CHARLES HUGH SMITH ON THE NET EFFECT: RUSSIA’S LOSS OF MARKET

    (Smith is one of the few analysts I look up to. He finds the demographic and economic reasons for everything.)

    “The net effect will be the same as that of china’s strategic abuse of rare-earth metals, (and russias 2009 abuse of gas markets): rare earth metals are not rare or from china now, and the rest of the world has developed alternatives to Russian oil and gas.”

    The world does not operate by empires any longer. It operates by economic cooperation and coordination.

    I want a strong Russia. I’d love a new Russian empire. But only if it suppresses corruption as a means of ENTICING membership, rather than using VIOLENCE and DECEPTION as a means of forcing it.

    (I’m telling you. Putin was f_king STUPID as hell. )

    The only reason Russia is not as poor as Ukraine is oil and gas. An the producer just killed it’s market. Set us back 50 freaking years. What a moron. For nothing. FOr nothing at all. All he had to be was HONEST and say “hey, we got a lot here, and we’re not losing it” so please tolerate our strategic interests not being taken by NATO.”

    Apologize profusely. But just say the truth. It would have been FINE. He’d have INCREASED his world political capital rather than ruining all he’s worked for.

    At least he restored 10% of the value of the Ukrainian currency.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 14:58:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND MORAL PROFILING Just realized that I have to add a

    PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND MORAL PROFILING

    Just realized that I have to add a bit of psychology to Propertarianism. Right now I address the different moral biases as reproductive strategies. And I think that’s a baked cake. I also addressed the IQ over 105 issue. I also addressed the Pareto distribution (Power Curve) problem.

    But I haven’t addressed the Solipsism – Autism issue. And I haven’t addressed their opposite: the ability to CORRECTLY empathize with various world views. And I think propertarianism allows us to do that pretty concretely.

    Now, I can’t often read facial expressions well (mild face blindness). And my range of emotion is probably narrower (although amplified). But I can understand almost any feelings that are verbally articulated. So maybe this gives me a little advantage. I simply can’t intuit all that much unless I work at it. So I got good at working at it. (Probably because I still want to be accepted just as much as any other person does.)

    MORAL PROFILING RATHER THAN PERSONALITY PROFILING

    We used to take personality tests. And I think those are useful. But since MOST OF OUR BEHAVIOR is MORAL, and our moral actions more active, then we should TEST FOR MORAL COMPASS not so much as test for personality.

    Personality matters WITHIN your moral compass, and sure, your personality influences your choice of moral compass, but if the truth be told, I would rather understand your moral (and political) interests if I debate with you. And I would rather understand your personality if I have to WORK with you. Those are two different things.

    PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY

    Owen Flanagan (FB: owen.flanagan), who is still my favorite ethicist proposed a list of questions that any philosophical psychology should answer. I have, I think, successfully answered all his questions in Propertarianism. It was a good test to subject my work to. And his challenge was priceless in that regard.

    I think that both the study of Morals by Haidt, and the study of cognitive biases by Kahneman have settled the biological, and evolutionary biological, causes. I think I have done the job of completing ethics pretty thoroughly. I might have (although I’m not sure) settled the problem of epistemology as well by solving ethics. Although it’s a bit hard for others to grasp right now that we may be morally accountable for our spoken words.

    But we are still plagued by universalism – “one-ness” from consent, rather than one-ness from cooperation. Both the anglo enlightenment, “aristocracy of everyone” and the continental enlightenment “priesthood of everyone” or french “proletariat of everyone”. Whereas, under the monarchies, there was no ‘everyone’. There were many tribes. And that was a better political model than “seizing government to make an ‘everyone’”.

    I’m going to see what I can find on mixing personality profiles and moral profiles. That ought to be interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 14:45:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE: A RIFLE BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS The cheapest most effective fightin

    UKRAINE: A RIFLE BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS

    The cheapest most effective fighting force that a country can have is a well organized militia on the model practiced by the Swiss.

    Require all men of able body to participate in the militia. Give them basic training. Require them to keep LOCKED and UNLOADED arms securely. Develop basic defense plans. Hold training once per year for two weeks. Rehearse the plans.

    What you will get out of it is a very fit set of men. And a country that cannot be oppressed, invaded, or conquered.

    Never did a more gentle and worthy people walk this earth. Do them justice.

    A militia is the source of freedom. It always was. It always will be.

    Laws on paper are meaningless unless every man stands behind it and is willing to die for it.

    All the tanks, helicopters and ships in the world cannot defeat men with rifles, grenades, and the love of their homeland in their hearts.

    **The only guarantee of a free people, is a rifle behind every blade of grass.**

    Ukraine needs an armed militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 12:14:00 UTC

  • THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS AND COOPERATIVE SCIENCE (interesting) I doubt that econo

    THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS AND COOPERATIVE SCIENCE

    (interesting)

    I doubt that economics will ever evolve to be predictive, since we would adapt to any prediction. I do not doubt that economics will evolve to be almost universally descriptive. or at least sufficiently so that further inquiry won’t provide additional knowledge about mankind and human behavior.

    I **DO** believe that we can construct a science of COOPERATION instead of a science of ‘economics’. I think this categorization of cooperation as economic has taken root, and it may be impossible to fix at this point. However, the study of economic activity is the use of easily recorded economic data to capture the demonstrated behavior and preferences of human beings better than any other form of test can possibly do.

    But the science we are constructing through economics, cognitive science, and experimental psychology, is the the science of COOPERATION.

    That science, for all intents and purposes has yielded, and will yield, only one fundamental set of principles. And that single fundamental set of principles will undoubtably be categorized as what we USED to call, “POLITICAL ECONOMY”.

    Because all human cooperation requires institutions that facilitate organization of invention, production, distribution and consumption by voluntary means, while at the same time prohibiting free riding in all it’s forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest.

    As such, the science of cooperation, including:

    a) The formal logic of human organization (reproduction/family/production)

    b) The formal logic of ethics (voluntary exchange)

    c) The formal logic of cooperation ( law, contract)

    d) The formal logic of institutions. (commons via extra-market exchange)

    The major shifts will be:

    a) the abandonment of universalism and the universalizabiltiy of morals.

    b) abandonment of majoritarianism in favor of government of exchanges.

    c) The adoption of the Austrian theory of the business cycle as preservation of the integrity of monetary information.

    d) The adoption of Propertarian constraints on political argument and action.

    d) The segmentation of economics into the study of policy across specific time spectra.

    e) Abandonment of employment as the objective of policy, and instead the emphasis on the productivity of human capital, and the development of employment into a preference for increasing one’s standard of living.

    f) Abandonment of open immigration.

    g) Adoption of Self Determination as a human right.

    I do not know if we can obtain secession without using violence. However, we can popularize and probably enforce nullification such that secession is not as necessary as it is today.

    (More to come)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:57:00 UTC

  • **ALL LAW IS “THEORY” AND IS BOUND BY REQUIREMENTS OF THEORY** The Economist fin

    http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-doPROPERTARIANISM: **ALL LAW IS “THEORY” AND IS BOUND BY REQUIREMENTS OF THEORY**

    The Economist finally gets on board and criticizes democracy. TWENTY-TWO YEARS after most of us. It was pretty clear by 1992 that democracy was a failed experiment. It is pretty clear to those of us who specialize in political economy, that FEDERALISM is also a failure.

    REASONS WHY THE ECONOMIST ARTICLE IS MERELY “OK”

    Because, while the author does raise awareness of the failure of democracy, he does not address the reason’s for that failure:

    1) RENT SEEKING AND BUREAUCRACY: Succeeds in identifying rent-seeking and bureaucracy as the structural problem that democracy cannot correct. But does not address that privatization and competition solve that problem.

    2) RULE OF LAW AND CALCULABILITY : Fails to identify the difference between majoritarianism (bad) and rule of law (good). And therefore fails to Hayek’s argument requiring the CALCULABILITY of the rule of law and legal processes requires to change law under rule of law.

    3) REPRESENTATION vs LOTTOCRACY: Fails to identify that the problem with republican democracy is that we have chosen the worst of all worlds: elected representatives. When we could also choose between direct democracy, economic democracy, lottocracy, lottocratic citizen juries, and flexibility to add additional houses to represent each class’s interests. All of these solutions solve the problem of interests, and return us to the original purpose of democracy: lottocracy. (The common law is lottocratic which is why it’s so successful.)

    4) THE TRADEOFF OF SCALE: Fails to identify the reason micro-nationalism succeeds and macro-nationalism fails: That is because there is a trade off between the trade and insurance benefits of scale on the one hand, and the similarity of interests on another.

    5) THE PROBLEM OF MORAL DIVERSITY: Fails to identify the problem of moral diversity in different family structures, and the impossibility of reconciling competing moral codes except by degrading the higher moral code. **All moral compromises are devolutionary.** Truth is not a matter for compromise. The greater the suppression of free riding, the more moral the rule. Differences then, are not matters for compromise. They are matters for evolution or devolution.

    ALL LAW IS THEORETICAL, AND ALL LAWS, THEORIES

    What we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory.

    Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory.

    Those two rules are:

    — a) Calculability and;

    — b) Operational language.

    In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances.

    For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.

    (continued)

    PART II. See my next post: The Canons Of Theory (which is the philosophical basis of Propertarianism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:28:00 UTC

  • THE SILVER RULE IS ARISTOCRATIC (TRUE), THE GOLEN RULE IS SOCIALIST (FALSE) Chri

    THE SILVER RULE IS ARISTOCRATIC (TRUE), THE GOLEN RULE IS SOCIALIST (FALSE)

    Christianity has it backwards you know. The golden rule is stated from a slave’s perspective: “do to others as you would have done to you”. This implies equality that can never exist except among the destitute. It is also not very useful for complex societies.

    The anglo saxon version is the correct one: “never do to others that which you would not have done to you.” (AEthelbert).

    I cannot know or achieve equality. I can never know what to do. I can however, know what NOT to do.

    This is true for any theoretical construct.

    The golden rule is false, and the silver rule is true, for these reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:14:00 UTC

  • (I graduated high school when they were trying to get people out of the military

    (I graduated high school when they were trying to get people out of the military. But I really wanted to get into it. My father was in military intelligence and he just loved it so much he still dreamed about it when he was in his fifties. I’m really jealous of those men who served. … I don’t really regret much in life. Thats one thing I regret. Probably wouldn’t have let me in anyway. My asthma was light but bad enough then that I just couldn’t have made it. I have found that most of the men I really respect have served in the military. It’s an ethical thing. There is nothing like it. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 10:57:00 UTC

  • UKRAINA!!!!! Unarmed Ukrainian soldiers trying to cross Russian check point. Bea

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0iuOgVLgcY&feature=youtu.beSLAVA UKRAINA!!!!!

    Unarmed Ukrainian soldiers trying to cross Russian check point. Beautiful propaganda. Beautiful. Ghandi would love it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 10:48:00 UTC

  • GREAT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA Same woman appearing in interviews in Kiev, Kharkiv, Od

    GREAT RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA

    Same woman appearing in interviews in Kiev, Kharkiv, Odessa and Svastopol being interviewed by Russian media.

    In other words, a Russian camera crew is faking all these interviews for domestic consumption.

    I mean. I gotta say. As a man who appreciates good propaganda, this is pretty good propaganda. lol.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 10:07:00 UTC