Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Yes I Answer Many Questions.

    Apr 9, 2020, 11:36 PM (at least intellectually honest ones)

    —“Hello. I started flying through writing on your website after stumbling upon an interview with John Mark. Would you be comfortable with me asking you questions about the ideology as I come across them.”–

    Of course. It’s my Job. But it’s not ideology. I’m not sure it’s philosophy, technically it’s a formal science of law. I don’t like that categorization that conflates formal logics with evidentiary science, so I tend to just call it what it is: the completion of the scientific method meaning that all science is now a branch of the law, and philosophy is now relegated to choice. 😉 Edit

  • Yes I Answer Many Questions.

    Apr 9, 2020, 11:36 PM (at least intellectually honest ones)

    —“Hello. I started flying through writing on your website after stumbling upon an interview with John Mark. Would you be comfortable with me asking you questions about the ideology as I come across them.”–

    Of course. It’s my Job. But it’s not ideology. I’m not sure it’s philosophy, technically it’s a formal science of law. I don’t like that categorization that conflates formal logics with evidentiary science, so I tend to just call it what it is: the completion of the scientific method meaning that all science is now a branch of the law, and philosophy is now relegated to choice. 😉 Edit

  • Graham Hancock

    Apr 10, 2020, 3:23 PM

    —“Curt, What do you think of Graham Hancock?”—

    If I’m sympathetic: I think he is honest about what he does. He makes up, or promotes, myths to inspire and entertain people – to restore wonder to their lives. yes some of what he harps about has a grain of truth in it. I’m charitable because it’s good for us to look back into the past with wonder, the same way we teach children fairy tales so that they will eventually mature into reading history. If I’m charitable, the world needs a few of these people so that we make sure wacky stuff doesn’t get overlooked, and the wrong story entrenched (geology in the past and mathematical physics in the present are the best examples). If I’m doing my job: he’s using pseudoarchaeology (pseudoscience) to get attention, and it’s been a profitable career for him. and given that his stuff is pretty hard to believe I suspect he’s helping us find suckers, catch them, and reeducate them before they do something harmful to themselves or others. Of all the kind of sucker-magnets in the world he’s the least harmful. If I want to correct him, and the audience, it is all but certain that Doggerland, isn’t alone, and the black sea the persian gulf, the red sea, the mediterranean, and the lost lakes and marshes of the south of africa, and various other coastal areas, now obscure much of our long, early, glacial and pre-glacial development with flooding. We may be living in a period of extraordinary technology, but the first five thousand years of chasing the glaciers back north, in doggerland, on the shorts of the black sea has to be about as close to paradise as hunter-gatherers can discover. That said, there is no evidence whatsoever of anything pre-glacial but animals, and nothing obscured by post glacial flooding that gave hints to what is necessary for the evolution of man: fire, metal, and pottery. Yes, people do lose technology (austronesians). Yes people do mature into depth rather than neoteny (equatorial africans). But in general, the long graudal line of history up until the 80-40k, and 40k-10k, and 10k incremental explosions, and the past 400 years of european explosion of knowledge, is so regular in retrospect it looks ordinary.

  • Graham Hancock

    Apr 10, 2020, 3:23 PM

    —“Curt, What do you think of Graham Hancock?”—

    If I’m sympathetic: I think he is honest about what he does. He makes up, or promotes, myths to inspire and entertain people – to restore wonder to their lives. yes some of what he harps about has a grain of truth in it. I’m charitable because it’s good for us to look back into the past with wonder, the same way we teach children fairy tales so that they will eventually mature into reading history. If I’m charitable, the world needs a few of these people so that we make sure wacky stuff doesn’t get overlooked, and the wrong story entrenched (geology in the past and mathematical physics in the present are the best examples). If I’m doing my job: he’s using pseudoarchaeology (pseudoscience) to get attention, and it’s been a profitable career for him. and given that his stuff is pretty hard to believe I suspect he’s helping us find suckers, catch them, and reeducate them before they do something harmful to themselves or others. Of all the kind of sucker-magnets in the world he’s the least harmful. If I want to correct him, and the audience, it is all but certain that Doggerland, isn’t alone, and the black sea the persian gulf, the red sea, the mediterranean, and the lost lakes and marshes of the south of africa, and various other coastal areas, now obscure much of our long, early, glacial and pre-glacial development with flooding. We may be living in a period of extraordinary technology, but the first five thousand years of chasing the glaciers back north, in doggerland, on the shorts of the black sea has to be about as close to paradise as hunter-gatherers can discover. That said, there is no evidence whatsoever of anything pre-glacial but animals, and nothing obscured by post glacial flooding that gave hints to what is necessary for the evolution of man: fire, metal, and pottery. Yes, people do lose technology (austronesians). Yes people do mature into depth rather than neoteny (equatorial africans). But in general, the long graudal line of history up until the 80-40k, and 40k-10k, and 10k incremental explosions, and the past 400 years of european explosion of knowledge, is so regular in retrospect it looks ordinary.

  • China’s Vision for A New World Order – the National Bureau of Asian Research (nbr)

    Apr 12, 2020, 7:17 PM by Nadège Rolland In my latest report, I dissect the strands of thought underpinning China’s vision for a new world order and study its emerging features China’s leadership is determined to alter the norms that underpin existing institutions and put in place the building blocks of a new international system. A “vision” is by definition abstract, not fully formed and subject to change. In China’s case, this vision is also buried under layers of propaganda. But if we pay close attention, some key elements are discernible. 1/ The Chinese leadership believes that the existing order is “unfair” (it should allow China to have a greater role, commensurate with its growing power) and is incapable of offering “reasonable” solutions to the global needs. 2/ Instead of considering liberal democratic values as essential conditions for achieving global peace and prosperity, the CCP sees the global promotion of “so-called universal values” as the main cause for conflict and chaos – an obvious reflection of its own survival anxieties. 3/The CCP does not have any appealing substitutes to the existing set of international norms. Even at home, it is trying to bolster its legitimacy with artifices rather than a positive, clearly defined set of beliefs for the country’s overall direction. 4/The Chinese leadership’s vision for what the world should look like is based in the first instance on a negative agenda – the refutation of liberal democracy as the path to peace and prosperity – rather than a positive view of a desired future. 5/China does not need to prove that its own system can be applied universally. Demonstrating that no system is truly universal fundamentally undermines the existing international order’s core principles and undercuts any system based on universal values. 6/Once China has eroded a truly international order, it can hope to carve out a sphere of influence including large portions of the non-Western and mostly non-democratic world where its preferred worldview, rules and norms will be endorsed, followed and respected. 7/China wants to dominate this parallel system. But the 21st Century Chinese version of hegemony does not seek to replicate the old “Rule Britannia” or “Pax Americana” precedents. Chinese elites reject any form of Western influence, even when they think about models of empire. 8/Chinese elites are trying to develop modern, softened versions of the traditional sinocentric order, usually by insisting on its benevolent nature (“humane authority,” “great harmony”…). But imperialistic undertones and intimations of domination are not easy to work around. 9/The various components of Xi’s diplomacy (community of shared future, Belt and Road, global network of partnerships) point to a vision in which China’s leadership is exercised over substantial portions of the emerging and developing world,… 10/…a space free from Western influence and largely purged of the core liberal democratic beliefs supported by the West. 11/In this hierarchical system, China would be akin to a massive, dazzling star pulling smaller planets into its orbit without necessarily exerting direct control over them. 12/Its contours would not be defined along precise geographic or ideological lines, but rather by the degree of deference and respect that those within China’s sphere are willing to offer Beijing.

  • Q&A: Is The Game Trite? (Yes)

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:31 PM Questions from Francis Zhou

    —“Curt Doolittle, thank you for explaining the way of the world in such simplicity and clarity. As a young man, I was enamored with the power game, and shaped myself to climb the corporate ladder.” —

    Hugs. I find it cathartic to think I can add value to others. 😉

    —“However once I achieve some success in the game, I realized how trite and boring it all appeared to me. At every re-org, the people “in power” strive to hold onto what little power they have by appeasing to those at higher positions. I detested such game and decided to quit playing this power game and focus on my own game instead (to become best at what I do), which probably explains my relatively low position on the corporate ladder. …. And here within lies my confusion: was I wrong to pursue what I thought of as the “righteous path”, and should have continued to play the power game instead? Since even though I detest that game, it does conform to natural law, and thus exist for a good reason. And being in a position of power will allow me to make positive changes, instead of the current state where I am powerless to make those changes?”—

    Wrong? Wrong is the wrong word. 😉 There is nothing wrong with the game once you figure out running a biz is always a team sport. You were unwilling to pay the cost of submission (loyalty, fealty etc) necessary to ladder climb in the team sport – AND – i’m guessing you weren’t able to add sufficient value in your career or position for others to cater to you (my strategy btw). So we all get what we purchase, and you purchased what you did. I don’t see a problem here other than all men should be educated when young so that they make the choice they prefer. So it’s not that you were wrong so much as you didn’t know that used to be traditional knowledge and was not taught you.

    —“I have another question wrt what you said at the end. If I understood you correctly, by “scale is bad” and “reducing power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil,” you meant by “flatten the organization”, therefore making every individual accountable for their contributions, we eliminate the parasitic elite/middle man whose only incentive is to maintain the power economy and extract rent from the system.”—

    Business vs government. I didn’t mean maximize flattening the organization – although that’s always what I do. The point is that as in any other system, to prevent the development of a bureaucracy (middle management) that seeks steady state and efficiency under the presumption of low rates of adaptation, rather than a project business with a general staff (military organization), under the presumption of continuous change. Similar to my recent complaints about education, cdc, who, and government – if an organization isn’t designed to produce projects, and to conduct war games – even such groups as accounting – and if you don’t have a general staff planning war games (scenarios) then you are running your organization whether business, industry, or government incorrectly – under the presumption of regularity and stasis, which does nothing except create opportunity for rent seeking, corruption, and filling all available time with nonsense OTHER than how to adapt to crises. We discovered this in software and manufacturing but it is still taking time working up through through the large industries, the financial sector, and government – which is what we’d expect really. So power distance requires an equilibrium state, as do markets and the law, between too little power distance so that there are no efficiencies of scale, and to much power distance so that rents seeking arises. in government, too small goernment is petty and too large government is corrupt. It’s been common sense for over two thousand years that small governments – probably on the scale of 5 million-10m are about optimum. I mean, Tokyo is a state in and of itself. So is NYC. So we should treat them as such.

    —“Yet as I understood it, humans invented bureaucracy (hence the power economy) as a necessary tool to organize society beyond Dunbar’s number. How will a society filled with millions of short power distance, flat organizations effectively compete with empires organized around huge bureaucracies marshalling overbearing resources within its borders? E.g., collection of states post Blue/Red separation vs single nation state like China; collection of smaller companies with flat org tree vs goliath like Microsoft and Amazon, etc. I have not found the answer after reading all the resources I came into contact with in the Propertarian community. If I missed anything, please point out the gaps.”—

    first, as I said low power distance is not no power distance, and high power distance creates corruption and rent seeking and fragility. So competing is – as in all things – choosing the optimum point of equilibrium between the two extremes of failure.

  • Q&A: Is The Game Trite? (Yes)

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:31 PM Questions from Francis Zhou

    —“Curt Doolittle, thank you for explaining the way of the world in such simplicity and clarity. As a young man, I was enamored with the power game, and shaped myself to climb the corporate ladder.” —

    Hugs. I find it cathartic to think I can add value to others. 😉

    —“However once I achieve some success in the game, I realized how trite and boring it all appeared to me. At every re-org, the people “in power” strive to hold onto what little power they have by appeasing to those at higher positions. I detested such game and decided to quit playing this power game and focus on my own game instead (to become best at what I do), which probably explains my relatively low position on the corporate ladder. …. And here within lies my confusion: was I wrong to pursue what I thought of as the “righteous path”, and should have continued to play the power game instead? Since even though I detest that game, it does conform to natural law, and thus exist for a good reason. And being in a position of power will allow me to make positive changes, instead of the current state where I am powerless to make those changes?”—

    Wrong? Wrong is the wrong word. 😉 There is nothing wrong with the game once you figure out running a biz is always a team sport. You were unwilling to pay the cost of submission (loyalty, fealty etc) necessary to ladder climb in the team sport – AND – i’m guessing you weren’t able to add sufficient value in your career or position for others to cater to you (my strategy btw). So we all get what we purchase, and you purchased what you did. I don’t see a problem here other than all men should be educated when young so that they make the choice they prefer. So it’s not that you were wrong so much as you didn’t know that used to be traditional knowledge and was not taught you.

    —“I have another question wrt what you said at the end. If I understood you correctly, by “scale is bad” and “reducing power distance restores meaning and eliminates the opportunity for evil,” you meant by “flatten the organization”, therefore making every individual accountable for their contributions, we eliminate the parasitic elite/middle man whose only incentive is to maintain the power economy and extract rent from the system.”—

    Business vs government. I didn’t mean maximize flattening the organization – although that’s always what I do. The point is that as in any other system, to prevent the development of a bureaucracy (middle management) that seeks steady state and efficiency under the presumption of low rates of adaptation, rather than a project business with a general staff (military organization), under the presumption of continuous change. Similar to my recent complaints about education, cdc, who, and government – if an organization isn’t designed to produce projects, and to conduct war games – even such groups as accounting – and if you don’t have a general staff planning war games (scenarios) then you are running your organization whether business, industry, or government incorrectly – under the presumption of regularity and stasis, which does nothing except create opportunity for rent seeking, corruption, and filling all available time with nonsense OTHER than how to adapt to crises. We discovered this in software and manufacturing but it is still taking time working up through through the large industries, the financial sector, and government – which is what we’d expect really. So power distance requires an equilibrium state, as do markets and the law, between too little power distance so that there are no efficiencies of scale, and to much power distance so that rents seeking arises. in government, too small goernment is petty and too large government is corrupt. It’s been common sense for over two thousand years that small governments – probably on the scale of 5 million-10m are about optimum. I mean, Tokyo is a state in and of itself. So is NYC. So we should treat them as such.

    —“Yet as I understood it, humans invented bureaucracy (hence the power economy) as a necessary tool to organize society beyond Dunbar’s number. How will a society filled with millions of short power distance, flat organizations effectively compete with empires organized around huge bureaucracies marshalling overbearing resources within its borders? E.g., collection of states post Blue/Red separation vs single nation state like China; collection of smaller companies with flat org tree vs goliath like Microsoft and Amazon, etc. I have not found the answer after reading all the resources I came into contact with in the Propertarian community. If I missed anything, please point out the gaps.”—

    first, as I said low power distance is not no power distance, and high power distance creates corruption and rent seeking and fragility. So competing is – as in all things – choosing the optimum point of equilibrium between the two extremes of failure.

  • Be Part of The Solution, Not the Problem, and History Will Look Favorably upon You.

    Apr 15, 2020, 10:41 AM by Mathew Smith People like that are constantly looking for solutions to fail, or people they disagree with to fail. Anything and everything they can do to not have to show up. Like a whiny 4th grader not wanting to do his homework ‘It’s too haaaaaaard!’. Yep, it is…as hard as you want to make it. We are yet again pulling people out of ignorance, and the possibility of sickness, disease, and poverty, kicking and screaming the entire way. Except this time around, the sound of the wailing and gnashing of teeth reaches much farther and faster. We are about to embark on a new Renaissance, which is necessary from time to time. Be part of the solution, not the problem,and history will look favorably upon you.

  • Be Part of The Solution, Not the Problem, and History Will Look Favorably upon You.

    Apr 15, 2020, 10:41 AM by Mathew Smith People like that are constantly looking for solutions to fail, or people they disagree with to fail. Anything and everything they can do to not have to show up. Like a whiny 4th grader not wanting to do his homework ‘It’s too haaaaaaard!’. Yep, it is…as hard as you want to make it. We are yet again pulling people out of ignorance, and the possibility of sickness, disease, and poverty, kicking and screaming the entire way. Except this time around, the sound of the wailing and gnashing of teeth reaches much farther and faster. We are about to embark on a new Renaissance, which is necessary from time to time. Be part of the solution, not the problem,and history will look favorably upon you.

  • Schmachtenberger

    Apr 15, 2020, 12:49 PM

    —“Curt I do agree you and Daniel Schmachtenberger are coming at things from different angles but I think if you two sat down for a weekend you would see existential gains for both of your goals, he’s the yin to your yang and an absolute genius. Also the number of unwitting Red Pills Weinstein drops is an added bonus.”— George from Youtube.

    I don’t disagree with Daniel Schmachtenberger on much of anything. Just the opposite. He uses more of the inspirational new age west coast language, and I use prosecutorial scientific economic and legal language. He’s a great example of the via positiva just as I am of the via-negativa. I re-recorded podcast #0002 as Episode #0005 and removed his name from it, and added more on math and physics. But my criticism in the podcast stands. Every (((leftist))) intellectual whines and complains and undermines because they are cognitively female, and demonstrate female cognition with undermining seeking, GSRRM, Magical Thinking, lack of creativity in solution provision, demand for consensus building and monopoly authority as a substitute for system-thinking and incentives, and demanding ‘real men do something’, as if they would do a better job when in charge when exactly the opposite happens when they are in charge – which is why the Jewish and Muslim leaderships always fail to crate stable high trust societies no matter what they do, and produce decline and collapse wherever they go. If you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.