Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • The Destruction of Property at All Levels

    October 29th, 2018 10:11 AM MARXISM IN EVERYTHING: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT ALL LEVELSMarxism: suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production. All three promote MONOPOLIES (equalities) of the HERD (feminine reproductive strategy and intuition) rather than MARKETS (inequalities) of the PACK (make reproductive strategy and intuition). An expression of:

    —“the psychometric literature indicates, in regards to the masculine vs feminine, and the conservative vs liberal.

    Low openness/high conscientiousness (orderly, sensitive to disgust, will to create borders and demarcate categories, committed to his/her own covenants) High openness/low conscientiousness (imaginative, creative, disorderly, chaotic, tolerant of mess, fickle, temperamental, resistant of borders etc) It’s masculine vs feminine. A noun-use bias is masculine because it’s a label for an actual solid thing (order) A verb-use bias feminine because it’s the label for word describing an occurrence or something happening ie transformative ie chaotic – feminine. Masculine – order (Pack)Feminine – chaos. (Herd)”— Joel Harvey Because of the brain structure variation between female and male brains (although we can, each of us, exist along this spectrum including the middle of it). With Brandon Hayes and Joel Harvey

  • You Can’t Really Argue with A Theist.

    October 29th, 2018 6:41 PM YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST. [A]ll inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.

    —“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf

    … and ….

    —“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf —“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey —“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf

    1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in… (a) disapproval (disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping and reputation destruction) -OR- (b) avoidance (obscurantism, fraud, and deceit) , -BY- non-argument (disapproval, avoidance), -VERSUS- (c) argument (measurements, decidability), … in writing 2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness. 3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources. 4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism. 5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error. Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet. (The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.) I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.

  • The Destruction of Property (markets) in All Its Forms as Means of Restoring the Herd (monopoly)

    October 29th, 2018 10:31 AM ABRAHAMISM > MARXISM > POSTMODERNISM > FEMINISM: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN ALL ITS FORMS AS MEANS OF RESTORING THE HERD (MONOPOLY) (important concept) [M]arxism: use of pseudoscience (labor theory of value), sophism (pilpul – Dialectical materialism), gossip and reputation destruction(critique alienation, class warfare) to undermine a social order (trust and cooperation) by the promise of a utopia (for a class), in exchange for allying in numbers. 1 – Marxism-Communism-Socialism : suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, 2 – Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, 3 – Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production. Marxism of 1 – private property, 2 – common property, 3 – institutional property. Covers the Entire Scale. followed by the french contribution: 4 – Postmodernism, identity-race property. In other words, suppression of each class of property in order to create a class monopoly (underclass communism, middle class libertarian, political class neo conservatism). This requires little more than the academic use of the female reproductive and competitive strategy, which is to: DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT SCALES.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    October 28th, 2018 12:52 PM FIXING LIBERTARIANISM’S FRAUD BY CONFLATIONARY SOPHISM (PILPUL)||Investment(Action) > Possession (Possession) > Ownership (Property). Don’t confuse the Imaginary(self), with the Moral (goal) with the Real (truth).

    —“You can’t own an idea once it has been communicated.”–Wyatt Storch

    [Y]ou can however prohibit commercial benefit from that – we do it all the time. The question only whether an idea or anything else non physical can be used non-commercially

    —“Yes you can threaten people and hurt them and take their stuff. But you can’t assign ownership status to that which cannot be owned without faking reality.”—Wyatt Storch

    Well, no, that’s a conflation of terms. You are using ‘owned’ which means ‘insured by third party’, versus ‘possessed’ (fact), versus ‘demonstrated Investment,’ or ‘demonstrated property’ (moral, under natural law). You can possess and use information, without consuming it unless you are the exclusive possessor. You only possess ownership of property rather possession of asset if it is insured by a third party. Everything else is simply deception by conflation. So one can possess information, and one can exchange it, but whether one can sell that information in the market, where the market is ensured by the third party, is up to the third party not you.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    October 28th, 2018 12:52 PM FIXING LIBERTARIANISM’S FRAUD BY CONFLATIONARY SOPHISM (PILPUL)||Investment(Action) > Possession (Possession) > Ownership (Property). Don’t confuse the Imaginary(self), with the Moral (goal) with the Real (truth).

    —“You can’t own an idea once it has been communicated.”–Wyatt Storch

    [Y]ou can however prohibit commercial benefit from that – we do it all the time. The question only whether an idea or anything else non physical can be used non-commercially

    —“Yes you can threaten people and hurt them and take their stuff. But you can’t assign ownership status to that which cannot be owned without faking reality.”—Wyatt Storch

    Well, no, that’s a conflation of terms. You are using ‘owned’ which means ‘insured by third party’, versus ‘possessed’ (fact), versus ‘demonstrated Investment,’ or ‘demonstrated property’ (moral, under natural law). You can possess and use information, without consuming it unless you are the exclusive possessor. You only possess ownership of property rather possession of asset if it is insured by a third party. Everything else is simply deception by conflation. So one can possess information, and one can exchange it, but whether one can sell that information in the market, where the market is ensured by the third party, is up to the third party not you.

  • AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM I

    AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions.

    Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech.

    So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period.

    We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood.

    But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names.

    Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names.

    This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position.

    All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 08:43:00 UTC

  • My understanding is that the evolution of assets (capital, property) due to farm

    My understanding is that the evolution of assets (capital, property) due to farming increased the returns on raiding once horses were available so attackers could cover distance not possible on foot.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 20:08:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056276552273530880

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054811491763974146

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    The advent of agriculture was also critical for the incitement of warfare, because it brought about the first real amassment of wealth, which made fighting worthwhile, especially in intrasexual competition among males. https://t.co/L4ZdUjkc81

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054811491763974146

  • Very few of us are yet human

    October 27th, 2018 11:10 AM WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN?

    —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey

    [I]s the line of demarcation between human and animal: 1) Morphology? 2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli) 3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action) 4) Speech? 5) Reason? (Agency) As far as I know, it is reason and agency which separates us from the animals. That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal. And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the pareto minimum. Yes, really. Our process of self domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature. |HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals. We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate. We just left the job unfinished.

  • Very few of us are yet human

    October 27th, 2018 11:10 AM WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN?

    —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey

    [I]s the line of demarcation between human and animal: 1) Morphology? 2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli) 3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action) 4) Speech? 5) Reason? (Agency) As far as I know, it is reason and agency which separates us from the animals. That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal. And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the pareto minimum. Yes, really. Our process of self domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature. |HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals. We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate. We just left the job unfinished.

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44898909_10156736984502264_861848939

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44898909_10156736984502264_861848939

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/44898909_10156736984502264_8618489398599614464_o_10156736984487264.jpg TOLD YA. MEN/CONSERVATIVE=NOUN (existence).

    Female/Liberal = Verb (experience).Paul BardCurt, I’m curious how come neo-liberalism, and by extension the liberal tradition, is fatally flawed and limited?Oct 28, 2018, 3:34 AMCurt DoolittleThe form of government *necessary* for a people depends upon their demographic distribution, homogeneity, and the size of the middle class, because the middle class generates demand for rule of law, and the state generates demand for income from the wealth the middle class generates. So in the competition between rule of law and rule by man, demand is driven by conditions.

    THis market is created by the competition for profits by the middle classes and their employees vs rents by the state and their dependents, with the principle difference being that the state can more easily concentrate startup capital and market advantage for heavy capital industries at the cost of corruption – and while the private sector cannot so easily produce the capital and market advantage through trade policy, the private sector can better utilize that capital and suppress state corruption since market competition suppresses rents.

    For historical reasons (geography, militia order, and ‘competitive’ bipartite manorialism), the west evolved cross-family corporations rather than intra-family clans, and as such superior trust, superior ability to produce commons because of it, and as such superior ability to generate large scale private sector organizations with greater innovation and returns on capital.

    Just as social orders became anchored (religion) during the age of transformation (the restoration after the bronze age collapse) societies became anchored during the industrial transformation after the Abrahamic Collapse (judaism,christianity,islam: the semitic – turkic invasion).

    Fukuyama attributed the success of european bureaucracy to its development prior to democracy. Because, despite his stated positions, his analysis favors the sino tradition of monolithic bureaucracy.

    Cheers.Oct 28, 2018, 10:19 AMTim Beckley-SpillaneInteresting that the findings argue against a personal need for structure as an adequate explanation of the preference, that is, argue against a biographical or conditional cause. To the extent that men demonstrate the noun preference and women don’t, to the extent that it can be shown to have a biological or genetic cause, it’s a nice corollary to what you’ve said about the divisions of reproductive labor.Oct 28, 2018, 8:29 PMMichael ChurchillThe centrality of the cultural commons … man … that is THE key insight that is completely missing from the entire policy-making matrix today.Oct 30, 2018, 10:55 PMCurt Doolittleyes. because they cant measure it and maintain the mythos.Oct 30, 2018, 10:56 PMTOLD YA. MEN/CONSERVATIVE=NOUN (existence).

    Female/Liberal = Verb (experience).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 16:23:00 UTC