Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • “Is cooperation with the natural dominance (competence) hierarchy more rewarding

    —“Is cooperation with the natural dominance (competence) hierarchy more rewarding than predation or boycott?”— Oliver Wescott

    ||Unaware-no_oppy > Aware-oppy(Boycott, Cooperation, Predation)

    The profitability of any set of interactions is contingent upon the time value of boycott, cooperation, or predation, in some combination.

    In general, boycott preserves opportunity for future cooperation, cooperation increases the opportunity for future cooperation, and predation decreases the opportunity for future cooperation.

    In general, the value of predation increases with the advantage of some form of power, the chance of success, and the sustainability of a pool of available prey. The value of predation decreases with the chance of failure or retaliation, and the unsustainability of a pool of available prey.

    As an economic system, the domestication of the animal man (aryanism) which applied the domestication of animals to humans through the developmental sequence slave > serf > freeman > citizen > sovereign, was the most successful in history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-02 12:20:00 UTC

  • Rule of law under natural law of reciprocity requires markets in everything, tha

    Rule of law under natural law of reciprocity requires markets in everything, that are limited to productive externalities, without possibility of competition or even criticism since any criticism of rule of law of reciprocity can only consist of fraud or deceit. If fascism means “prohibition on political competition” then that is in fact ‘rule of law under reciprocity’. Nationalism and limited socialism are both possible and necessary under such market constraints (really). As such I see the term ‘fascism’ as meaning nothing other than non-competitition in political order, leaving open the question of how such a political order is managed. From my understanding, the optimum means of providing rule of law under the natural law of reciprocity, markets for goods, services, and information, markets for association, cooperation, reproduction (family), production, is a monarchy as justice of of last resort, an independent judiciary, a universal militia, and if small enough, the discretionary production of commons by the monarchy. And if too large, the creation of a market for commons between the classes wherein each house is limited to those members who have demonstrated success prior to access. The the house of dependents, the house of families, the house of commerce, the house of militia (military), the house of law (judiciary) with the judiciary, military, and Monarchy holding only veto power. In that sense, I am a fascist: all political competition against the natural law of reciprocity is either fraud or war.

  • Rule of law under natural law of reciprocity requires markets in everything, tha

    Rule of law under natural law of reciprocity requires markets in everything, that are limited to productive externalities, without possibility of competition or even criticism since any criticism of rule of law of reciprocity can only consist of fraud or deceit. If fascism means “prohibition on political competition” then that is in fact ‘rule of law under reciprocity’. Nationalism and limited socialism are both possible and necessary under such market constraints (really). As such I see the term ‘fascism’ as meaning nothing other than non-competitition in political order, leaving open the question of how such a political order is managed. From my understanding, the optimum means of providing rule of law under the natural law of reciprocity, markets for goods, services, and information, markets for association, cooperation, reproduction (family), production, is a monarchy as justice of of last resort, an independent judiciary, a universal militia, and if small enough, the discretionary production of commons by the monarchy. And if too large, the creation of a market for commons between the classes wherein each house is limited to those members who have demonstrated success prior to access. The the house of dependents, the house of families, the house of commerce, the house of militia (military), the house of law (judiciary) with the judiciary, military, and Monarchy holding only veto power. In that sense, I am a fascist: all political competition against the natural law of reciprocity is either fraud or war.

  • Rule of law under natural law of reciprocity requires markets in everything, tha

    Rule of law under natural law of reciprocity requires markets in everything, that are limited to productive externalities, without possibility of competition or even criticism since any criticism of rule of law of reciprocity can only consist of fraud or deceit. If fascism means “prohibition on political competition” then that is in fact ‘rule of law under reciprocity’. Nationalism and limited socialism are both possible and necessary under such market constraints (really). As such I see the term ‘fascism’ as meaning nothing other than non-competitition in political order, leaving open the question of how such a political order is managed. From my understanding, the optimum means of providing rule of law under the natural law of reciprocity, markets for goods, services, and information, markets for association, cooperation, reproduction (family), production, is a monarchy as justice of of last resort, an independent judiciary, a universal militia, and if small enough, the discretionary production of commons by the monarchy. And if too large, the creation of a market for commons between the classes wherein each house is limited to those members who have demonstrated success prior to access. The the house of dependents, the house of families, the house of commerce, the house of militia (military), the house of law (judiciary) with the judiciary, military, and Monarchy holding only veto power.

    In that sense, I am a fascist: all political competition against the natural law of reciprocity is either fraud or war.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-27 10:28:00 UTC

  • You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.) Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements. We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man. And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity. In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony. This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language. The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty. I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status. And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech. And this is precisely what you fear. That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in. I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE. I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others. You fear your day in court. As well you should.

  • You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.) Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements. We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man. And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity. In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony. This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language. The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty. I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status. And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech. And this is precisely what you fear. That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in. I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE. I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others. You fear your day in court. As well you should.

  • YOU, INFLATIONISTS AND CONFLATIONISTS, FEAR ME. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU SHOULD. (I

    YOU, INFLATIONISTS AND CONFLATIONISTS, FEAR ME. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU SHOULD.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.)

    Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements.

    We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man.

    And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity.

    In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony.

    This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language.

    The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty.

    I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status.

    And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech.

    And this is precisely what you fear.

    That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in.

    I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE.

    I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others.

    You fear your day in court.

    As well you should.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-13 22:23:00 UTC

  • Why not both (a) take the high right position, and (b) openly advocate for a rev

    Why not both (a) take the high right position, and (b) openly advocate for a revolution that devolves the federal government so that regions, or states, or even counties can produce their own normative commons leaving the federal government responsible only for defense, central bank clearing, and insurer of last resort (disasters, old age, etc?)

    In other words, why not make revolutionary change a core tenet of the institute. Not just for America, but for all peoples in the world?

    The restoration of truth to the public discourse, politics, markets, and law, the restoration of self determination for all peoples. And the production of commons most suitable to the transcendence of individual polities.

    Openly discuss revolution on behalf of everyone.

    ( I want to keep the moral high ground until revolutionary action is necessary. There is no value in burning myself on the right’s pyre of self sacrifice. I don’t need the personal confirmation. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-07 13:44:00 UTC

  • THE LIMITS OF POLITICAL PROTEST 1 – There are limits to interpersonal action – t

    THE LIMITS OF POLITICAL PROTEST

    1 – There are limits to interpersonal action – that is the meaning of ‘ethical’.

    2 – There are limits to social action – that’s the meaning of ‘moral’.

    3 – There are limits to political action – that is the meaning of ‘sacred’.

    1 – There are circumstances that are ethically constrained and circumstances that are not.

    2 – Circumstances that are morally constrained and circumstances that are not.

    3 – Circumstances that are sacred and constrained, and circumstances that are not.

    Festivals, Rituals, Churches, and Courts are sacred because the function of these venues is to deprive us of individualism such that we bond in equality outside of the competitive markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and political power.

    These venues are not markets. We have markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and political power. We agree to peaceably compete in those markets only because we agree to preserve the sacred, the moral, and the ethical outside of them.

    Instead these venues are for demonstration of self sacrifice for the development of trust among super predators that cohabitate in close proximity.

    To politicize festival and ritual is to violate the ethical, moral, and sacred and to create division in that medium the sole purpose of which is to unite us.

    If you destroy our means of sacredness, morality, and ethics, then you destroy our ability to trust one another. It is precisely the function of ethical, moral, and sacred conditions that allow us to develop the trust that is necessary for personal, social, and political mindfulness, and the consequences of our trust or lack of it.

    The left has worked diligently to undermine the ethical (truth), the moral (family and responsibility), and the sacred (limits to selfishness). The only step after violating the sacred is civil war.

    The fact that anyone would violate sacredness and politicize a festival (Ritual) is simply evidence that we are already in a cold civil war.

    And we are very close to a hot civil war that will tear it all to pieces.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-29 10:30:00 UTC

  • The Limits Of Political Protest

    1 – There are limits to interpersonal action – that is the meaning of ‘ethical’. 2 – There are limits to social action – that’s the meaning of ‘moral’. 3 – There are limits to political action – that is the meaning of ‘sacred’. 1 – There are circumstances that are ethically constrained and circumstances that are not. 2 – Circumstances that are morally constrained and circumstances that are not. 3 – Circumstances that are sacred and constrained, and circumstances that are not. Festivals, Rituals, Churches, and Courts are sacred because the function of these venues is to deprive us of individualism such that we bond in equality outside of the competitive markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and political power. These venues are not markets. We have markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and political power. We agree to peaceably compete in those markets only because we agree to preserve the sacred, the moral, and the ethical outside of them. Instead these venues are for demonstration of self sacrifice for the development of trust among super predators that cohabitate in close proximity. To politicize festival and ritual is to violate the ethical, moral, and sacred and to create division in that medium the sole purpose of which is to unite us. If you destroy our means of sacredness, morality, and ethics, then you destroy our ability to trust one another. It is precisely the function of ethical, moral, and sacred conditions that allow us to develop the trust that is necessary for personal, social, and political mindfulness, and the consequences of our trust or lack of it. The left has worked diligently to undermine the ethical (truth), the moral (family and responsibility), and the sacred (limits to selfishness). The only step after violating the sacred is civil war. The fact that anyone would violate sacredness and politicize a festival (Ritual) is simply evidence that we are already in a cold civil war. And we are very close to a hot civil war that will tear it all to pieces.