Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM It

    THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM

    It’s interesting since the imbalance is caused by the vast number of women taking nonsense courses, and being awarded nonsense-degrees. Whereas men do not pay money to take nonsense degrees.

    –“42 percent of women have more than $30,000 in college debt, compared with 27 percent of men. Women are two times more likely than men to think it will take more than 20 years to pay off their loans, “–

    —“Women currently hold two-thirds of the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student-loan debt in the U.S., “—

    In other words, women are more likely to (a) finance the anti-western propaganda (b) take nonsense gut courses and majors (c) create vast student debt.

    This is despite the fact that (a) it’s demonstrable that women learn nothing in college of workplace value (b) women more easily fit into diverse social orders in the work place (c) women are better clerical workers at an earlier age (d) women are given defference in social interaction assisting communications and collaboration in the workplace.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 14:05:00 UTC

  • @ Jared Howe Describe the means by which a voluntary polity can organize, form,

    @ Jared Howe

    Describe the means by which a voluntary polity can organize, form, persist in competition with competing polities.

    I know you can’t. Because all you have is faith.

    Now, you can’t falsify an algorithmic statement using claims of logical positivism. You can’t falsify an algorithmic statement by claims of correspondence without causation. You can’t state that causality is beyond us and still claim such a polity is possible.

    So either you can provide an algorithmic or at least praxeological testable description of the means by which a voluntary polity can organize, form and persist in competition with competing polities or you’re just committed not to reason(internal consistency), not to science(external correspondence), not to possibility (engineering) but to faith.

    Libertinism, Anarcho capitalism, the NAP, Rothbardianism, Hoppe’s ‘libertarian communes’, are all impossible UNLESS you can describe a sequence under which such a polity is possible.

    BUT YOU CAN’T.

    If you can’t do it you’re just another marxist talking trash.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 14:20:00 UTC

  • The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expan

    The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expand the sentence you will falsify NAP.

    “the method of decidability by which we avoid conflict and insure cooperation is to restrict our actions to those that do not aggress against…. (what)?”

    You see. the reason libertarians disagree is because they can’t define ‘what’. So they use ‘Principle’ as a means of avoiding answering the question. Why? Because if you answer the question of ‘what’ you find that you end up with classical liberalism not with libertarianism or anarchism. Why? BEcause otherwise it is impossible to form, hold, and preserve a polity in competition with other polities.

    Try it. You can’t do it. I know more about the libertarian fallacy than anyone living. And the way to test (praxeological test) the NAP or libertarian ideology is to ask the sequence of steps necessary for the formation, holding, and persistence from competition of such a polity.

    In other words, *create a model*. And the reason people don’t do that, and the reason there are not ‘advanced literatures’ on libertarianism, is because it’s not possible. Period. End of story.

    There are no conditions under which the formation of an anarchic polity is possible. The best one can do is rule of law by natural law and severely limit mandatory investment in the commons to that which we call a minimal state. Even then, open immigration and the NAP fail – the litmus test is blackmail. And that’s even before we get to trade policy and immigration, and financialization, and the problem of free riding on the commons of competing polities, and the fact that such libertarian polities always attract such malcontents that they drive out the good, and draw the ire of ‘traditional’ polities.

    I put a stake in rothbard’s heart but that vampire of nonsense that foolish young men seem so attracted to, always seems to find an artery-of-idiocy to bite into.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 13:32:00 UTC

  • “ITS YOUR BODY BUT THIS IS MY POLITY Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need t

    “ITS YOUR BODY BUT THIS IS MY POLITY

    Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need to say ‘it’s my polity’. Because that’s the end of the story right there. Reproductively, that’s the story in a nutshell.

    So men make women a deal: it’s your body, and children are yours, only as long politics and war are ours. Because it is that compromise (trade) that makes possible the differences in our reproductive strategies. The alternative is that it’s not your body and it’s still our polity. Because in the end, only men choose.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 10:10:00 UTC

  • WOMEN NEED TO PUT THEIR CARTAKING SOMEWHERE (CHILDREN) OR EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY P

    WOMEN NEED TO PUT THEIR CARTAKING SOMEWHERE (CHILDREN) OR EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY PUT IT CREATES BADNESS

    This should be obvious. But depression in women is directly proportional to gender equality. Poor women working together with children are always happier and less depressed than professional women without children.

    Men have heroism and the dominance hierarchy to direct our violence and competitiveness to hunting, craftsmanship, business, politics and war.

    Women have only children. And when that caretaking is put to political ends it destroys meritocracy and creates dysgenia at no cost to the women who cause it.

    Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need to say ‘it’s my polity’. Because that’s the end of the story right there. Reproductively, that’s the story in a nutshell.

    —“Similar results are found in studies of personal values, including values related to altruism and love. In a study of 127 samples in 70 countries (N = 77,528; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009) women attribute consistently more importance than men do to benevolence and universalism values. National measures of gender egalitarianism predicted sex differences in benevolence and universalism values but, once again, in an unexpected direction. The greater the social, health, and employment equality of women and men in a country…the larger the sex differences (women higher) in benevolence and universalism values. That is, in countries with greater gender equity (e.g., Finland, Sweden), women attribute substantially more importance to benevolence and universalism values than men do. In more patriarchal cultures, sex differences in benevolence and universalism and much smaller. The authors of the values study speculate that increased independence and equality of women in the labor force may encourage women to express their “inherent” values rather than to accommodate their values to those of their husbands. Maybe.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 10:08:00 UTC

  • I would say that anyone interested in circumventing the pursuit of the true, the

    I would say that anyone interested in circumventing the pursuit of the true, the good, the preferable, the useful, and the beautiful, should actually make an argument rather than engage in name calling and shaming. Either you can make an argument or you cant’

    Truth has never been popular. In fact, falsehood is demonstrably more popular throughout all of history. Particularly comforting falsehoods.

    So peterson is railing against Postmodernism because it’s bad, and less so because it’s simply false. This is because he has his own problem with conflating the true (decidable independent of good or preference) with good (reciprocally preferable) and preferable (individually preferred), and merely useful (it works for purposes intended no matter how it is stated). This conflation is one thing in Art, mythology and literature, and something far lest honest in religion, philosophy, and ‘science’.

    Now I would argue that Aristocracy (Meritocracy) was and remains a system of profiting from economic eugenics, and that the monotheistic religions (abrahamic religions) evolved as underclass retaliations against the aristocratic empires of the ancient world.

    And I would argue that when the enlightenment (empirical) evolved out of British Common Law (Bacon) and emerged under Locke, Hume and Smith, that the same retaliation was used by the French(Rousseau) using shaming narratives in ordinary language, and out of Kant by restating christianity in secular rationalist prose, and finally out of the ashkenazi enlightenment in Boaz/Marx-Lenin/Freud/Cantor/Mises/Rothbard-Rand/Trotsky-Strauss/theFrankfurtSchool in the form of pseudosciences if not outright fabrication.

    After the Ashkenazi (Bolshevik) counter-enlightenemnt experiment failed in the USSR, and the anticipated (impossible) revolution was lost to the vast rewards of consumer capitalism, the French(Catholic) responded by converting the class criticisms of the frankfurt school to identity criticisms. And between the feminists, the postmodernists, we encounter political correctness which is simply outright “lying” to avoid the truth. The entire suite of programs was nothing more than the second attempt at advancing abrahamism(fictionalism) against the aristocracy and science in the modern world, just as was the jewish, christian, muslim attempt at advancing against aristocracy and reason in the ancient world.

    Now, I am an analytic philosopher of science and law, but I read the same research papers and books that Peterson does, and while he might lack the technical knowledge or the interest to address the cycles of history as a competition between aristocratic, eugenic, deflationary truth, and underclass eugenic, conflationary fiction, it is very unlikely that he would disagree with the narrative I just proposed.

    But that difference is that as a diagnostician of the individual and culture he wants to provide means of informing and healing, and as diagnostician of polities and civilizations and a judge, I seek for means of resolving difference by truth regardless of preference or consent upon the good.

    Peterson is reconstructing stoicism with writing (self authoring) rather than reconstructing it through the traditional european method of vocabulary, grammar, logic, testimony, and rhetoric. He is doing this because it is literature that he understands. But whether one does such a thing in writing (self authoring) or whether one does this as testimony (speaking) the general principle of using the ability of language to self-organize the mind, and created mindfulness is simply a technique that was a ‘given’ until the marxists and socialists and postmodernists removed it by intention from our education system and lowered the standards for exit with diplomas.

    Now, if you are too much of a nit-wit to follow this, then you are too much of a nit-wit to hold an opinion. But the fact of the matter is, the english and the english language are no more escapable methods of programing the mind than are the remaining germanic, the latin, the slavic, and every other. Furthermore, various civilizations and cultures relied on very different technologies to perpetuate their intergenerational knowledge. The germanic/roman west empirical, the ideal greek, the abrahamic semitic, the ideal and mythic persian and indian, the pratical east asian, and the animistic rest of the world. The only outright deceit in that collection of religions in which fundamentalism and zealotry arose, is the abrahamic, because they rely on factionalism(falsehood), conflation, monopoly and authority where others rely on wisdom. if you understand this, you will see all of history as a battle between the western market, deflationary truth, and tolerance for challenge to the dominance hierarchy (meritocracy) leading to rapid evolution and change; against eastern deflationary truth, intolerance for challenge, and family hierarchy over markets leading to stability; And against destruction of the dominance hierarchy, continuous use of falsehoods high cost of entry cults, and universal equality leading to dysgenia.

    And this explains pretty much all of history from 4000 bc when the chariot created the ability to conduct maneuver warfare, to the present.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 13:41:00 UTC

  • SUBMISSION OR SOVEREIGNTY? You see, Kant was restating Abrahamism: rebellion aga

    SUBMISSION OR SOVEREIGNTY?

    You see, Kant was restating Abrahamism: rebellion against the aristocracy.

    Now let’s look at the Genghis Khan reasoning:

    The only way I will let you live is if it is more profitable than killing you.

    The only way I will ally with you rather than fight you or preying upon you is if it is more profitable than not allying with you.

    The only way we can profit together most, is by conquest, rule, and tax.

    The best way to conquer rule and tax is to force everyone into productive labor.

    The best way to force everyone into exclusively productive labor is to impose a law of non imposition.

    This monopolizes the extractions for us at the cost of all other attempts to extract rents.

    The side effect is that we have discounted all local transaction costs, and increased trust among the peoples who were previously mistrustful and rent seeking, and parasitic upon one another. So that we have them maximized our returns by minimizing our inefficiencies.

    SUBMISSION VS SOVEREIGNTY

    What are the consequences of ‘submission’ rather than empirical evidence of the superiority of outcomes?

    **What would be the consequence of maximizing the categorical imperative vs maximizing the returns on investment?**

    Do you see where that leads?

    You see, this is the origin of order.

    The King’s Peace. The king’s peace was enforced. Markets were MADE – by force: by denying people the shorter term opportunity for profiting from the labor of others.

    Kant was just making an excuse for it by claiming we have a choice, and we should choose the kings peace. He assumes the majority prefer the kings peace.

    When what we see in reality is that this is a consequence of kinship. Whereas, in heterogeneous areas, it’s been impossible to construct a kantian imperative, because it’s evolutionarily contrary to demand.

    The chinese did it right. not because they are an empire. But because like us (originally) they are a family, not a state, or federation, or an empire.

    Hence my … uncomfortable with the ‘equality’ nonsense. it’s a rebellion and a degenerative one.

    People didn’t CHOOSE to work in greater numbers.

    People were FORCED to work in greater numbers.

    And they were forced to, because it meant giving up rents.

    Everything from near-universal-common-property on up.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 08:54:00 UTC

  • CURT: DISTURBING SEXISM??? —“You display disturbing signs of sexism.”— (A fr

    CURT: DISTURBING SEXISM???

    —“You display disturbing signs of sexism.”— (A friend)

    (A comment from an otherwise obviously rational and scientific woman)

    Great observation and great opportunity to repeat a central theme: compatibility and the need for markets in everything.

    I’m going to suggest this instead: I display CONSISTENT criticism of the female gender biases given the evidence, in matters of politics and reason. (And I display consistent submission to female superiority in interpersonal matters.)

    Sexism. So, why?

    It’s because I advocate compatibilism rather than equality. And because the ratio of men to women in psychosis-to-solipsism vs rationalism-to-autism remains consistent in every single sampling from the behavior of female and male psychopaths, to the difference between male openness to pure ideas, and female openness to aesthetics, to the male concern for the best and female strong for the weakest, to the male concern for excellence to the female concern for equality, the the competence of females in interpersonal skill to the male competence in political skill.

    There is literally no domain where compatibilism is not more evident than equality. Even in intelligence testing we had to lower the standard by increasing weights to verbal acumen. I mean. yo have’t been following me long enough so you haven’t seen my frequent ‘how the heck do women do that amazing stuff’.

    So since NEITHER gender can satisfy the demand for perception, cognition, knowledge, specialization, negotiation, and advocacy, then the only way to ‘calculate’ (rendered commensurable) our division of cognitive labor is through voluntary exchange. And it is marriage that creates an informationally complete market for the use of the division of perception.

    Now, I have written about this reproductive (short-child, vs long-tribe) division of cognitive labor. I have written about (and produced a video about) the classes as an extension of this temporal division of labor to the circumpolar people (white people and chinese people).

    So I consider my ‘intertemporal division of cognitive labor’ concept covered. And I consider my ‘markets in everything’ to take advantage of our temporal specializations covered. And I am currently working on a constitution that denies equality and expressly RESTORES western ‘markets in everything’. With the principle difference that I’ve used testimonialism to eliminate the ability to even TALK about falsehoods and deceptions in public matters by extending fraud protections from goods and services to information (speech).

    Now, I expect this solution that forces compromises to be LESS acceptable to women for the simple reason – mirrored by prison populations – that women ‘steal’ and ‘cheat’ the dominance hierarchy asymmetrically in favor of ridicule, shaming, gossip (suggestion), obscurantism, and advocacy of fictionalism (social construction of artificial realities) far more so than do men – even if men are the minority of practitioners and but the nearly exclusive producers (outside of feminists). And I make this case because as we can see, women have been, in almost all cases, domesticated animals herded by men, since the beginning of man, just like most other mammalian species.

    And women have been the vehicle for the spreading of attractive lies in the ancient world (abrahamism) and the modern world (postmodernism). So the solution to the subjugation of women CANNOT be equality, but can ONLY be markets (trade). Men are not CAPABLE of the information processing and adaptability to local circumstances as are women, and women are not CAPABLE of reason in advancement of excellence (eugenics) in politics. I mean, it is almost impossible to find women who are not so lacking agency because of their solipsism that one can have a scientific conversation. I mean, I have women followers here and most of them know this by now. You just don’t know it.

    So I remain on the attack against the falsehoods of equality and in advocacy of the science, and that is the only equality between any of us is that which is achieved by the market, and those who cannot succeed in that market provide evidence of their need of ‘pruning’ from the gene pool (error reduction), and the only market means of ‘pruning’ is the elimination of reproduction for those people, and the prevention of immigration of those people. Unfortunately, it’s women who produce dysgenic offspring. Men can’t. They can only more easily DEMONSTRATE that their genes are failures.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 08:59:00 UTC

  • “You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar parado

    —“You’re saying all mathematical statements are true or false but the liar paradox is one example of an ordinary language sentence which hasn’t got a truth-value, right? Well, stated that way, I’d say you’re right about all of that, but are you also saying that the liar sentence expresses a proposition? That might be the part where it starts to get problematic.”—

    Good question.

    In short, we can ask a question, or we can assert an opinion, conflate the two, or we can speak nonsense. And only humans (so far) can ask, assert, conflate, and fail at all of them. But out of convenience, we subtract from the real to produce the ideal, and speak of the speech as if it can act on its own.

    Just to illustrate that the test we are performing (context) limits both what we are saying and what we can say. From the most decidable to the least:

    1 – The mathematical category of statements, (tautological) single category. (relative measure)

    2 – The ideal category of statements, (logical) multiple categories. (relative meaning)

    3 – The operational category of statements (existential possibility)

    (sequential possibility )

    4 – The correspondent (empirical) category of statements. all categories. ( full correspondence )

    5 – The rational category of statements ( an actor making rational choices) (‘praxeological’)

    6 – The ‘moral’ category of statements ( test of reciprocity)

    7 – The fully accounted category of statements (tests of scope)

    8 – The valued (loaded) category of statements. (full correspondence and loaded with subjective value)

    9 – The deceptive category of statements (suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and outright lying.

    We can speak a statement in any one or more of these (cumulative) contexts.

    So for example, statements are not true or false or unknowable, but the people who speak them speak truthfully, falsely, or undecidedly. So performatively (as you have mentioned) only people can make statements.

    However, to make our lives easier, we eliminate unnecessary dimensions of existence unused in our scope of inquiry, and we conflate terms across those dimensions of existence, and we very often don’t even understand ourselves what we are saying. (ie; a number consists of a function for producing a positional name, from an ordered series of symbols in some set of dimensions. Or, only people can act and therefore only people can assert, and therefore no assertions are true or false, the person speaking speaks truth or falsehood. etc.)

    This matters primarily because no dimensional subset in logic closed without appeal to the consequence dimensional subset. In other words, only reality provides full means of decidability.

    Or translated differently, there just as there is little action value in game theory and little action value in more than single regression analysis, there is little value after first order logic, since decidability is provided by appeal to additional information in additional dimensions rather than its own. Which is, as far as I know, the principal lesson of analytic philosophy and the study of logic, of the 20th century.

    Or as I might restate it, we regress into deeper idealism through methodological specialization than is empirically demonstrable in value returned. Then we export these ‘ideals’ as pseudosciences to the rest of the population. This leading to wonderful consequences like the copenhagen consensus. Or the many worlds hypothesis, or String Theory. Or keynesian economics. Or the (exceedingly frustrating) nonsense the public seems to fascinate over as a substitute for numerology, astrology, magic, and the rigorous hard work required

    FOUNDATIONS OF LOGIC

    The foundations of logic like those of mathematics are terribly simple as subsets of reality. But by doubling down in the 19th and 20th centuries all we have found is that we say rather nonsensical terms like ‘the axiom of choice’ or ‘limits’ rather than ‘undecidable without appeal to information provided by existential context’. After all, math is just the discipline of scale independent measurement, and the deduction that is possible given the precision of constant relations using identical unitary measures. Logic is nothing more than than set operations. Algorithms are nothing more than sequential operations restoring time. Operations are nothing more than algorithms restoring physical transformation, time and cost. etc.

    As a consequence, I find most of this kind of terminological discourse … silly hermeneutics. As Poincare stated ‘that isn’t math its philosophy’. Or as I would say, ‘with platonism we depart science and join theology. It may be secular theology in that it is ideal rather than supernatural, but it is theology none the less’.

    it is one thing to say ‘by convention in math (or logic or whatever dimension we speak of) we use this colloquialism (half truth) as a matter of convenience. It is not ‘true’ as in scientifically true. It is just the best approximation given the brevity we exercise in simplifying our work.

    There exists only one possible ‘True’: the most parsimonious and correspondent testimony one can speak in the available language in the given context. Everything else is a convention.

    Ergo, if you do not know the operational construction of the terms that you use, you do not know of what you speak. That does not mean you cannot speak truth any more than monkey cannot accidentally type one of the Sonnets.

    This is why the operationalist movement in math we call Intuitionism failed.

    Anyway. Well formed (grammatically correct) statements in math may or may not be decidable but our intention is to produce decidable statements. In symbolic logic, well formed (grammatically correct) statements may or may not be decidable. in logic (language), well formed (grammatically correct) statements are difficult to construct because of the categorical difference between constant relations (ideals in math), constant categories (ideals in formal logic), and inconstant categories (ordinary language). Furthermore the process of DEDUCTION using premises (or logical summation) limits us to utility of true statements. Ergo for that purpose statements can only evaluate to true or not-true (including false and undecidable). While for the purpose of INDUCTION (transfer of meaning by seeding free association, or the construction of possibility by the same means) seeks only possibility or impossibility not truth or falsehood.

    Now. I have written far too much already, so I won’t try to increase the precision of what I’ve written, but hopefully the answer is the same:

    How can you claim to make a truth proposition and demand precise language when your premises are mere demonstrably falsehoods used by convention?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 10:58:00 UTC

  • THE POLITICAL DANGER OF UNDOMESTICATED WOMEN OUTWEIGHS THEIR VALUE. WE HAVE A LO

    THE POLITICAL DANGER OF UNDOMESTICATED WOMEN OUTWEIGHS THEIR VALUE. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

    1) Christianity(Aristocracy and Reason are Evil) in the ancient and Medieval world, Marxism-Socialism(Meritocracy is Evil) in the early 20th century, Postmodernism (There is no truth) in the mid-to-late twentieth century, and Political Correctness (Truth Suppression), were invented by men and spread primarily through the gossip of women. In other words, women are easy customers for comforting lies.

    2) All advancement in civilization – the vast majority of which has benefitted women far more so than men (especially today where men commit suicide in large numbers after fifty years of age) has required the incremental production of property and accountability, particularly in the institution of marriage, which limits a woman from exporting the cost of her impulsive need for reproduction and nesting and caring for children regardless of their merit, onto the rest of the community. (Mothers of serial killers are the prime example of women’s denial – they are usually the cause and rarely believe their children capable, nor admit that it is they who caused it.)

    3) It has been equally hard to civilize women because of their need for denial of truth, their use of gossip, shaming, rallying, and deceit, and their hyperconsumption whenever possible. We can punish men’s violence but it is very hard to punish women’s gossip, shaming, ridicule, rallying and deceit. In part because it is largely invisible to men.

    4) Even today, if not for women’s votes, hitler would never have come to power, Johnson’s disastrous Great Society would never have come to power and Kennedy would not have been elected, the financing of marxist/postmodern/feminist pseudosciences and the near total destruction of the social science would not have been possible – and our current invasion by the third world would not be possible.

    5) So it is very hard to argue that women are not, as was judged by most of history, an army of Pandoras constantly opening the box of horrors on this world, the chief horror of which is the increase in conflict among men. The solution to which was property, family, family economic responsibility, tribal legal accountability, and nationhood’s military accountability.

    6) How do we know this? The single source for the overwhelming majority of male violence is women. So much so that all else pales by comparison.

    7) Our success in domesticating men has not been equal in domesticating women. Primarily because men reason but are visibly dangerous, and women do not reason, but are insidiously dangerous.

    This is the lesson of history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 09:32:00 UTC