Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Why Not Study The Cosmopolitans, Continentals, Philosophers of Language, and Mystics?

    WHY NOT STUDY THE CONTINENTALS, MYSTICS, PHILOSOPHERS OF LANGUAGE? [S]pending time analyzing lies is not useful. In fact, its harmful. And that’s the intent of the authors.

    —“If you dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change, the devil changes you.”—

    Or less eloquently,

    —“If you spend a lot of time with dung, you begin to smell of it.”—

    Or put more accurately:

    We are all aware that the average idiot seems to feel qualified to engage in discourse on ethics, morality, politics, economics, psychology, and sociology, despite his pervasive ignorance.

    By constructing elaborate nonsense-riddles the producers of systems of lies accomplish indoctrination through amusement. In other words, the study of the language of deceit makes one a willing host for it, and an accidental accomplice to it. If philosophy and science are compatible then the subject at hand is possibly worth consideration. If they are not compatible, then the evidence is that the subject at hand is one of deception, not education. Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • WHY DISCUSS LIES. THEY’RE JUST LIES. THREE WAVES OF LIES. (read it and weep) (a

    WHY DISCUSS LIES. THEY’RE JUST LIES. THREE WAVES OF LIES.

    (read it and weep) (a graduate education in philosophy in one lesson)

    Q&A: —“Curt Doolittle, is christian mysticism a functional or structural approach to things?”—

    Well, now that’s an interesting question.

    1) “Functional”, “Structural” and “Approach to Things” are problematic terms. If we clarify the terms – which is the purpose of analytic philosophy – then I am pretty sure that (as usual) the question will all but answer itself.

    2) The Grammar of Description: The subset of internal consistency: observer (narrator) consistency.

    There are at least three points of view that we can use do describe observations: (a) the experience of being subjected to stimuli, (b) the experience of acting to cause change in state, (c) the observer of the actor and/or the experiencer, (d) the description of the constituent parts as a series of operations.

    In other words, all description of observation that we can use for reconstruction of observation (communication) of relies upon a grammar, and that grammar includes the point of view.

    In general the most problematic use of this grammar originates in the ‘cost’ of consistency in construction of our descriptions. The verb to-be functions as an obscurant technique with which to conflate multiple points of view, (use bad grammar of description) thereby either alleviating the burden of logical consistency from the speaker, OR worse, through obscurantism, allowing the speaker to state a falsehood undetected by the audience.

    3) “Functional” methodology is more correctly stated as an attempt at descriptive consistency using the experiential observer’s point of view, and the behavior (incentives?) that these experiences produce.

    Since humans act according to their experiences, this is somewhat difficult to argue with.

    To convey mere ‘meaning’ any method can be used to serve the speaker’s interests.

    Certainly the experiential point of view requires the least knowledge, and relies upon mere introspection. But experiential description is also the most susceptible to error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, because it is the easiest means of suggestion. It is the easiest means of suggestion because it is the most subject to loading, framing, overloading, and it invokes our desire to empathize with the speaker, leading to easy abuse of our altruism. (Which is why people use it).

    Hence why the discipline of science speaks operationally: to best ostracize error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit, suggestion, and abuse of altruism.

    And hence why, in my work, I use amoral operational language to prevent error caused by experiential, intentional, and observational methods of description.

    To convey “truth”, meaning that we have done due diligence to launder error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit, loading, framing, and suggestion would require that we test that all four descriptive models of a process are consistent with one another, such that we convey no error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit in our description.

    4) Structuralism, or more honestly stated “social constructivism”, suggests that people throw symbols around at one another, and that their reality is socially constructed.

    Now this may be true at some popular level, but it was the western tradition to teach grammar, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy for a very long time. And we can see from the disciplined use of grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, the discipline of testimony, natural law, and physical law, that it is quite possible to learn to speak with the same discipline as any of the logics. We just have industrialized education mass consumption and no longer teach these skills.

    The structuralist movement was created by some of the greatest ‘liars’ of the past century, in what I would argue represents an attempt to impose false skepticism on the use of language, in an effort to circumvent the constraint that consistent grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, the discipline of testimony, natural law, and physical law

    So just as the 19th century saw the first wave of pseudoscientific liars: Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908 – ), the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901 – 1981), the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896 – 1980), the linguists Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982) and Noam Chomsky (1928 – ), the literary critic Roland Barthes (1915 – 1980) and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser (1918 – 1990) and Nicos Poulantzas (1936 – 1979).

    5) Christian mysticism makes use of analogy to invoke experience (the extension of kinship love through appeals to altruism and the pack response in exchange for self-generated status signals).

    It makes use of any and all methods to suit its purpose. Christian mysticism is at best an allegorical literary and rhetorical art for constructing myths parables and outright lies, for the purpose of creating experiences, that produce behaviors.

    Some of these behaviors are objectively beneficial (the extension of kinship love). And some of them are not (too many to list). But what the data suggests is that this method works, particularly on the young, the vulnerable, the hopeful, and those with lower intelligence, and even those with average intelligence and above average moral instincts (purity, sanctity, hierarchy).

    (But the church also has a long tradition of natural law as well.)

    6) Humans can cooperate, communicate, and understand ethical moral and political statements by a spectrum of tools. And with some confidence we can say that Ethics can be taught using a spectrum of methods, from the most primitive and requiring the LEAST knowledge, to the most sophisticated and requiring the MOST knowledge:

    a) Myth and Mysticism

    b) Virtue ethics and imitation.

    c) Rule ethics and adherence to law

    d) Outcome ethics and the practice of science.

    We can separate the promise of a narrative, from the truth content of it, from the behavior produced by it (ie: Islam’s nonsensical ‘religion of peace’ claims which fail all three tests.).

    I would say that the truth content of christian mysticism is higher than the truth content of Structuralism. I would say that the outcome of christian mysticism is objectively more beneficial than the outcome of structuralism. I would say that the intention of structuralists was fraud and deception (parasitism). I would say that christian mysticism is not as bad as structuralism or social constructivism – which are themselves an argumentative innovation on mysticism (deceit). I would say that as long as we have a method of laundering error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from any and all arguments, and that we can teach this method by grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, testimonial skill, natural law and physical law, that we can counter every one of these falsehoods.

    CLOSING

    Christian mysticism consists of allegorical conveyance of meaning, using a mixture of truth and falsehood to try to produce high trust on one end, and dependency on the other.

    functionalism consists of an internally consistent and grammatically consistent method of argument, but it is insufficient in the scope of due diligence it includes to ensure it is not used as a vehicle for error,bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.

    Structuralism is a literary and narrative attempt to circumvent a demand for truth, testimony, natural law and physical law.

    Christianity (monotheism) was the first great lie to successfully infect the west.

    19th century pseudoscience as the second great lie to successfully infect the west.

    20th century verbal ‘new mysticism of language’ was the third great lie to successfully infect the west.

    None of these subjects merit discussion since christian supernatural mysticism, cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and cosmopolitan verbal mysticism, are nothing but the same technique applied in three different waves, in order to defeat the west’s central competitive strategy:

    The creation of competitive commons through the use of truth, testimony, natural law and physical law.

    In other words: correspondence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 17:44:00 UTC

  • IF MY WORK IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE A THIEF. I mean. It’s that simple r

    IF MY WORK IS OFFENSIVE TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE A THIEF.

    I mean. It’s that simple right? Truth hurts sometimes.

    Being called out as a thief is definitely unpleasant. Propertarianism and Testimonialism make your thievery visible. You’ve been caught. I understand that you don’t like being caught. I understand that thieves blame everyone else other than themselves.

    If my work is offensive then you’re just a thief. Sorry. Just how it is.

    If you don’t understand it, then you just don’t understand it. Your understanding is no more a measure of my work than your understanding of any other logical specialization. Incomprehension is not a criticism. Nor is complexity a criticism. There are many counter-intuitive complexities in human experience.

    If you think it’s incomplete, or could be better, well then, I agree with you. Its incomplete and it could be better.

    If you think my ambitions are unwise, well, then I acknowledge that possibility.

    But in my experience finding the work offensive is an attempt to preserve deceit and theft.

    The Transcendence of man requires that we clean our intellectual house, incrementally increase suppression of parasitism, and create great monuments to our success.

    We have likely passed peak human. Smaller brains, lower intelligence, higher aggression, and higher reproduction, can destroy mankind’s promise.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-30 06:13:00 UTC

  • Q&A: How Does Propertarianism Address Spanking?

    [A]s an economy. “The Cost Is In The Maintenance” Testimonialism tells us that “There exist no general rules without limits”. So to say we should never spank or always do something else, is an ‘immature’ or perhaps ‘unsophisticated’ ethic. Lets look at the four properties. FIVE FACTORS 0) the category of violation: violence(physicality), crime(theft), ethics(deceit), manners(impulsivity), morals(externality), (please note the sequence). 1) time preference (long term consequences), 2) knowledge of alternatives, 3) time demands (urgent threat vs raising calmest child), 4) exhaustion and frustration levels of the parent. I suspect that merely mentioning these properties is enough for you to put it together. It’s not very complicated. DISCUSSION 1) whenever possible choose the long term consequences. The long term consequences are that harming( using violence against) your children for any reason produces long term consequences. There are times when children know they are out of line. I am not a prohibitionist. There must exist some limit. Physicality should be a limit, not a practice. Thats what the research shows and I am convinced by it. 2) it is actually just as effective in most cases to deprive a child of attention and stimulation. This is the preferred method today – in no small part because we have big enough houses. As I understand it the beneficial line of demarcation is physicality. Cursing at mother (mother must be sacred), or using physicality warrants physicality. Everything else warrants deprivation rather than physicality. Why? Because punishment gives the child attention, and your anger means he or she ‘wins’ by controlling you. In other words, if your child wants attention and can get it, then he is punishing you for not paying him enough attention. After physicality, the next standard is lying. I think most of the time lying is impulsive, and if impulsive then deprivation is enough. After lying s Premeditation. Premeditation is a very bad sign in a child (impulsivity requires only training). Premeditation is not quite as bad as killing animals, but a danger sign. Harming others or animals through premeditation means you have a candidate serial killer on your hands. This requires professional help. So if we are trying to train children to have higher time preference (escape impulsivity) then this is a matter for deprivation. If we are trying to train children out of impulsive physicality – then calm retaliation is probably warranted. If we are trying to train children out of premeditation – then it is more than a question of spanking, it is one of diagnosis of what is ‘wrong’ that is causing it. My mother used to make me stand in a corner. I merely spoke to my daughter and that was enough to change her behavior We sent my son to his bedroom. I have spanked my son once, but it did no good. I usually use a tap on the bottom and that is all it takes. But we are a gene pool and there are other gene pools. My father was excessively violent and I fucking hated him for it. Mostly because it was unnecessary. Making my mother unhappy with me was punishment enough. 3) Deprivation requires time. Contrary to popular belief, children sort of just came along through most of our history, are fairly fragile until they are seven or eight, and were exposed (killed) if unwanted, and often killed by nature if insufficiently provided and cared for. (history is full of families the majority of whose children did not survive). 4) Deprivation requires patience, and energy. Frustrated and tired parenting is very difficult. How one punishes is one of the best measures of time preference. But one’s capacity for time preference is determined by exhaustion and frustration. So people with good mental and physical condition, and who have long (low) time preference tend to be better parents than those with poor mental and physical condition, and high(short) time preference. CLOSING This is the ‘economy’ of child rearing. A child is not purchased and held as lumber or bricks, but constantly maintained like an orchard. So the cost is in the maintenance, not in the purchase. wink emoticon Cheers Curt

  • Q&A: How Does Propertarianism Address Spanking?

    [A]s an economy. “The Cost Is In The Maintenance” Testimonialism tells us that “There exist no general rules without limits”. So to say we should never spank or always do something else, is an ‘immature’ or perhaps ‘unsophisticated’ ethic. Lets look at the four properties. FIVE FACTORS 0) the category of violation: violence(physicality), crime(theft), ethics(deceit), manners(impulsivity), morals(externality), (please note the sequence). 1) time preference (long term consequences), 2) knowledge of alternatives, 3) time demands (urgent threat vs raising calmest child), 4) exhaustion and frustration levels of the parent. I suspect that merely mentioning these properties is enough for you to put it together. It’s not very complicated. DISCUSSION 1) whenever possible choose the long term consequences. The long term consequences are that harming( using violence against) your children for any reason produces long term consequences. There are times when children know they are out of line. I am not a prohibitionist. There must exist some limit. Physicality should be a limit, not a practice. Thats what the research shows and I am convinced by it. 2) it is actually just as effective in most cases to deprive a child of attention and stimulation. This is the preferred method today – in no small part because we have big enough houses. As I understand it the beneficial line of demarcation is physicality. Cursing at mother (mother must be sacred), or using physicality warrants physicality. Everything else warrants deprivation rather than physicality. Why? Because punishment gives the child attention, and your anger means he or she ‘wins’ by controlling you. In other words, if your child wants attention and can get it, then he is punishing you for not paying him enough attention. After physicality, the next standard is lying. I think most of the time lying is impulsive, and if impulsive then deprivation is enough. After lying s Premeditation. Premeditation is a very bad sign in a child (impulsivity requires only training). Premeditation is not quite as bad as killing animals, but a danger sign. Harming others or animals through premeditation means you have a candidate serial killer on your hands. This requires professional help. So if we are trying to train children to have higher time preference (escape impulsivity) then this is a matter for deprivation. If we are trying to train children out of impulsive physicality – then calm retaliation is probably warranted. If we are trying to train children out of premeditation – then it is more than a question of spanking, it is one of diagnosis of what is ‘wrong’ that is causing it. My mother used to make me stand in a corner. I merely spoke to my daughter and that was enough to change her behavior We sent my son to his bedroom. I have spanked my son once, but it did no good. I usually use a tap on the bottom and that is all it takes. But we are a gene pool and there are other gene pools. My father was excessively violent and I fucking hated him for it. Mostly because it was unnecessary. Making my mother unhappy with me was punishment enough. 3) Deprivation requires time. Contrary to popular belief, children sort of just came along through most of our history, are fairly fragile until they are seven or eight, and were exposed (killed) if unwanted, and often killed by nature if insufficiently provided and cared for. (history is full of families the majority of whose children did not survive). 4) Deprivation requires patience, and energy. Frustrated and tired parenting is very difficult. How one punishes is one of the best measures of time preference. But one’s capacity for time preference is determined by exhaustion and frustration. So people with good mental and physical condition, and who have long (low) time preference tend to be better parents than those with poor mental and physical condition, and high(short) time preference. CLOSING This is the ‘economy’ of child rearing. A child is not purchased and held as lumber or bricks, but constantly maintained like an orchard. So the cost is in the maintenance, not in the purchase. wink emoticon Cheers Curt

  • Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA? (example of contrasting pro

    Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA?

    (example of contrasting propertarian analysis with psychological analysis)

    At the risk of entering into a field of landmines:

    As far as I know, pedophilia is a developmental disorder, that like homosexuality, psychopathy, and hoarding, is incurable.

    It has a high comorbidity with other (serious) mental illnesses. I suspect that the researchers will determine that it is caused by the excitement of the dominance response in those who have mental disorders that prevent experience of the dominance response.

    In other words, pedophiles can only get excited by something they can feel dominant over, and they are basically unable to feel dominance (sexual excitement) otherwise – at least as intensely.

    While it is understandable to be aroused by beautiful teenagers(fertility). It is not however, understandable to be aroused by children(non-fertile). Even if we say that the taboo is a learned response, obsession sufficient to prevent disassociation by experience of a constant normative taboo, requires mental illness to prevent that association.

    I have only known one pedophile tangentially (someone fairly senior ex-Microsoft), and there is something ‘not right’ about these people. This individual is highly passive aggressive, with the jewish paranoia that is common in that tribe, and has various other obsessive disorders – that just happen to be useful in writing software.

    They invoke my disgust and purity responses severely enough that I intuit the desperate need to kill them. (I am a a conservative libertarian after all, with heightened responses to such things.). I have the same reaction to child abuses, and wife-beaters.

    In my work I tend to rely on the ternary set of emotions: Dominance-submission, excitement-calm, pleasure-pain.

    And on the desire to acquire in all things without an cancelling loss. So I must be able to explain a behavior using these limited ‘operations’.

    So in my view pedophilia must be a defect since the ‘behavioral economy’ produces such incentives against it, since the interests are against it, and there is no acquisitive value in the behavior whatsoever.

    In other words, using the rough math of propertarianism, I can’t find a way for this to result in an acquisition. This is the value of propertarianism over empathic psychologism: one cannot so easily be fooled by cognitive biases.

    If this sounds like a diagnosis lacking in empathy, it is. But the universe is pretty mechanical. We feel things because they correspond with the demands of the universe. We humans are expressions of physical laws. We aren’t all that special. We just have memories that we can use to predict and therefore outwit the universe’s ‘slower’ and deterministic method of progress through time. (and we are victim of faster processes).

    Curt

    ( PS: I had not included a chapter on negatives in my book. This question suggest that I should include a few such examples. So John Black thank you for giving me one to work with. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-27 02:57:00 UTC

  • The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all

    The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:58:00 UTC

  • The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion vio

    The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion violates the principle of reciprocity, then it cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, since reciprocity is a necessary fundamental right.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:56:00 UTC

  • #wef #libertarian #AltRight #NRx #Conservative MEN: So ether we have UNIVERSAL e

    #wef #libertarian #AltRight #NRx #Conservative MEN: So ether we have UNIVERSAL equality in all jobs – or are women just seeking privileges?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 11:54:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690865300703711233

  • No, la libertad religiosa no puede ser un derecho natural

    Texto original de Curt Doolittle

    Traducido al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    La libertad religiosa es un derecho fundamental- La Heritage Foundation

    Esto no puede ser lógicamente verdad, Ningún derecho fundamental puede existir si viola la ley natural. 
    La religión debe ser compatible con la ley natural, o si no, no es religión sino política disfrazada de religión o guerra. Pero no es ninguna forma de religión.

    Así que es una contradicción afirmar que las religiones son incompatibles con la ley natural puedan ser derechos naturales- Eso quiere decir que no hay derechos naturales.

    Así que estoy en desacuerdo con la libertad religiosa y la libre expresión, en vez de ello: Requerir que el discurso honesto y la religión honesta sean compatibles con la ley natural.
    La religión permanece honesta a pesar del uso de los mitos, las parábolas, alegorías, escrituras y rituales. Siempre y cuando es´ten de acuerdo con principios que se rijan por esas analogías: compatibilidad con ley natural.

    La cristianidad es compatible con la ley natural. El polimoralismo y la ética dual no son compatibles con la ley natural.

    La cristianidad nos aconseja cómo actuar en concierto con la ley natural. El Islam, el judaísmo y otras religiones nos recomiendan acciones para expresamente contravenir la ley natural. Y esas religiones establecen que contienen leyes para su cumplimiento y seguimiento – el Halacha judío, y la Sharia islámica claman ser leyes divinas, y aun así so incompatibles con la ley natural. 

    Los cristianos han sido tolerantes con las herejías, y religiones que compiten con ellos para poder prevenir el mandato de una religión estatal. y por ende proteger la ley natural, y que la independencia de la sabiduría religiosa basada sobre la ley natural protege el daño que podrían causar los hombres. 
    Ni la cristianidad ni la ley natural nos prohíben la purga de las religiones inmorales que violan la ley natural. 
    Ni estamos prohibidos de las filosofías que violan la ley natural: De haber derrotado el marxismo leninismo más temprano que debimos haberlo hecho, habríamos salvado un millón de almas de sufrir. 
    Permitimos que el islam caiga sobre Europa occidental por su violencia e inmoralidad, y hemos fracasado de execrarlo de la Europa del este, áfrica del norte y Bizantium, Miren lo que ha causado nuestro fracaso.

    Estamos en el medio de llegar al segundo más grande engaño después de la conversión forzosa de los romanos: un intento seudocientífico de colonización occidental: antropología boaziana, psicología freudiana, sociología marxista, platonismo cantoriano matemático, economía correlativa marxista keynesiana,, ilustración igualitaria, y las esquinas filosóficas del marxismo leninismo, neo conservadurismo trotskistas, straussiano, y libertarianismo rothbardiano-randiao, y el feminismo neo-puritano-postmoderno. 

    Y hemos entrado en contacto con una tercera ola, esta vez no ejercida por la fuerza (la conquista islámica), no por la conversión religiosa (cristiandad judaica), ni por la conversión pseudocientífica (cosmopolitismo judío), ni por el engaño evidente (postmodernismo, feminismo, y propaganda)

    El conflicto actual está despertando, y la voluntad para execrar este segundo intento de colonizar occidente, a pesar de nuestro siglo de tolerancia. La tolerancia que ha sido abusada por todos.

    NO existen reglas generales ilimitadas. Nuestro retraso en descubrir la teoría de la relatividad nos ha enseñado esto. No hay premisas ilimitadas. No hay teorías deontológicas infinitas que no sean tautologías. 

    El límite de la tolerancia religiosa es la ley natural.

    Todo lo demás es sólo un acto de guerra usando la máscara de la religión para engañarnos al depredar nuestro altruismo.

    Nosotros somos el pueblo que inventó la honestidad. Rescatamos a la humanidad de la ignorancia, el misticismo, enfermedad y pobreza usando nuestra tecnología honestidad: ciencia y ley natural.

    Nosotros somos el único pueblo que lo ha hecho

    Los otros lo odian.
    No debemos perecer en esta tierra

    Curt Doolittle
    Kiev, Ucrania

    El instituto propietarista