Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Answering Chomsky with Hard Truth Not His Platitudes

    Oct 29, 2019, 2:50 PM Noam Chomsky on Jordan Peterson, Post-Modernism, Foucault and Ali G youtube.com (hard-truth warning) (restating the 20th in P’s “Big History”) All political conflict in the west was made possible only by the inclusion of women into the franchise without providing them with a separate house, thereby preserving the ability of the classes to negotiate for their interests in honest public discourse, while adding the participation women who have opposing genetic interests and intuitions to that of men, as another class with yet another set of intersets. So, all political conflict consists of the unstated and political unpleasant: it’s just the eugenic masculine european right against dysgenic feminine and anti-european left and in the postwar period the suppression of eugenics has created the crisis of the age, and threatened to reverse all human civlization to another semitic dark age.

    1. there is always room for new solutions consisting of trades between the classes, to compensate for vast almost unimaginable differences in ability between the classes, and the vast differences in productivity and value to mankind between the classes. There is never room for shaming, ridiculing, moralizing, psychologizing, gossiping, rallying, undermining, and reputation destruction for the vast genetic differences, vast productive differences, and vast value differences between the classes. Either an individual or group is engage in falsehood, irreciprocity, and particularly institutional irreciprocity we call ‘rent seeking’, or political rent seeking we call ‘corruption’, regardless of the proportionality of their returns on ability and effort, wherein we can take that individual or group to court for fraud and theft, or theft by rent seeking or corruption – or we can offer an exchange of trade by political negotiation for what we want, as long as we have something to offer. But without the other parties engaging in fraud, theft, rent seeking or corruption, the only reason a people have ‘wants’ is because they have failed to produce eugenically enough, and have failed to invest in their offspring enough, and failed to engaging in manners, norms, ethics, morals and commons enough, that they cannot themselves engage in fraud, theft(reallocation), or redistribution (rent seeking, corruption). You have less than others in a market economy because you and your family have chosen poorly. So how can you choose less poorly? Well you can demand rule of law instead of socialism. You can not seek redistribution, rent-seeking, or corruption. You can not engage in lying, fraud, theft, conspiracy. And you can ‘clean your room, clean your house, clean your hard, clean your neighborhood, and clean your city, clean your nation, and clean your government of human parasitic filth. Or you can do what islam does, and christianity encourages, which is reduce everyone in every civilization possible to the same low genetic, cultural, ethical, moral standard – and remain equal in superstition, ignorance, poverty and disease, and blame others for your condition.

    2. There is no threat from climate change, there is a threat of over population of the underclasses outside of the first world, now invading the first world, and reversing genetic evolution, reversing institutional, cultural and knowledge evolution, and engaging in hyper-consmption to do so. In fact there is nothin dangerous to this planet and the ecosystem which exstensive sterilization and universal one child policies will not solve in a few generations. There are no environmental problems that are not the result non-western people failing to repeat the western miracle of soft eugenic reduction of the underclasses through manorialism, requirement for property and income before marriage and reproduction, and the redistribution of reproduction from the underclasses that are genetic cultural informational, institutional, and genetic dead weight on man and planet.

    3. The right is devoted to the expansion of market economies and with it the eugenics that occur from the change of value of reproduction to consumption. The right was stopped form the eugenic program because of hitler (even if he was right), and because the nazi movement came after increases in underclass voting, and therefore it was impossible to restore institutional eugenics to compensate for new rates of reproduction. Instead, europe has gone from IQ parity with the Ashkenazi, and IQ superiority to asia, to rapidly approaching second if not third world intelligence levels – thus declining american productivity, financialization of the economy, and rapid underclass immigration to compensate for taxing the middle class out of reproductivity, all to maintain economic velocity, and as a consequence the generation of demand for redistribution and authoritarian state – ending western miracle of rule of law and markets in everything made possible by developing a ratio of talent to market productivity, because the underclasses are not competitive int he world economy given the present much higher standard of living in the western world.

    4. The war against communism is largely the cause of the crisis of western civilization, largely because the jewish intellectuals could obtain a foothold in overthrowing Russia that they could not obtain in other western countries. Then the could use Russia as the economic and military asset with which to destroy western civilization’s invention of Aristotelian reason, roman banking, templar banking, the Hanseatic League, the european age of sail, the empirical revolution, the scientific revolution, and the restoration of western civilization after the jewish, christian and islamic destruction and reduction to ignorance superstition poverty and dysgenia of every great civilization of the the ancient world by false promise of equality to women, slaves, underclasses and the dim and ignorant. The anti-war left was an intentional migration of the left wing from fomenting class warfare between the working and the middle classes, due to the worldwide failure of marxism and communism evident by 1960. Te communists under the Frankfurt school had early recognized the impossibility of undermining the rule of law, and open economy of western civilization because it was raising humanity out of poverty so rapidly. The first use of undermining America in the Russian model was labor, then Frankfurt against art values history, and culture, then the Postmodern revolution by french jews under Derrida, which was used by Alinsky and others to transform the anti-war movement’s effort to undermine western defeat of communism and underclass reversal of eugenic and market civilization, to generation of identitarian conflict between races, regions, and to open the American doors via the immigration act to underclasses to help in undermining western civlization as they had undermined Slavic civlization and set them back two hundred years – and cost humanity 100M deaths. although we should note that the left would have failed in every single lie and false promise if not for radical immigration and the taxation of the middle classes out of reproduction. Now, within the past few years we have (a) ended the pseudoscientific lie of the blank slate showing yes our differences are genetic not environmental (reversing boazianism) (b) ended the pseudoscientific lie of uniformity of cognition or other than rationality of human action (reversing freudianism), (c) ended the pseudoscientific lie that the genders are not profoundly different(reversing feminism), (d) ended the indifference of intelligence and character (postmodern, and feminist denialism) (f) And i”m in the process of ending the entire Abrahamic program of false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, plausible deniability of blame due to the victim’s volition (instead of european warranty of due diligence, and your involuntary liability for those statements), using the abrahamic methods of pilpul (sophism) and critique (straw manning and undermining) rather than providing a reciprocally beneficial alternative and engaging in trades for mutual benefit, without tempting humans into hazard, causing their hazard, and profiting from the harm you did to them. ie: alcohol dealing, drug dealing, prostitution, pornography, usury, the pseudosciences (marxism, boazianism, fruedianism, frankfurtian critique), sophism (postmodernism) and denialisms (feminism) and the very big one: the myth that people are oppressed rather than converted from semi domesticated animals into fully domesticated animals the same way we domesticated every plant and animal: by controlling reproduction thru limiting reproduction to those that created value rather than loss, and culling from the herd those that created loss: shrills(women), gossips (women), liars(both), prostitutes (women), thieves(both), the risky, lazy, violent and disruptive (men), brigands(men), through aggressive use of punishment, public punishment, hanging everyone possible, asylums(mostly women), prisons(mostly men), men in war, winter starvation of the lazy, and a many people through endless recursive plagues.

    5. The government had no interests in a free press and while the second amendment had no debate whatsoever, because it was so obvious, the freedom of the press was the subject of hottest debate, and their inability to separate truthful from untruthful, speech because of the lingering presence of theology, and because they wanted to preserve the various protestant sects and their liberty in faith, they felt it necessary. The post office like the postwar highway system had nothing to do with freedom of speech it had everything to do with politics, war, holding new territory, and commerce, because time delays on this huge continent were a serious problem not satisfied until the telegraph., (my contribution is to repair this deficiency).

    6. The dominance of defensive corporations exists because of the excesses of labor as the industrial revolution kicked in, and the alliance of excess labor immigrated after the revolution kicked in, particularly after 1890 and up until the depression, with the communists, that put labor and industry at odds in politics. This is why businesses left the country. Instead of asking for defense against loss, the unions asked for premiums on labor that destroyed depression, postwar industrial international competitiveness, and forced companies to exit the USA labor market. It is one thin to not lose your job because your supervisor is a scumbag, or your business is trying to save nickel for shareholders, and another to extract pensions, high salaries, and benefits not available to the middle classes who are logarithmically more productive and valuable to the rest of the polity. But again labor was sold a false promise by communists using the abrahamic method of deceit to play upon their ignorance by casting genetic differences and economic realities as if they were family morality tales. The problem today has nothing to do with corporations which overpay everyone in very role because of the economic affects of concentration of markets in cities. It has everything to do with the financial system which again, takes advantage of false promise, baiting into hazard, justification using pilpul, and critique to distract you by calling it a business problem. There is absolutely no reason you pay interest on a house, a car, education, appliances, even clothes and furniture. Entertainment and food if you pay for with interest you deserve the hell you put yourself into – because your bad (defective, undomesticated) animal genes are showing.

  • Answering Chomsky with Hard Truth Not His Platitudes

    Oct 29, 2019, 2:50 PM Noam Chomsky on Jordan Peterson, Post-Modernism, Foucault and Ali G youtube.com (hard-truth warning) (restating the 20th in P’s “Big History”) All political conflict in the west was made possible only by the inclusion of women into the franchise without providing them with a separate house, thereby preserving the ability of the classes to negotiate for their interests in honest public discourse, while adding the participation women who have opposing genetic interests and intuitions to that of men, as another class with yet another set of intersets. So, all political conflict consists of the unstated and political unpleasant: it’s just the eugenic masculine european right against dysgenic feminine and anti-european left and in the postwar period the suppression of eugenics has created the crisis of the age, and threatened to reverse all human civlization to another semitic dark age.

    1. there is always room for new solutions consisting of trades between the classes, to compensate for vast almost unimaginable differences in ability between the classes, and the vast differences in productivity and value to mankind between the classes. There is never room for shaming, ridiculing, moralizing, psychologizing, gossiping, rallying, undermining, and reputation destruction for the vast genetic differences, vast productive differences, and vast value differences between the classes. Either an individual or group is engage in falsehood, irreciprocity, and particularly institutional irreciprocity we call ‘rent seeking’, or political rent seeking we call ‘corruption’, regardless of the proportionality of their returns on ability and effort, wherein we can take that individual or group to court for fraud and theft, or theft by rent seeking or corruption – or we can offer an exchange of trade by political negotiation for what we want, as long as we have something to offer. But without the other parties engaging in fraud, theft, rent seeking or corruption, the only reason a people have ‘wants’ is because they have failed to produce eugenically enough, and have failed to invest in their offspring enough, and failed to engaging in manners, norms, ethics, morals and commons enough, that they cannot themselves engage in fraud, theft(reallocation), or redistribution (rent seeking, corruption). You have less than others in a market economy because you and your family have chosen poorly. So how can you choose less poorly? Well you can demand rule of law instead of socialism. You can not seek redistribution, rent-seeking, or corruption. You can not engage in lying, fraud, theft, conspiracy. And you can ‘clean your room, clean your house, clean your hard, clean your neighborhood, and clean your city, clean your nation, and clean your government of human parasitic filth. Or you can do what islam does, and christianity encourages, which is reduce everyone in every civilization possible to the same low genetic, cultural, ethical, moral standard – and remain equal in superstition, ignorance, poverty and disease, and blame others for your condition.

    2. There is no threat from climate change, there is a threat of over population of the underclasses outside of the first world, now invading the first world, and reversing genetic evolution, reversing institutional, cultural and knowledge evolution, and engaging in hyper-consmption to do so. In fact there is nothin dangerous to this planet and the ecosystem which exstensive sterilization and universal one child policies will not solve in a few generations. There are no environmental problems that are not the result non-western people failing to repeat the western miracle of soft eugenic reduction of the underclasses through manorialism, requirement for property and income before marriage and reproduction, and the redistribution of reproduction from the underclasses that are genetic cultural informational, institutional, and genetic dead weight on man and planet.

    3. The right is devoted to the expansion of market economies and with it the eugenics that occur from the change of value of reproduction to consumption. The right was stopped form the eugenic program because of hitler (even if he was right), and because the nazi movement came after increases in underclass voting, and therefore it was impossible to restore institutional eugenics to compensate for new rates of reproduction. Instead, europe has gone from IQ parity with the Ashkenazi, and IQ superiority to asia, to rapidly approaching second if not third world intelligence levels – thus declining american productivity, financialization of the economy, and rapid underclass immigration to compensate for taxing the middle class out of reproductivity, all to maintain economic velocity, and as a consequence the generation of demand for redistribution and authoritarian state – ending western miracle of rule of law and markets in everything made possible by developing a ratio of talent to market productivity, because the underclasses are not competitive int he world economy given the present much higher standard of living in the western world.

    4. The war against communism is largely the cause of the crisis of western civilization, largely because the jewish intellectuals could obtain a foothold in overthrowing Russia that they could not obtain in other western countries. Then the could use Russia as the economic and military asset with which to destroy western civilization’s invention of Aristotelian reason, roman banking, templar banking, the Hanseatic League, the european age of sail, the empirical revolution, the scientific revolution, and the restoration of western civilization after the jewish, christian and islamic destruction and reduction to ignorance superstition poverty and dysgenia of every great civilization of the the ancient world by false promise of equality to women, slaves, underclasses and the dim and ignorant. The anti-war left was an intentional migration of the left wing from fomenting class warfare between the working and the middle classes, due to the worldwide failure of marxism and communism evident by 1960. Te communists under the Frankfurt school had early recognized the impossibility of undermining the rule of law, and open economy of western civilization because it was raising humanity out of poverty so rapidly. The first use of undermining America in the Russian model was labor, then Frankfurt against art values history, and culture, then the Postmodern revolution by french jews under Derrida, which was used by Alinsky and others to transform the anti-war movement’s effort to undermine western defeat of communism and underclass reversal of eugenic and market civilization, to generation of identitarian conflict between races, regions, and to open the American doors via the immigration act to underclasses to help in undermining western civlization as they had undermined Slavic civlization and set them back two hundred years – and cost humanity 100M deaths. although we should note that the left would have failed in every single lie and false promise if not for radical immigration and the taxation of the middle classes out of reproduction. Now, within the past few years we have (a) ended the pseudoscientific lie of the blank slate showing yes our differences are genetic not environmental (reversing boazianism) (b) ended the pseudoscientific lie of uniformity of cognition or other than rationality of human action (reversing freudianism), (c) ended the pseudoscientific lie that the genders are not profoundly different(reversing feminism), (d) ended the indifference of intelligence and character (postmodern, and feminist denialism) (f) And i”m in the process of ending the entire Abrahamic program of false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, plausible deniability of blame due to the victim’s volition (instead of european warranty of due diligence, and your involuntary liability for those statements), using the abrahamic methods of pilpul (sophism) and critique (straw manning and undermining) rather than providing a reciprocally beneficial alternative and engaging in trades for mutual benefit, without tempting humans into hazard, causing their hazard, and profiting from the harm you did to them. ie: alcohol dealing, drug dealing, prostitution, pornography, usury, the pseudosciences (marxism, boazianism, fruedianism, frankfurtian critique), sophism (postmodernism) and denialisms (feminism) and the very big one: the myth that people are oppressed rather than converted from semi domesticated animals into fully domesticated animals the same way we domesticated every plant and animal: by controlling reproduction thru limiting reproduction to those that created value rather than loss, and culling from the herd those that created loss: shrills(women), gossips (women), liars(both), prostitutes (women), thieves(both), the risky, lazy, violent and disruptive (men), brigands(men), through aggressive use of punishment, public punishment, hanging everyone possible, asylums(mostly women), prisons(mostly men), men in war, winter starvation of the lazy, and a many people through endless recursive plagues.

    5. The government had no interests in a free press and while the second amendment had no debate whatsoever, because it was so obvious, the freedom of the press was the subject of hottest debate, and their inability to separate truthful from untruthful, speech because of the lingering presence of theology, and because they wanted to preserve the various protestant sects and their liberty in faith, they felt it necessary. The post office like the postwar highway system had nothing to do with freedom of speech it had everything to do with politics, war, holding new territory, and commerce, because time delays on this huge continent were a serious problem not satisfied until the telegraph., (my contribution is to repair this deficiency).

    6. The dominance of defensive corporations exists because of the excesses of labor as the industrial revolution kicked in, and the alliance of excess labor immigrated after the revolution kicked in, particularly after 1890 and up until the depression, with the communists, that put labor and industry at odds in politics. This is why businesses left the country. Instead of asking for defense against loss, the unions asked for premiums on labor that destroyed depression, postwar industrial international competitiveness, and forced companies to exit the USA labor market. It is one thin to not lose your job because your supervisor is a scumbag, or your business is trying to save nickel for shareholders, and another to extract pensions, high salaries, and benefits not available to the middle classes who are logarithmically more productive and valuable to the rest of the polity. But again labor was sold a false promise by communists using the abrahamic method of deceit to play upon their ignorance by casting genetic differences and economic realities as if they were family morality tales. The problem today has nothing to do with corporations which overpay everyone in very role because of the economic affects of concentration of markets in cities. It has everything to do with the financial system which again, takes advantage of false promise, baiting into hazard, justification using pilpul, and critique to distract you by calling it a business problem. There is absolutely no reason you pay interest on a house, a car, education, appliances, even clothes and furniture. Entertainment and food if you pay for with interest you deserve the hell you put yourself into – because your bad (defective, undomesticated) animal genes are showing.

  • Only Falsehoods Create Complexities

    Oct 30, 2019, 10:39 PM (don’t get pissed at me for this. it’s true. Truth isn’t always pleasant and the law isn’t always something people are willing to enforce.)

    —“The abortion topic is a paradox and a false equivalency for example. Too complex to boil down to a yes or no.”–Wade Rogers

    mmm… I just say it’s undecidable, not because it is complex, but because the only moral thing to be done is not commit the crime of fertility in the first place, creating the undecidable moral hazard. We don’t do the right thing because we don’t want to. But the right thing is to punish the mother. It cannot happen without her conspiracy. So that is the violation of natural law – period. But since we wont enforce it we convince our selves that abortion is complicated. No, all lies create complication. The truth is simple. Edit

  • Only Falsehoods Create Complexities

    Oct 30, 2019, 10:39 PM (don’t get pissed at me for this. it’s true. Truth isn’t always pleasant and the law isn’t always something people are willing to enforce.)

    —“The abortion topic is a paradox and a false equivalency for example. Too complex to boil down to a yes or no.”–Wade Rogers

    mmm… I just say it’s undecidable, not because it is complex, but because the only moral thing to be done is not commit the crime of fertility in the first place, creating the undecidable moral hazard. We don’t do the right thing because we don’t want to. But the right thing is to punish the mother. It cannot happen without her conspiracy. So that is the violation of natural law – period. But since we wont enforce it we convince our selves that abortion is complicated. No, all lies create complication. The truth is simple. Edit

  • Another Criticism in Response to My Letter to Christians

    Nov 19, 2019, 7:26 PM ANOTHER CRITICISM IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER TO CHRISTIANS A “proof” of possibility of construction is detailed for a reason. —“I understand that you are unable to form concepts into abstractions, so you can only go into concepts in total detail. However you don’t speak or understand any truth. All you do is break down the informational contend of concepts, however you do so using dialectic, making these concept much harder for people to understand. You take the simple concept and make it incredibly complex. You think this makes you smart but it doesn’t, it means you are above average intelligence, but not highly intelligent. So you can find the concepts, but not build an abstraction from them. This is why you have a small internet following and you write overly detailed complex books, videos and articles. I hope you can close the gaps within your mind between the truth and reality of your life, so you can live a happier and more fulfilled life. Rather than wasting your life continuum on breaking concepts down into information content.”— John Best What is it that you think my job is? That’s analogous to saying that macroeconomics, microbiology, chemistry, and fundamental forces aren’t reducible to simplistic terms for simple people to grasp. Well, they require education. So does P-logic require education. And we are ‘educating’ the public as best we can, with a revolution on the scale of the Aristotelian, Empirical, and Darwinian. As for detail, I have a higher resolution understanding (model) of the world, in more precise terms, and in more simultaneous information. And that level of detail is necessary to explain the CAUSALITY of psychological social and political phenomena. It’s one thing to try to come up with yet another non-sense-ism ideology, and something else to complete the aristotelian program, provide wilson’s synthesis, and convert man’s traditional empathic moralizing into a science expressible in value neutral language. So Aristotle had a hard time, Smith and Hume had a hard time, Darwin did, and I’m having a hard time. And arguably it takes a century or more for these ideas to launch. The average idiot still thinks arguments can be ‘proven’, evolution has a direction or intent, and production is a fixed-pie. Mathematics, geometry, calculus allow us to measure the world so that we err less, and have greater agency. P-Logic works just like mathematics, by breaking the world of psychological, social, and political concepts down into measurements (commensurability) so that we err less and have greater agency. One does not need to master higher mathematics to benefit from what those who do master it measure, comprehend, and discover. One needs only NOT claim that ‘because it’s hard it must be false’. Likewise, the fact that P-logic – like say, the calculus, or electromagnetic fields, or economic equilibria – formalizes psychology, sociology, politics and that the result is somewhat complicated as are the calculus, fields, economies, says nothing other than it explains why it has taken so long to discover that logic: it’s the hardest one so far to model. You almost certainly have not read either Menger, or Keynes’ General Theory, and probably not Darwin, or Hayek, Turing, or Chomsky’s short papers. I doubt you’ve read Kant, or Hume, or Smith. And I’m almost certain you don’t know the debate between Hilbert and Einstein or what they said and why … but you live a life constructed of their scribbles. It’s not important you understand the theory. it’s only important you understand the CONSEQUENCES of the application of the theory. If someone else had been able to do what I have, they would have. They haven’t. And so they haven’t been able to achieve in psychology, social science, politics what I have. And I have only because the internet is available and I have research from every discipline at my fingertips – so the ‘cost of production’ of synthesis (collapsing all disciplines into one language) has been reduced to zero. But in all previous generations, people like me didn’t have the internet so they couldn’t experiment with working in public. I’ve run the experiment. John is running the experiment with whether it’s possible to break these ideas down and communicate them to ordinary people. So far he does better than I imagined was possible. That said, he’s not trying to teach you how to define something like testimonial Parsimony as a supply-demand curve, or as we’re working on now, the economics expression of reciprocity and forbearance vs tolerance. I understand religion just fine. I understand that the church shut down Stoicism for one simple reason: it makes religion unnecessary. I understand why the left is shutting down rule of law: it makes politics unnecessary. I understand why the left – and the faithful – will try to shut down testimonialism: because it makes propaganda unnecessary. And without religion, politics, and propaganda necessary what use remains for lying. So please explain to me what I do not understand. Because so far, I have found very little in the mind of man that I cannot understand, and increasingly less I cannot convert into a formula. Perhaps you should find time to investigate what you do not understand – because there is something to be learned there. Instead of searching for what you do understand, in case an opportunity may be found there. If anything could be found in what has failed, men would have. There is a lot to be found in P.

  • Another Criticism in Response to My Letter to Christians

    Nov 19, 2019, 7:26 PM ANOTHER CRITICISM IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER TO CHRISTIANS A “proof” of possibility of construction is detailed for a reason. —“I understand that you are unable to form concepts into abstractions, so you can only go into concepts in total detail. However you don’t speak or understand any truth. All you do is break down the informational contend of concepts, however you do so using dialectic, making these concept much harder for people to understand. You take the simple concept and make it incredibly complex. You think this makes you smart but it doesn’t, it means you are above average intelligence, but not highly intelligent. So you can find the concepts, but not build an abstraction from them. This is why you have a small internet following and you write overly detailed complex books, videos and articles. I hope you can close the gaps within your mind between the truth and reality of your life, so you can live a happier and more fulfilled life. Rather than wasting your life continuum on breaking concepts down into information content.”— John Best What is it that you think my job is? That’s analogous to saying that macroeconomics, microbiology, chemistry, and fundamental forces aren’t reducible to simplistic terms for simple people to grasp. Well, they require education. So does P-logic require education. And we are ‘educating’ the public as best we can, with a revolution on the scale of the Aristotelian, Empirical, and Darwinian. As for detail, I have a higher resolution understanding (model) of the world, in more precise terms, and in more simultaneous information. And that level of detail is necessary to explain the CAUSALITY of psychological social and political phenomena. It’s one thing to try to come up with yet another non-sense-ism ideology, and something else to complete the aristotelian program, provide wilson’s synthesis, and convert man’s traditional empathic moralizing into a science expressible in value neutral language. So Aristotle had a hard time, Smith and Hume had a hard time, Darwin did, and I’m having a hard time. And arguably it takes a century or more for these ideas to launch. The average idiot still thinks arguments can be ‘proven’, evolution has a direction or intent, and production is a fixed-pie. Mathematics, geometry, calculus allow us to measure the world so that we err less, and have greater agency. P-Logic works just like mathematics, by breaking the world of psychological, social, and political concepts down into measurements (commensurability) so that we err less and have greater agency. One does not need to master higher mathematics to benefit from what those who do master it measure, comprehend, and discover. One needs only NOT claim that ‘because it’s hard it must be false’. Likewise, the fact that P-logic – like say, the calculus, or electromagnetic fields, or economic equilibria – formalizes psychology, sociology, politics and that the result is somewhat complicated as are the calculus, fields, economies, says nothing other than it explains why it has taken so long to discover that logic: it’s the hardest one so far to model. You almost certainly have not read either Menger, or Keynes’ General Theory, and probably not Darwin, or Hayek, Turing, or Chomsky’s short papers. I doubt you’ve read Kant, or Hume, or Smith. And I’m almost certain you don’t know the debate between Hilbert and Einstein or what they said and why … but you live a life constructed of their scribbles. It’s not important you understand the theory. it’s only important you understand the CONSEQUENCES of the application of the theory. If someone else had been able to do what I have, they would have. They haven’t. And so they haven’t been able to achieve in psychology, social science, politics what I have. And I have only because the internet is available and I have research from every discipline at my fingertips – so the ‘cost of production’ of synthesis (collapsing all disciplines into one language) has been reduced to zero. But in all previous generations, people like me didn’t have the internet so they couldn’t experiment with working in public. I’ve run the experiment. John is running the experiment with whether it’s possible to break these ideas down and communicate them to ordinary people. So far he does better than I imagined was possible. That said, he’s not trying to teach you how to define something like testimonial Parsimony as a supply-demand curve, or as we’re working on now, the economics expression of reciprocity and forbearance vs tolerance. I understand religion just fine. I understand that the church shut down Stoicism for one simple reason: it makes religion unnecessary. I understand why the left is shutting down rule of law: it makes politics unnecessary. I understand why the left – and the faithful – will try to shut down testimonialism: because it makes propaganda unnecessary. And without religion, politics, and propaganda necessary what use remains for lying. So please explain to me what I do not understand. Because so far, I have found very little in the mind of man that I cannot understand, and increasingly less I cannot convert into a formula. Perhaps you should find time to investigate what you do not understand – because there is something to be learned there. Instead of searching for what you do understand, in case an opportunity may be found there. If anything could be found in what has failed, men would have. There is a lot to be found in P.

  • “Propertarianism Consists of ….”

    Dec 26, 2019, 2:12 PM

    —“This is a very vague non-answer that tries to appear smart by using a big word salad and sounds like something the typical libertarian atheist who’s sure of his own intellect would say. I still don’t understand what Propertarianism is.”— Ryan Chapman

    Always an overconfident moron in the bunch. What’s the difference between aristotelianism, platonism, and abrahamism? What’s the difference between reason, logic, rationalism? What’s the difference between Aristotelian, enlightenment(empirical) and scientific, revolutions? Whats the difference between math, logic, programming, recipes, and protocols? So what is the difference between aristotelianism, empiricism, science, and testimonialism (propertarianism)? Well, the difference is from the rational to the empirical to the operational. What does operational mean? It means the difference between logic (Sets) and programming (operations). It means the difference between logic (language), empiricism (observation), and operations (actions). Propertarianism completes the scientific method. The culmination of the philosophical program of the 20th century was that there is no via positiva scientific method. Instead, The scientific method is a via negativa method: falsificationary. There are only so many dimensions humans can cognitively imagine and cognitively falsify by tests of consistency: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal, complete in scope with defined limits, and consistent and therefore coherent across those dimensions, where one warranties such due diligence, and is liable for the consequence of his displays words and deeds resulting from such statements. By using this method we can create a universally commensurable, value neutral, operational language and as such a universally commensurable logic, across all fields: a system of measurement for the truthfulness of speech. We can then use this language and this method to restate the constitution, and our law, in scientific, and operational language, closed to interpretation (legislation from the bench). Moreover we can use this law to outlaw the primary innovation in organized crime that was used to undermine western civilization: false promise; baiting into hazard, using pilpul (sophism) and critique(undermining, straw manning) under cover of plausible deniability to profit from the imposition of harms upon others by financialization (innumeracy), pseudoscience, sophism, supernaturalism, denialism, including the false promises, pseudo-mathematics, pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial of marx, boas, freud, Cantor, Adorno et al, Gramsci et al, Derrida et al, Friedan et al, rand/rothbard, and the neocons. And yes, we can even use it to reform and obtain insight into the failures of Bohr ad Einstein that hilbert predicted, and we can explain the 20th century of mysticism and deceit that hayek warned us of. In other words we can end the jewish-muslim, marxist-postmodernis-feminist program of lying by false promise, and explain why it’s a crime. So, hopefully you can understand why this brief passage here is not something I would stick on the front page for marketing purposes. And if you can’t comprehend it – it doesn’t matter. You probably don’t know calculus, analysis, algebraic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, or the difference between hierarchical, relational, functional, object oriented, and bayesian programming, or the design patterns in each. Or the fundamental problems of mathematical economics, categories, use of symmetries as intermediary systems of economic measurement. Or even the problem of protein folding or why all of those questions are related by the problem a lack of an operational logic of geometries that replaces the operational logic of lines and curves using positional names that we call mathematics. I know what the fuck I”m doing.Don’t shit on my doorstep.

  • More ‘What Is Propertarianism” Criticism

    Dec 28, 2019, 2:57 PM

    —“Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”—

    That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. It means not only the physical sciences but logics, psychological, social, political, legal, economic sciences. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? The scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally (which is a problem for the left). The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See?

  • More ‘What Is Propertarianism” Criticism

    Dec 28, 2019, 2:57 PM

    —“Propertarianism is the completion of (the complete) scientific method.”—

    That’s it. Period. But it’s a profound thing. Very. It means not only the physical sciences but logics, psychological, social, political, legal, economic sciences. Now what do we do with that completed scientific method? The scientific method is value neutral, and commensurable regardless of discipline, and universal in application. We use that scientific method to produce a value neutral fully commensurable language across all disciplines. We use that logic and language to produce a universally commensurable value neutral system of law. We used that value neutral system of law to produce a constitution. That constitution’s principle innovation is to incrementally suppress the means by which western civlization in the ancient and modern world was undermined by crimes of plausible deniability (which I won’t explain right here), but that’s what you think of when you think of leftism. One can create an infinite number of constitutions of infinite variety using that law, as long as one constructs them truthfully and reciprocally (which is a problem for the left). The constitution we propose restores the american constitution to its original intent as military and treasury that allows for the concentration of military power sufficient for defense of the continent, devolves all other powers to the states, makes everyone liable for the truth and reciprocity of speech in public to the public about matters public (outlaws leftism), and reforms every single aspect of life so that we restore our civilization from the ((())) harms done to it this past century. That constitution is on line and in progress and is a lot to swallow, but then so are the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Federalist Papers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Amendements, History of Supreme Court Rulings, Federal Code, and Individual State constitutions and codes. Propertarianism is the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to the totality of human knowledge, creating a universally commensurable value neutral language; its embodiment in the natural common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of [all deceit] from the informational commons. See?

  • Regarding Mathematical Platonism and The Test of .999.. = 1.

    Dec 29, 2019, 12:00 AM This article is ideological propaganda (which is common here) in favor of mathematical platonism that intentionally or not misrepresents the problem. This question of whether .999… = 1 is the canon example, and litmus test, of the conflict over the foundations of mathematics between the schools (a) demanding the scientific basis of mathematics (mathematical realism) by Hilbert and (b) the literary (pseudoscientific) basis of mathematics that was reintroduced by Cantor resulting in the catastrophe of mathematics, logic, and even mathematical physics in the twentieth century. So it is not a question of pedagogy but an unsettled conflict over the choice between mathematical realism under which no infinity is operationally impossible, limits always extant in any application, and therefore .999 != 1, versus mathematical platonism dependent upon the law of the excluded middle, under which deductively, one cannot construct a statement in the vocabulary and grammar of mathematics (the logic of positional names) where .999… does not equal 1. This is the battle between realism (science, operational mathematics), and idealism (philosophy, literary mathematics). For example, Descartes was important because he restored mathematics to geometry (operations) giving us the cartesian model, and the result was newton-liebnitz’s calculus on one end and the restoration of the realism on the other. Cantor, Bohr, and yes, even Einstein as well as the logicians tried to restore idealism. This led to the constructivist argument. That argument succeeded in physics and has slowly propagated through the sciences, even, oddly causing the reformation of psychology (although not sociology). Computer science has taken up constructivist mathematics leaving mathematical platonism to the discipline of math. Unfortunately, we are stuck with Einstein-Bohr-Cantor versus Hilbert-Poincare-Turing, and this is one of the profound failings ofthe 20th century. For example. Numbers exist as names of positions and nothing else. We use positional naming to generate unique names. Positions are ordered but scale independent. All of mathematics consist of functions producing names in the grammar and vocabulary of positional names. Cantor states that we can produce multiple infinities of different sizes. This is a fictionalism (parable). Instead, no infinity is constructible only predictable in imagination. So, in any sequence of operations, different sets will produce new positional names at different rates, such that at any given limit, the sets will differ in sizes. There are no different ‘sizes’ of infinities, only different rates of production of positional (unique) names. Math is full of such parables. In ethics for example, the litmus test is blackmail: it’s voluntary, it’s an exchange, but why do we react against it? Because it’s an unproductive transfer. In logic it’s whether logic is binary and a rule of inference (true vs false) or ternary and scientific (false, truth candidate, undecidable). In mathematics the litmus test is whether .999… = 1. Under realism, no it doesn’t. Under idealism (Platonism) it does. Science (meaning testimony) imposes a higher standard than idealism (platonism). Platonism remains justificationary and Realism falsificationary. So when you make the claim the question is pedagogical (error) and that people don’t understand – that’s patently false. It’s that operationalism (realism, science) has a higher standard than platonism (idealism, prose). And under realism .999… cannot possible ever equal 1 since no infinity is operationally possible. Whereas under idealism the standard is lower, because under scale independence, infinity substitutes for the unknown limit, which as a consequence is 1. The fact that people aren’t pedagogically informed that this debate exists, and persists, and that its origin is between western engineering and geometry, and middle eastern algebra and astrology, leading to western reason and science, versus eastern theology and mysticism – then you begin to understand how important this question is – and why our physicists have been lost in mathematical platonism – and why scientific woo woo is so common, when it’s increasingly likely that mathematics of positions names (points) has most likely reached its limits. And that we have failed to create the next generation of mathematics (shapes, geometries) that would allow us to solve protein foldings and the structure of the universe that results in our observed but unsolvable quantum distributions of probability.