Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • How Many of These Are Obtained by Baiting Into Hazard?

    Nov 25, 2019, 1:56 PM (Then, go thru the rest of the Forbes list, and discover how the white people made their money. ) MERIT 3 Lawrence Ellison 27,000 65 Redwood City Oracle (earned) 13 Michael Dell 14,500 44 Austin Dell INGROUP MONEY RAISE ADVANTAGE W/MERIT 11 Sergey Brin 15,300 36 Palo Alto Google 11 Larry Page 15,300 36 San Francisco Google 158 Mark Zuckerberg 2,000 25 Palo Alto Facebook WINDFALL VIA OTHERS’ EFFORTS – NO MERIT 14 Steven Ballmer 13,300 53 Seattle Microsoft(Via Gates) 326 Margaret Whitman 1,200 53 Atherton Ebay(Via Others) INGROUP MONEY RAISE – NO MERIT – RENT SEEKING 123 Mitchell Rales 2,500 53 Washington Danaher Corp ** 123 Steven Rales 2,500 58 Washington Danaher Corp ** 296 Jeremy Jacobs Sr. 1,300 69 East Aurora sports concessions 326 John E. Abele 1,200 72 Shelburne healthcare ** 8 Michael Bloomberg 17,500 67 New York Bloomberg 15 George Soros 13,000 79 Westchester hedge funds 16 Donald Bren 12,000 77 Newport Beach real estate 22 Carl Icahn 10,500 73 New York leveraged buyouts 23 Ronald Perelman 10,000 66 New York leveraged buyouts 24 George B. Kaiser 9,500 67 Tulsa oil & gas, banking 26 Sheldon Adelson 9,000 76 Las Vegas casinos, hotels 29 James Simons 8,500 71 East Setauket hedge funds 36 Steven Cohen 6,400 53 Greenwich hedge funds 42 Eli Broad 5,400 76 Los Angeles investments 44 Len Blavatnik 5,000 52 London Access Industries 44 David Geffen 5,000 66 Malibu movies, music 44 Ira Rennert 5,000 75 New York investments 49 Charles Ergen 4,900 56 Denver EchoStar ** 50 Stephen Schwarzman 4,700 62 New York investments 52 Samuel I. (Si) Newhouse Jr. 4,500 81 New York publishing 56 Micky Arison 4,300 60 Bal Harbour Carnival Cruises 61 Ralph Lauren 4,200 70 New York fashion 65 Lester Crown & family 4,000 84 Wilmette investments 65 Richard LeFrak & family 4,000 64 New York real estate 65 Donald Newhouse 4,000 79 Somerset County publishing 65 Daniel Ziff 4,000 37 New York inheritance, hedge funds 65 Dirk Ziff 4,000 45 New York inheritance, hedge funds 65 Robert Ziff 4,000 43 New York inheritance, hedge funds 77 Henry Kravis 3,800 65 New York leveraged buyouts 77 Paul Milstein & family 3,800 87 New York Emigrant, real estate 77 Samuel Zell 3,800 68 Chicago real estate, private equity 84 Leonard N. Stern 3,600 71 New York real estate 85 Stanley Druckenmiller 3,500 56 Pittsburgh hedge funds 85 Bruce Kovner 3,500 64 New York hedge funds 85 George Roberts 3,500 66 San Francisco leveraged buyouts 97 Riley P. Bechtel 3,000 57 San Francisco engineering, construction** 97 Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. 3,000 84 San Francisco engineering, construction** 97 Leonard Lauder 3,000 76 New York Estee Lauder 97 Theodore Lerner 3,000 84 Washington real estate 97 Steven Spielberg 3,000 62 Pacific Palisades movies 97 Warren Stephens 3,000 52 Little Rock Stephens Inc. ** 97 David Tepper 3,000 52 Milburn hedge funds 110 Stephen Ross 2,900 69 New York real estate 113 Daniel Och 2,800 48 New York hedge funds 113 Haim Saban 2,800 65 Beverly Hills television 118 Joan Tisch 2,600 83 New York Loews 123 Edgar M. Bronfman 2,500 80 New York liquor 123 Ronald Lauder 2,500 65 New York Estee Lauder 123 David Rubenstein 2,500 60 Bethesda leveraged buyouts 139 Mark Cuban 2,400 51 Dallas Broadcast.com 139 Malcolm Glazer & family 2,400 81 Palm Beach sports teams, real estate 141 Steve Wynn 2,300 67 Las Vegas casinos, hotels ** 147 Tom Gores 2,200 45 Beverly Hills leveraged buyouts 147 Bruce Wasserstein 2,200 61 New York Wasserstein Perella, Lazard 158 Nicolas Berggruen 2,000 48 New York Investments 158 Leon Black 2,000 58 New York leveraged buyouts 158 William Gross 2,000 65 Laguna Beach bonds ** 158 Michael Milken 2,000 63 Los Angeles investments 158 Sumner Redstone 2,000 86 Beverly Hills Viacom 158 Leslie Wexner 2,000 72 New Albany Limited Brands 183 Stewart Rahr 1,950 63 New York Kinray 193 Alan Casden 1,850 63 Beverly Hills real estate 196 Thomas Pritzker 1,800 59 Chicago hotels, investments 196 Jerry Speyer 1,800 69 New York real estate 204 Israel Englander 1,700 61 New York hedge funds 204 Penny Pritzker 1,700 50 Chicago hotels, investments 204 Sheldon Solow 1,700 81 New York real estate 212 Robert Friedland 1,650 59 Singapore mining 212 Henry Samueli 1,650 55 Newport Beach Broadcom 220 Thomas Friedkin 1,600 74 Houston Gulf States Toyota 220 Alec Gores 1,600 56 Beverly Hills leveraged buyouts 220 Irwin Jacobs 1,600 76 La Jolla Qualcomm 220 Anthony Pritzker 1,600 48 Los Angeles hotels, investments 220 Jay Robert Pritzker 1,600 44 Evanston hotels, investments 230 John Morgridge 1,550 76 Portola Valley Cisco ** (NETA with Jewish Agency) 230 Isaac Perlmutter 1,550 67 Palm Beach Marvel 230 Wilma Tisch 1,550 82 New York Loews 236 Neil Bluhm 1,500 71 Chicago real estate 236 Robert Kraft 1,500 68 Brookline New England Patriots 236 Stephen Mandel 1,500 53 Greenwich hedge funds 236 Daniel Pritzker 1,500 50 Marin County hotels, investments 236 James Pritzker 1,500 58 Chicago hotels, investments 236 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker 1,500 47 Chicago hotels, investments 236 John Pritzker 1,500 56 San Francisco hotels, investments 236 Karen Pritzker 1,500 51 New Haven hotels, investments 236 Linda Pritzker 1,500 55 St. Ignatius hotels, investments 236 Marc Rich 1,500 74 Meggen commodities 236 Lynn Schusterman 1,500 70 Tulsa oil & gas, investments 236 John Sperling 1,500 88 Phoenix Apollo Group 236 Mortimer Zuckerman 1,500 72 New York real estate, media 272 George Lindemann & family 1,450 73 Palm Beach investments 272 Bernard Marcus 1,450 80 Atlanta Home Depot 277 S. Daniel Abraham 1,400 85 Palm Beach Slim-Fast 277 John Arrillaga 1,400 72 Palo Alto real estate 277 Alfred Mann 1,400 83 Los Angeles medical devices 277 Michael Moritz 1,400 55 Mountain View venture capital 277 Michael Price 1,400 57 Far Hills investments 277 Tamir Sapir 1,400 62 New York real estate 277 Alfred Taubman 1,400 85 Bloomfield Hills real estate 289 Ken Fisher 1,350 58 Woodside Money management ** 289 David Gottesman 1,350 83 Rye investments 289 Marc Lasry 1,350 49 New York hedge funds (92nd Street Y) 296 Edmund Ansin 1,300 73 Miami Sunbeam Broadcasting 296 Ron Baron 1,300 66 New York money management 296 Leon Charney 1,300 68 New York Real estate 296 Glenn Dubin 1,300 52 New York hedge funds 296 Donald Fisher 1,300 81 San Francisco Gap 296 Doris Fisher 1,300 78 San Francisco Gap 296 Gary Michelson 1,300 60 Los Angeles medical patents 317 Arthur Blank 1,250 67 Atlanta Home Depot 317 Jeffrey Greene 1,250 54 Miami Beach real estate, investments 317 Thomas H. Lee 1,250 65 New York leveraged buyouts 317 Herbert Simon 1,250 74 Indianapolis real estate 317 Peter Sperling 1,250 49 Phoenix Apollo Group 326 Norman Braman 1,200 77 Miami art, car dealerships 326 John Fisher 1,200 48 San Francisco Gap 326 Nicholas Pritzker 1,200 65 Chicago hotels, investments 326 Alexander Rovt 1,200 57 Brooklyn fertilizer 341 Leon Cooperman 1,150 66 Short Hills hedge funds 341 Barry Diller 1,150 67 New York IAC/InterActiveCorp 341 Joseph Mansueto 1,150 53 Chicago Morningstar ** 347 Marc Benioff 1,100 45 San Francisco Salesforce.com 347 A. James Clark 1,100 81 Easton Construction ** 347 Robert Fisher 1,100 56 San Francisco Gap 347 Alan Gerry 1,100 80 Liberty cable television** 347 James Irsay 1,100 50 Carmel Indianapolis Colts (Father, Bob was Jewish) 347 Michael Krasny 1,100 56 Highland Park CDW Corp 3 347 Daniel Snyder 1,100 44 Potomac Washington Redskins 347 Henry Swieca 1,100 52 New York hedge funds 366 Peter Lewis 1,050 75 Coconut Grove Progressive Corp 366 Nelson Peltz 1,050 67 Bedford Investments 371 William Fisher 1,000 52 San Francisco Gap 371 Pincus Green 1,000 74 Jerusalem commodities 371 Jeffry Picower 1,000 67 Palm Beach investments 371 Steven Schonfeld 1,000 50 Westbury Proprietary Trading 371 Walter Shorenstein & family 1,000 94 San Francisco real estate 371 Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler 1,000 45 London Millhouse LLC 371 Charles Zegar 1,000 61 New York Bloomberg LP 394 Jeffrey Lurie 980 58 Haverford Philadelphia Eagles 396 Nancy Lerner 960 49 Cleveland inheritance 396 Norma Lerner 960 73 Cleveland inheritance 396 Randolph Lerner 960 47 Cleveland inheritance

  • Let’s Give Everyone a Precise Language and For the Discussion of Religion.

    LET’S GIVE EVERYONE A PRECISE LANGUAGE AND FOR THE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION. (worth repeating) We have been misled to thinking that ‘religion’ requires superstition. But that idea is a product of the authoritarian dogma created by the Church under Christianity. It’s simply not true. DECONFLATED, RELIGION CONSISTS OF: 1) Narrative: historical, mythical, supernatural 2) Metaphysical Judgments: (in many forms) 3) Group Evolutionary Strategy: (in many forms ) 4) Normative Rules: (in many forms) 5) Registries of Familial Property (birth, maturity, marriage, death) 5) Rituals both private and public: (mindfulness in its forms) 6) Feasts, Sports, Arts, and Festivals:(in their many forms) RELIGION ‘WORKS’ BY: 1 – providing some variation on ‘mindfulness’ in which we can escape the problem of being honest with ourselves independently of all our accumulated intuitions and biases. 2 – Forming associations between the ‘pack-response’ and group participation, and eliminating the problem of stress from post-tribal life’s lack of feedback, thereby extending trust bonds across kin groups, class groups, and market groups, which decreases transaction costs of all kinds in all walks of life. 3 – Establishing normative rules for familial and cross familial behavior, that made (and continue to) reduce natural frictions between genetic variations in gender, class, tribe, race that (truthfully) translate in to different demands for association, reproduction, economic cooperation, and rule – and the status-seeking that affects each of those demands, dramatically. THE FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM OF WESTERN RELIGION 1 – Separation of education and religion ……..a – The failure of religions to reform in response to the scientific enlightenment. ……..b – The failure of religions to reform in response to Darwin. ……..c – The Academy’s seizure of the functions of the church upon the failure of the church to reform. ……..d – The End of western separation and competition between Religion and State by the adoption of the synthesis of jewish cosmopolitan and puritan postmodern by the State, Academy, Media complex the current generation of thinkers refers to as “The Cathedral Complex”, or just “The Cathedral” for short. ……..e – The beginning of state-financed New Indulgences (we call them ‘college diplomas’) that promise a middle or upper class level of consumption instead of forgiveness of sins and entry into heaven – when the postwar economic boom that made possible the rapid expansion of the consumer class was just a temporary product of the combined tragedies of the Great European Civil War’s destruction of centuries of accumulated production capacity, plus the destruction of, and delay of expansion of, world production caused by the movement we call world communism (and now, its inheritor, world islamism). 2 – the academy seized control of the commercial education and the ‘religious’ education (liberalism), but failed to seize familial education – and in most cases, assisted the state in the destruction first of black families, then white families, and now all families, in order to (a) provide women with child care (schooling), force them into the labor pool (feminism), and then consume the entire proceeds of women’s labor so that the war and boomer generation could retire early and lie on the next generation’s labor, and then immigrating third world labor to provide cheap labor (social programs) that cannot replace the prior generation because of lesser aggregate abilities. The family destruction was increased by attempt to create a mobile workforce and thereby deprive women of the multi-generational support necessary to raise more than one child without exhaustion. And now it is impossible for women to return to childbearing and child-rearing because of the tax demands placed upon their earnings by the immigration of underclasses and the dependency of the aged yet healthy enough to work. 3 – The state-sponsored secular ‘religion’ that we currently teach is pseudoscientific (false, and dishonest), where the content of Christian religion (the extension of kinship forgiveness to non-kin) was ‘true’ but conveyed by nonsense and authoritarianism. 4 – One of the unstated drivers for the current conflict in america is not just the decline of the white population and the ascent of the colored cities, but because science has caught up and since 1990 has been aggressively disproving the universalist, globalist, equalitarian democratic secular socialist religion. And those who are aware of this are … angry … and full of conviction that their traditions and intuitions were correct. Therefore they feel betrayed and deceived. THE WEST HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLYTHEISTIC While it is the secret to the west’s competitive advantage, we are sometimes misled by our (false) historical narrative: The west never engaged in conflation, by creating ‘one book’ so to speak. We have always had: …. 1) Law (limits) for the Ruling (fathering) Classes, …. 2) Commerce (pragmatism) for the producing classes. …. 3) Religion (utopianism) for Science / pseudoscience, philosophy / pseudorationalism, and Theology / fraud for the Educating (mothering) classes (church/academy). And have always maintained the three estates of the realm using the three methods of coercion 1) Law/Limits: Force / ostracization from movement/ resources / life itself. 2) Exchange/Utility: Payment / Remuneration / Ostracization from consumption. 3) Religion: Gossip / Rallying / Shaming / Ostracization from opportunity for insurance from the tribe. THE WEST’S ADMINISTRATIVE RELIGION IS THE COMMON SOVEREIGN INDO-EUROPEAN/ARISTOCRATIC/ANGLO SAXON LAW, AND ITS PRIEST’S ARE OUR JUDGES Reason, empiricism, science, and now ‘testimonialism’ (the completion of the scientific method) all evolved out of western empirical common law. There is no reason our founding myths: 1) Homer, takes of kings, princes and princesses: the germanic myths, legends, and fairy tales; 2) History and the lives of the great thinkers; 3) the tales of jesus and the saints; Cannot be taught as ‘religion’ and their contributions celebrated. RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, BUT SUPERSTITION, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE, CONFLATION AND DECEPTION ARE NOT. THE CYCLE OF REVOLUTIONS (TRUTHS) AND COUNTER REVOLUTIONS (LIES) ——————————— 1) REVOLUTION: The invention of aristocracy (horse, bronze, wheel). =>COUNTER-REVOLUTION: organized conflationary superstitious advisory religion. 2) REVOLUTION: The invention of truth, reason, deconflation, competition. =>COUNTER-REVOLUTION: Conflationary Monotheistic Authoritarian Religion 3) REVOLUTION: Empricism =>COUNTER REVOLUTIONS: – French Pseudoscientific Moralism: Rousseau et al. – Russian literary nihilism. – German pseudo-rational philosophy. 4) REVOLUTION: Science: Darwin (evolution), spencer (operationalism), poincare(mathematical realism), maxwell (electromagnetism), nietzsche (restoration of aristocratic aesthetics) =>COUNTER REVOLUTION: – Jewish Cosmopolitan Pseudoscience: Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology: cooperation), Freud (psychology), Adorno et al (Aesthetics).

  • Let’s Give Everyone a Precise Language and For the Discussion of Religion.

    LET’S GIVE EVERYONE A PRECISE LANGUAGE AND FOR THE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION. (worth repeating) We have been misled to thinking that ‘religion’ requires superstition. But that idea is a product of the authoritarian dogma created by the Church under Christianity. It’s simply not true. DECONFLATED, RELIGION CONSISTS OF: 1) Narrative: historical, mythical, supernatural 2) Metaphysical Judgments: (in many forms) 3) Group Evolutionary Strategy: (in many forms ) 4) Normative Rules: (in many forms) 5) Registries of Familial Property (birth, maturity, marriage, death) 5) Rituals both private and public: (mindfulness in its forms) 6) Feasts, Sports, Arts, and Festivals:(in their many forms) RELIGION ‘WORKS’ BY: 1 – providing some variation on ‘mindfulness’ in which we can escape the problem of being honest with ourselves independently of all our accumulated intuitions and biases. 2 – Forming associations between the ‘pack-response’ and group participation, and eliminating the problem of stress from post-tribal life’s lack of feedback, thereby extending trust bonds across kin groups, class groups, and market groups, which decreases transaction costs of all kinds in all walks of life. 3 – Establishing normative rules for familial and cross familial behavior, that made (and continue to) reduce natural frictions between genetic variations in gender, class, tribe, race that (truthfully) translate in to different demands for association, reproduction, economic cooperation, and rule – and the status-seeking that affects each of those demands, dramatically. THE FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM OF WESTERN RELIGION 1 – Separation of education and religion ……..a – The failure of religions to reform in response to the scientific enlightenment. ……..b – The failure of religions to reform in response to Darwin. ……..c – The Academy’s seizure of the functions of the church upon the failure of the church to reform. ……..d – The End of western separation and competition between Religion and State by the adoption of the synthesis of jewish cosmopolitan and puritan postmodern by the State, Academy, Media complex the current generation of thinkers refers to as “The Cathedral Complex”, or just “The Cathedral” for short. ……..e – The beginning of state-financed New Indulgences (we call them ‘college diplomas’) that promise a middle or upper class level of consumption instead of forgiveness of sins and entry into heaven – when the postwar economic boom that made possible the rapid expansion of the consumer class was just a temporary product of the combined tragedies of the Great European Civil War’s destruction of centuries of accumulated production capacity, plus the destruction of, and delay of expansion of, world production caused by the movement we call world communism (and now, its inheritor, world islamism). 2 – the academy seized control of the commercial education and the ‘religious’ education (liberalism), but failed to seize familial education – and in most cases, assisted the state in the destruction first of black families, then white families, and now all families, in order to (a) provide women with child care (schooling), force them into the labor pool (feminism), and then consume the entire proceeds of women’s labor so that the war and boomer generation could retire early and lie on the next generation’s labor, and then immigrating third world labor to provide cheap labor (social programs) that cannot replace the prior generation because of lesser aggregate abilities. The family destruction was increased by attempt to create a mobile workforce and thereby deprive women of the multi-generational support necessary to raise more than one child without exhaustion. And now it is impossible for women to return to childbearing and child-rearing because of the tax demands placed upon their earnings by the immigration of underclasses and the dependency of the aged yet healthy enough to work. 3 – The state-sponsored secular ‘religion’ that we currently teach is pseudoscientific (false, and dishonest), where the content of Christian religion (the extension of kinship forgiveness to non-kin) was ‘true’ but conveyed by nonsense and authoritarianism. 4 – One of the unstated drivers for the current conflict in america is not just the decline of the white population and the ascent of the colored cities, but because science has caught up and since 1990 has been aggressively disproving the universalist, globalist, equalitarian democratic secular socialist religion. And those who are aware of this are … angry … and full of conviction that their traditions and intuitions were correct. Therefore they feel betrayed and deceived. THE WEST HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLYTHEISTIC While it is the secret to the west’s competitive advantage, we are sometimes misled by our (false) historical narrative: The west never engaged in conflation, by creating ‘one book’ so to speak. We have always had: …. 1) Law (limits) for the Ruling (fathering) Classes, …. 2) Commerce (pragmatism) for the producing classes. …. 3) Religion (utopianism) for Science / pseudoscience, philosophy / pseudorationalism, and Theology / fraud for the Educating (mothering) classes (church/academy). And have always maintained the three estates of the realm using the three methods of coercion 1) Law/Limits: Force / ostracization from movement/ resources / life itself. 2) Exchange/Utility: Payment / Remuneration / Ostracization from consumption. 3) Religion: Gossip / Rallying / Shaming / Ostracization from opportunity for insurance from the tribe. THE WEST’S ADMINISTRATIVE RELIGION IS THE COMMON SOVEREIGN INDO-EUROPEAN/ARISTOCRATIC/ANGLO SAXON LAW, AND ITS PRIEST’S ARE OUR JUDGES Reason, empiricism, science, and now ‘testimonialism’ (the completion of the scientific method) all evolved out of western empirical common law. There is no reason our founding myths: 1) Homer, takes of kings, princes and princesses: the germanic myths, legends, and fairy tales; 2) History and the lives of the great thinkers; 3) the tales of jesus and the saints; Cannot be taught as ‘religion’ and their contributions celebrated. RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, BUT SUPERSTITION, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE, CONFLATION AND DECEPTION ARE NOT. THE CYCLE OF REVOLUTIONS (TRUTHS) AND COUNTER REVOLUTIONS (LIES) ——————————— 1) REVOLUTION: The invention of aristocracy (horse, bronze, wheel). =>COUNTER-REVOLUTION: organized conflationary superstitious advisory religion. 2) REVOLUTION: The invention of truth, reason, deconflation, competition. =>COUNTER-REVOLUTION: Conflationary Monotheistic Authoritarian Religion 3) REVOLUTION: Empricism =>COUNTER REVOLUTIONS: – French Pseudoscientific Moralism: Rousseau et al. – Russian literary nihilism. – German pseudo-rational philosophy. 4) REVOLUTION: Science: Darwin (evolution), spencer (operationalism), poincare(mathematical realism), maxwell (electromagnetism), nietzsche (restoration of aristocratic aesthetics) =>COUNTER REVOLUTION: – Jewish Cosmopolitan Pseudoscience: Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology: cooperation), Freud (psychology), Adorno et al (Aesthetics).

  • Karl Popper’s Demarcation Problem Is Solved,

    Dec 11, 2019, 10:00 AM KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT. As far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract: 1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care. These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts. India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women. CRITICAL RATIONALISM So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). DUE DILIGENCE Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: 1 – categorical consistency (identity), 2 – internal consistency (logical), 3 – operational consistency (existential possibility), 4 – external consistency (empirical), 5 – rational consistency (rational choice), 6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state), 7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits), 8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed, 9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed. In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence. EPISTEMOLOGY Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only: … [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] … Instead of: … [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] … Which is a chain of iterations on: … [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] .. Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied). … [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] … And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline. CRITICAL PREFERENCE And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives. In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. It also expains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus becasue of our return to european geometry. And that in turn explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). DEMARCATION IS SOLVED So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, inpursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits. BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality. Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims. WHERE WERE WE FIND: DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS) 1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations. .. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility. .. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics. .. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. AND DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMARS (LOGICS) .. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do. AND INFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time. AND GRAMMARS OF DECEIT (LLOGICS) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans. And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated. DEMARCATION IS SOLVED Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth. Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds. GIVEN THESE DIMENSIONS POSSIBILITY 1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). .. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) .. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) .. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) AND THESE DIMENSIONS OF DECIDABILITY Indistinguishable(perception) > .. Distinguishable(cognition) > .. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) > .. .. .. Possible(material) > .. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) > .. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) > .. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological. WHERE THE DEMAND FOR INCREASING INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY YIELDS THE SERIES: 1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources. .. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources. .. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions. .. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (â��Trueâ��) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability. AND WHERE WE CAN WARRANTY THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY: 1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself. .. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. .. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. .. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. WHERE DECIDABILITY CONSISTS IN a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). WHERE GRAMMA refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions. AND WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES 1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. 2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). 3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) 4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. 5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. AND WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS COHERENCE ACROSS THE DIMENSIONS TESTIFIABLE BY MAN, IN THE SERIES: 1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary,Differences) 2 – Internally Consistent (Logical) 3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical) 4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) 5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame) 6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) 7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) 8 – Warrantied … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES: 1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; 2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence; 3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking; 4 – And the many Deceits of: … (a) Loading and Framing; … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … (d) and outright Fabrications. IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF: 1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed; … (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. AND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SERIES OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF: 1 – Murder, 2 – Harm, Damage, Theft, 3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, 4 – Free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience) 6 – Rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience), 8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 9 – conquest (war). Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Edit

  • Karl Popper’s Demarcation Problem Is Solved,

    Dec 11, 2019, 10:00 AM KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT. As far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract: 1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care. These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts. India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women. CRITICAL RATIONALISM So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). DUE DILIGENCE Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: 1 – categorical consistency (identity), 2 – internal consistency (logical), 3 – operational consistency (existential possibility), 4 – external consistency (empirical), 5 – rational consistency (rational choice), 6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state), 7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits), 8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed, 9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed. In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence. EPISTEMOLOGY Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only: … [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] … Instead of: … [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] … Which is a chain of iterations on: … [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] .. Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied). … [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] … And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline. CRITICAL PREFERENCE And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives. In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. It also expains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus becasue of our return to european geometry. And that in turn explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). DEMARCATION IS SOLVED So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, inpursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits. BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality. Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims. WHERE WERE WE FIND: DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS) 1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations. .. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility. .. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics. .. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. AND DESCRIPTIVE GRAMMARS (LOGICS) .. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do. AND INFLATIONARY GRAMMARS (LOGICS) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time. AND GRAMMARS OF DECEIT (LLOGICS) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans. And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated. DEMARCATION IS SOLVED Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth. Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds. GIVEN THESE DIMENSIONS POSSIBILITY 1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). .. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) .. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) .. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) AND THESE DIMENSIONS OF DECIDABILITY Indistinguishable(perception) > .. Distinguishable(cognition) > .. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) > .. .. .. Possible(material) > .. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) > .. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) > .. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological. WHERE THE DEMAND FOR INCREASING INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY YIELDS THE SERIES: 1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources. .. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources. .. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions. .. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (â��Trueâ��) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability. AND WHERE WE CAN WARRANTY THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROMISE OF INFALLIBILITY OF DECIDABILITY: 1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself. .. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. .. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. .. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. WHERE DECIDABILITY CONSISTS IN a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). WHERE GRAMMA refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions. AND WHERE TRUTH CONSISTS IN THE SERIES 1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. 2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). 3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) 4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. 5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. AND WHERE THE CRITERIA FOR TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS COHERENCE ACROSS THE DIMENSIONS TESTIFIABLE BY MAN, IN THE SERIES: 1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary,Differences) 2 – Internally Consistent (Logical) 3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical) 4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) 5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame) 6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) 7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) 8 – Warrantied … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SERIES: 1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; 2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence; 3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking; 4 – And the many Deceits of: … (a) Loading and Framing; … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … (d) and outright Fabrications. IN DEFENSE OR ADVOCACY OF: 1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed; … (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. AND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SERIES OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF: 1 – Murder, 2 – Harm, Damage, Theft, 3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, 4 – Free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience) 6 – Rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience), 8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 9 – conquest (war). Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Edit

  • Psychology – Everything Is Here.

    18 OCT, 2018 Archetypes(Myth), MBTI (Literature), BIG5 (Philosophy), Propertarianism (logic) SCALE: ARCHETYPES(Myth), MBTI (Literature), BIG5 (Philosophy), PROPERTARIANISM (logic) Think of MBTI as literature, and BIG5 as Philosophy, and Propertarianism as Logic: Graceful increase and decrease in precision according to the ability of the individual: SATISFACTION OF THE MARKETS FOR COMPREHENSION. AGAIN: MBTI vs BIG5/6 vs MORAL FOUNDATIONS vs GENDER In other words, the principle difference between MBTI and Big 5 are (a) the weight it gives to trait expression, and (b) the principle difference in value is that with 100 Questions we can test your IQ within a half a standard deviation, because all components scale evenly, but we cannot test the rest of your personality traits with so few questions because they do NOT scale evenly. Moreover, MBTI is a WORKPLACE and social weighting of traits, while BIG5 is a THERAPEUTIC weighting of traits. These are differences in value rather than differences in measurement. I was not the first person to make this distinction, but I have written extensively on the fact that while MBTI is imprecise, it is the maximum complexity of a model that individuals can work with in the workplace. We can measure all sorts of trait expression, and even the big 5 FACTORS must be broken down into TRAITS in order to accommodate the difference in factor expression between the GENDERS. DIFFERENCES In this sense MBTI is a better judge of the GENDER biases inherent in cognitive and emotional biases because its fairly obvious that the gender distributions are inverted. Whereas this transparency was only visible in BIG5 after division from Factors into Trait Expressions – and that occurred fairly recently (post 2000), as psychology attempted to reform from a pseudoscience to a science when confronted with imaging, genetic, and pharmaceutical science. [See attached MBTI > Big5 Mapping and P-Physical Maps] MALE RECIPROCITY(OPPORTUNITY) VS FEMALE PROPORTIONALITY (CONSUMPTION) -The Moral Foundations by Gender Bias (M vs F)- SELF (ACTION) – ASCENDENT BIAS 1) (M) Negative Freedom (Liberty) vs (F) Positive Freedom OTHERS FEMALE BIAS – THE HERD 2) (M) Reciprocity (Fairness) vs (F) Proportionality(Equality): rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating 3) (M) Defense (Negative) vs (F) Care (Positive): cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm COMMON – ESTABLISHED MALE BIAS – THE PACK 4) (M) Loyalty vs (F) Devotion(Ingroup): standing with your family, group, nation; opposite of betrayal. 5) (M) Authority vs (F) Respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion 6) (M) Sanctity vs (F) Purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation. (M) Absorb Cellular Damage. (F) Limit Cellular Damage MORAL FOUNDATIONS BY PROPERTY RIGHT BIAS (POLITICAL BIAS) Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:

    1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)
    2. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)
    3. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)

    And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

    1. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
    2. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
    3. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

    It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication. Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.” These rules are genetic in origin. They are necessary and immutable. THREE MEANS OF COERCION Three means of human coercion or more gently, weapons of influence. One more time. Three means of human coercion or more gently, weapons of influence. The Physical: Body and Movement Using Force or Violence The fear of harm or promise of defense. By the Dominant or Established Male The Material: Resources and Opportunity Using Bribe or Trade The fear of loss of gains, or promise of gains By the Brother, Ally, or Ascendant Male The Social: Cooperation and Insurance Using Undermining or Advocacy The fear of ostracization or promise of inclusion By the female and especially dominant female Personality: Big5/6 Personality Traits with 10/12 Personality facets. Where One Traits differs Dominance Expression. Where all Facets differ by Gender Bias. Where all personalities cluster by three types: Dominant or Established Male. Ascendant Male. Female. Gender: Where sex is genetically determined and either male or female. Where the brain evolves a dominant lateral, female, associative (wide association in the present) and longitudinal male a narrow, association over time and space). Where the resulting brain structure favors temporal interpersonal emotion in the female necessary for child rearing, and intertemporal political analytic in the male necessary for holding territory, resources, females, and children from capture by competing males. Where sexual preference is for the opposite sex, either male, female, but a small percentage of the population is subject to developmental defect in utero and can express almost any gender distribution. Conflict: Where developmental defect can cause failure to produce sufficient agency for self control. Where genders demonstrate differences in self control by antisocial, disruptive or hostile behavior. Where females demonstrate sexual, psychological(interpersonal), social(group), antisocial behavior, by continuous undermining and manipulation. Where males demonstrate sexual and physical antisocial behavior by continuous harm to self, others, and property. LEVELS OF ADAPTATION But we have this wonderful adaptive hierarchy available to us. 1) LEVEL ONE (gender bias) {Paternal, Sovereign, Meritocratic, Eugenic, Packs (K)} +

    {Maternal, Collective, Equalitarian, Dysgenic, Herds (R)}

    Adaptive flexibility. 2) LEVEL TWO (dimorphism) {Increased sexual dimorphism, Decreased sexual Dimorphism} + {Increased sexual maturity, Decreased Sexual Maturity} = Adaptive Flexibility 3) LEVEL THREE (redistribution) Normative and Institutional Redistribution of reproduction (shift) + Normative and Institutional Suppression of class reproduction (shift) = Adaptive Flexibility 4) LEVEL FOUR (mating) Assortative mating and Late Marriage vs Arranged Mating and early marriage. = Adaptive Flexibility 5) LEVEL FIVE (signals) Status Signals => Behavioral Expression of Gene Expression = Adaptive Flexibility 6) LEVEL SIX (design) Education, Training, and Genetic Manipulation. = Adaptive Flexibility With these various methods we can produce a population for almost any purpose within a generation or two. ATTACHED: 1. Propertarian Physical Mapping 2. MBTI > BI5 Map and explanation 3. Male Female Brain Diffs 4. Result of male female brain diffs 5. Moral Triangle 6. Moral Foundations 7. Moral Strategies 8. Resulting class strategies 9. Jung Archetypes

  • On King of the Hill Games

    On Curt’s Method of Teaching – Using “King of the Hill Games”

    “King of The Hill Games – Competition – Are the Optimum Means of Teaching Men. Everything I Do Is In The Context of An Experiment Run As A King of The Hill Game.”

    King of The Hill Game: Teaching Men

    My Version of The Socratic Method: Adversarialism (Competition)

    The difference between how I teach and the mainstream is that I create king of the hill games so that men feel comfortable playing the game of climbing to the top. I teach as by sport not by lecture. I teach by creating games that men will compete in. I have developed the King of the Hill strategy of teaching because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. This is how men are best taught. Instead of asking questions I start arguments. Instead of preaching an angle, I attack a proposition and force others to defend it. Instead of assuming equality I play king of the hill and bait them into attacking me. Instead of writing essays of appeal I write arguments to criticize. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if its backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I post things that I disagree with, or that can be interpreted other ways, to start debate. Congratulate even the smallest success. Edit and quote others to inspire them to keep trying. Audit the feed and comments. Ask others to contribute or handle those i can’t. Run experiments so others can help me and themselves. Keep a loose inventory and estimate of people who are talented and drip ideas to them as needed while letting them own the discoveries they make. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage people to refute them. This is how men learn best. It is the method of professing, teaching, debating that is the least affected by norm, signaling, and pretense. It is how men can and should be taught. I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my “classroom” so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition – and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education; the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.) My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me” – bait men to try to take me down. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). Yes, there is a difference between contributors, commenters, followers, and lurkers – but it’s only in the degree of participation. Everybody learns. King of The Hill  is educational entertainment and theatre. That is why this game works.

    But King Of The Hill Isn’t For Everyone

    Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. We Put Dominance Play to Constructive Use. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. Teaching by the king of the hill game weeds out the betas faster than all other tactics combined.  Why? Female/Beta Moral intuition cannot resist self defense. It’s so obvious that once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s like NAXALT bait in a Pringles can. Those that can’t learn as men – I understand. But if they can’t they are of no use as judges.

    A Necessary Arrogance To Play The King

    You might not realize that I know this is a game – and that we are playing a game – until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview. Because I’m not very much like my online persona. But strategically speaking, (a) controversy is more interesting than discourse which any tv producer will tell you. (b) interest draws attention for reasons I’ve stated in the post above, (c) the king of the hill game requires me creating ‘bait’ by being a ‘pompous ass’. (d) filtering and educating men is best done by this competition because fools, intellectually dishonest, and the like cannot survive that competition, and can’t stand it. (e) it allows me to recruit the smartest people and leave behind the dim and dishonest. I mean. I’m a very smart guy. I do things for what are usually very deliberate reasons. I learned how to teach men who have potential. Filter out those that do not. And that’s what I do.

    What I Do Here: An Experimental Classroom

    For new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad. Games are Experiments where I use the public for research. So I trade education for research participation. King of the hill games are the alternative to Surveys – and surveys are useless because they are dependent upon reporting – which humans are incapable of honestly answering, while king of the hill games demonstrate by evidence what you are willing to defend. We can learn what you intuit and what you believe. Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism. I slay a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and do so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.) But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution. I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth.

    Acting in Good Faith: Running Experiments on the Audience

    But playing King of The Hill games? Is that teaching and researching in good faith? Well, I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I don’t have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibility for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Honestly? The cost of dealing with all these shitty, selfish, arrogant,immature, ignorant, people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool.

    The Method to The Appearance of Madness

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) 0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it. 1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not. 2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse. 3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution. 4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:

    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.

    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.

    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.

    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.

    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.

    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard). 5) And we teach what to do with that method:

    (a) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.

    (b) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.

    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily. A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us) A set of demands (new constitution and policies) A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully) A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)

    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.

    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.

    We can easily win. It’s just a choice. 5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    You Must Be What You Wish to Become.

    (Masculinity. Aversarialism. King of the Hill. War) Teach men Adversarialism. Teach by (forgiving) king of the hill games. Teach men across their ages, not by their age – to lead, advise, follow. Teach by metaphor: 1. Kings (dominant male leadership – quarterbacks) 2. Bishops (cunning, intelligence, spies, advisors) 3. Knights (fast, maneuver – receivers, raiders ) 4. Rooks (Heavy Infantry – Bearers – linebackers) 5. Pawns (Infantry – Defense) 6. Fools ( Messengers, Negotiators) 7. Queens (Ambassadors) Teach Men

    • War – Adversarialism
      … … … (Evolution)
      … – Politics – the Proxy for War
      … … … … (Political War)
      … … – Law – The Organization of Polities
      … … … … … (Procedural War)
      … … … – Economics – the funding of Polities and War.
      … … … … … … (Productive War)
      … … … … – Engineering – the manipulation of the world
      … … … … … … … (Innovative war)
      … … … … … – Testimony – the art of truthful speech
      … … … … … … … … (War against ignorance error deceit)
      … … … … … … … – Negotiation – The art of compromise.

    TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.

    Blocking Policy

    I hate blocking people and my block list was very short until peers and followers asked me to stop wasting my time; to clean up the feed; and to preserve the educational environment. I teach the Law and its application. I run a class 24×7 to a global audience. My goal is to preserve the environment. I (We) Block For: 1 – Wasting my (our) time. Which consists of: 2 – Ridicule, Sarcasm, Gossiping, Rallying Shaming, Moralizing (GSRM) as a substitute for argument. 3 – Memes as a substitute for argument. (no meme zone) 4 – Intellectual Dishonesty in argument 5 – Antagonism as a substitute for argument. 6 – Faith or Sophism as a substitute for argument. 7 – Occasionally: Argument from Ignorance and Arrogance (attacking the work while not knowing enough to do so.) 8 – Occasionally also: Common Stupidity, Schizotypal stupidity (paranoia), Other Psychological Problems. I (we) Do Not Block For – Good natured teasing. I am easy to tease. Height, age, generation, weight, aspieness, number of women/divorces, tech stuff, abundance of typing mistakes, being a 1%er, teaching by king of the hill game, the difference between my real and online personalities. You know, the list is endless. NOTE: I (we) practice reciprocity. So if you use GSRM against me (us) , I(we) will use it against you … and then return to the central point – over, and over, and over again.

    I Don’t Do Hate

    Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, sovereignty and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man. Thanks for your time and attention. The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages.

    . . .

  • On King of the Hill Games

    On Curt’s Method of Teaching – Using “King of the Hill Games”

    “King of The Hill Games – Competition – Are the Optimum Means of Teaching Men. Everything I Do Is In The Context of An Experiment Run As A King of The Hill Game.”

    King of The Hill Game: Teaching Men

    My Version of The Socratic Method: Adversarialism (Competition)

    The difference between how I teach and the mainstream is that I create king of the hill games so that men feel comfortable playing the game of climbing to the top. I teach as by sport not by lecture. I teach by creating games that men will compete in. I have developed the King of the Hill strategy of teaching because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. This is how men are best taught. Instead of asking questions I start arguments. Instead of preaching an angle, I attack a proposition and force others to defend it. Instead of assuming equality I play king of the hill and bait them into attacking me. Instead of writing essays of appeal I write arguments to criticize. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if its backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I post things that I disagree with, or that can be interpreted other ways, to start debate. Congratulate even the smallest success. Edit and quote others to inspire them to keep trying. Audit the feed and comments. Ask others to contribute or handle those i can’t. Run experiments so others can help me and themselves. Keep a loose inventory and estimate of people who are talented and drip ideas to them as needed while letting them own the discoveries they make. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage people to refute them. This is how men learn best. It is the method of professing, teaching, debating that is the least affected by norm, signaling, and pretense. It is how men can and should be taught. I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my “classroom” so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition – and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education; the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.) My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me” – bait men to try to take me down. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). Yes, there is a difference between contributors, commenters, followers, and lurkers – but it’s only in the degree of participation. Everybody learns. King of The Hill  is educational entertainment and theatre. That is why this game works.

    But King Of The Hill Isn’t For Everyone

    Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. We Put Dominance Play to Constructive Use. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. Teaching by the king of the hill game weeds out the betas faster than all other tactics combined.  Why? Female/Beta Moral intuition cannot resist self defense. It’s so obvious that once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s like NAXALT bait in a Pringles can. Those that can’t learn as men – I understand. But if they can’t they are of no use as judges.

    A Necessary Arrogance To Play The King

    You might not realize that I know this is a game – and that we are playing a game – until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview. Because I’m not very much like my online persona. But strategically speaking, (a) controversy is more interesting than discourse which any tv producer will tell you. (b) interest draws attention for reasons I’ve stated in the post above, (c) the king of the hill game requires me creating ‘bait’ by being a ‘pompous ass’. (d) filtering and educating men is best done by this competition because fools, intellectually dishonest, and the like cannot survive that competition, and can’t stand it. (e) it allows me to recruit the smartest people and leave behind the dim and dishonest. I mean. I’m a very smart guy. I do things for what are usually very deliberate reasons. I learned how to teach men who have potential. Filter out those that do not. And that’s what I do.

    What I Do Here: An Experimental Classroom

    For new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad. Games are Experiments where I use the public for research. So I trade education for research participation. King of the hill games are the alternative to Surveys – and surveys are useless because they are dependent upon reporting – which humans are incapable of honestly answering, while king of the hill games demonstrate by evidence what you are willing to defend. We can learn what you intuit and what you believe. Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism. I slay a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and do so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.) But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution. I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth.

    Acting in Good Faith: Running Experiments on the Audience

    But playing King of The Hill games? Is that teaching and researching in good faith? Well, I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith: I don’t have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I don’t have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments. In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information. I work very hard to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs. This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position. And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model. In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result. I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.) Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore them to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so. So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibility for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they willingly play, are entertained by, and learn from. Honestly? The cost of dealing with all these shitty, selfish, arrogant,immature, ignorant, people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool.

    The Method to The Appearance of Madness

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) 0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it. 1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not. 2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse. 3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution. 4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:

    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.

    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.

    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.

    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.

    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.

    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard). 5) And we teach what to do with that method:

    (a) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.

    (b) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.

    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily. A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us) A set of demands (new constitution and policies) A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully) A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)

    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.

    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.

    We can easily win. It’s just a choice. 5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    You Must Be What You Wish to Become.

    (Masculinity. Aversarialism. King of the Hill. War) Teach men Adversarialism. Teach by (forgiving) king of the hill games. Teach men across their ages, not by their age – to lead, advise, follow. Teach by metaphor: 1. Kings (dominant male leadership – quarterbacks) 2. Bishops (cunning, intelligence, spies, advisors) 3. Knights (fast, maneuver – receivers, raiders ) 4. Rooks (Heavy Infantry – Bearers – linebackers) 5. Pawns (Infantry – Defense) 6. Fools ( Messengers, Negotiators) 7. Queens (Ambassadors) Teach Men

    • War – Adversarialism
      … … … (Evolution)
      … – Politics – the Proxy for War
      … … … … (Political War)
      … … – Law – The Organization of Polities
      … … … … … (Procedural War)
      … … … – Economics – the funding of Polities and War.
      … … … … … … (Productive War)
      … … … … – Engineering – the manipulation of the world
      … … … … … … … (Innovative war)
      … … … … … – Testimony – the art of truthful speech
      … … … … … … … … (War against ignorance error deceit)
      … … … … … … … – Negotiation – The art of compromise.

    TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.

    Blocking Policy

    I hate blocking people and my block list was very short until peers and followers asked me to stop wasting my time; to clean up the feed; and to preserve the educational environment. I teach the Law and its application. I run a class 24×7 to a global audience. My goal is to preserve the environment. I (We) Block For: 1 – Wasting my (our) time. Which consists of: 2 – Ridicule, Sarcasm, Gossiping, Rallying Shaming, Moralizing (GSRM) as a substitute for argument. 3 – Memes as a substitute for argument. (no meme zone) 4 – Intellectual Dishonesty in argument 5 – Antagonism as a substitute for argument. 6 – Faith or Sophism as a substitute for argument. 7 – Occasionally: Argument from Ignorance and Arrogance (attacking the work while not knowing enough to do so.) 8 – Occasionally also: Common Stupidity, Schizotypal stupidity (paranoia), Other Psychological Problems. I (we) Do Not Block For – Good natured teasing. I am easy to tease. Height, age, generation, weight, aspieness, number of women/divorces, tech stuff, abundance of typing mistakes, being a 1%er, teaching by king of the hill game, the difference between my real and online personalities. You know, the list is endless. NOTE: I (we) practice reciprocity. So if you use GSRM against me (us) , I(we) will use it against you … and then return to the central point – over, and over, and over again.

    I Don’t Do Hate

    Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, sovereignty and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man. Thanks for your time and attention. The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages.

    . . .

  • The Current Condition of Philosophy, Science and Western Civilization

    Oct 29, 2019, 11:45 AM (important)(profound)

    —“The best practical use of analytic philosophy was rooting out methodological problems in scientific inquiry that arise from conceptual confusion or can otherwise be treated with conceptual analysis. The process of formalization of a language of inquiry failed, but it was only a means to the end of improving scientific methodology.”—Duke Newcomb

    Sort of. This isn’t quite correct. The process of formalization failed, and in doing so took philosophical rationalism, and the claim that philosophy was a means of developing truth by proof, down with it. There is no closure outside of first order logic, and there is no ‘proof’ to be had in argument like there is in mathematics. Even in mathematics, it is only possible because it’s axiomatic (declared), and scale independence(there is no scale independence outside of the arrow range of human senses). The result is that the logics are only falsificationary. That’s all. So, popper’s program of falsification, which he evolved from jewish via-negativa pilpul and critique, was incomplete, and the anglo-germanic analytic via-positiva program was incomplete, and the pursuit of scientific method was incomplete – all for the same reason: all epistemology is eliminative (falsificationary) just like all market activity: trial and error by which that which is not false, survives competition between reason, action, and the results of action in reality.

    —“Continental philosophy is perfectly fine philosophy, if you judge it by the standard of concept production. It’s just poorly written and maliciously employed. However, some interesting, important, and insightful concepts have been produced in the mess of the Continental tradition. It would also be possible to construct an anti-Abrahamic Continental philosophy, starting with Heidegger and Nietzsche. Granted, it would be mostly just another kind of pilpul, but it could be effective.”—Duke Newcomb

    Again, agreed, but I might state this a little more precisely. The continental tradition advances the human technique of fiction we call parable, storytelling, mythology, and theology (free association – utility) requiring the least knowledge, into the human technique of idealism (hypothesis – good) requiring we falsify by reason with more knowledge, before we use the human technique we call science (theory – truth) where we falsify by evidence with the most knowledge. Someone brought up Compte last night and I suppose I should do us a favor and drawing the historical parallels as we developed social science over the past few centuries, by the same means Compte suggested in continental prose and I’ve formalized in anglo legal prose. And so it is perhaps better to say that a Reasonable Preference or Reciprocal Good aren’t decidable by Truth – only by preference and shared preference. Conversely, a Truth isn’t decidable by preference or good, only by decidability independent of preference or good. So the value of the continental method is in the reorganization of paradigms, for the choice and production of preferences and goods, because it served by the subjective and empathic, and communicated by the subjective empathic, and the question of the truth or falsehood, gain or loss, reciprocity or parasitism, that would falsify that claim of preference or good, is the function of science – or what I call Testimonial Truth under the Law of Reciprocity. So ideas move up and down the hierarchy, between fictions, ideals(preferential and good), and reals(Decidable), where we suggest, inform, agree, and falsify upon ideals, stated as fictions, ideals, or reals according depending upon our ability, experience(age), and knowledge(information). The principle difference being that the continental(ideal) method like the magical, occult (fictional) method, is open to use for deceit – especially the abrahamic deceits which evolved to take advantage of them – and between story on one end, and testimony on the other, we have room for supernatural abuse of storytelling, sophomoric abuse of idealism, and pseudoscientific abuse of testimony. Human Cognition Intuition—————–Reason————-Operationalism Free Association ——-Hypothesis——————Theory Empathy—————-Sympathy—————–Evidence Story ——————– Ideal —————— Testimony Fiction—–Theology — Sophistry — Pseudoscience —-Lie Internal Market – Interpersonal Verbal Market – Action Market Competition————Competition ———–Competition

    —“The problem is conceptual analysis isn’t enough.”–

    Let’s complete that sentence. Enough for what? To meet the demand for infallibility in the given question? It’s not enough to warranty due diligence that a preference or good is’t an act of fraud or deceit. Do you see what I did there? I removed the (foolish) presumption of intellectual honesty, reciprocity, and presumption of error, and moved the point of demarcation for lying from presumption to demonstrated. This is why the law of speech has to change. A high trust people able to presume intellectual honesty limited to error, because of thousands of years of (a)militia service for standing, training in reporting, and the criminality of courage (b) the oath upon adulthood, (b) our law to enforce it regardless of rank even if proportional in cost and disincentive, (c) punishment by one’s parents, kin, community, nobility, or aristocracy. We were invaded yet again in the modern world, because of our high trust and presumption of innocence, as we were invaded by jews and christianity (making us vulnerable to islam) using the lies of religion in the ancient world; this time with false promise of marxism (class and pseudoscience), feminism (gender and denialism), postmodernism (identity and sophism). And like the ancient world women were the target because they evolved not to speak truth but to obtain conformity from children through continuous false statements, and resources of men through continuous false promise – because that was their evolutionary necessity. Not truth before face and eugenic hierarchy, but dysgenic survival of children regardless of merit, and alliance with women against dominant males for the same reason, at the cost of being continuously undermined by women who do not form a hierarchy of rule, but complete for attention in a rotating market for female sexual, caretaking and social, value.

    —“There are a lot of practical technical problems in empirical methodology of science, as well as in mathematical statistics, the real language of science.”—

    As far as I know, yes, but these are problems of failure of due diligence in the limitation of claims made from the data, because we have created a market under which publication regardless of merit must be justified in order to obtain funding. Which we can easily correct. In statistics, which does nothing more than seek to provide commensurability between different distributions at different scales, assisting us in the discovery of hypotheses, we can then attempt to operationalize, there is a very simple test:

    (a) are you engaging in conflation (almost always) (b) can you construct an operational hypothesis, theory, or description (meaning operational name) that reproduces those statistics – particularly those statistics that involve rational choice (See Gary Becker’s works) in psychology, or sociology, or politics, or group strategy. In mathematics are you doing the same? (almost never outside of applied mathematics). In physics are you doing the same (absolutely not – Bohr brought postmodernism AND idealism back into physics. And this is the problem with the copenhagen interpretation, and the vast woo woo and mathematical “wooo woo” and pseudoscience that has emerged from it. the failure of mathematicians to develop operational rather than statistical and probabilistic models to describe the wave form we call string that produce the wave form we call quantum fields, that produce the density of quantum fields we call particles. As far as I know the problem is operational acna cannot be solved by mathematics upon which the entire discipline wastes its time, only by trial and error construction of primitive geometries in the manner of protein folding. Why? There is nothing left to “average” below the quantum fields’ underlying wave form, the String. (I doubt very very much I will err in this prediction, since I am simply predicting the dominance of this category of error, given the history of this category of error prohibiting human innovation. ) So, If we required operationalization of all statistical claims, and due diligence against categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, and reciprocal inconsistency and therefore inflation and conflation, and obscurantism, very few statistical claims would be published. And those that did would be truth candidates rather than misleading or deceptive, or in furtherance of fraud, for personal, group, political advantage or destruction. Repairing the incentives means only (b) restoring government research grants to basic knowledge of the universe, within a list of publicly available known problems, with military (political physical), applied technological(commercial physical), basic bio (political biological), applied medical(commercial bio) and in the private sector – because this is all that is economically possible and demonstrably and operationally successful. (c) separating funds of teaching (undergrad, grad) from research (phd postgrad) in universities by hard financial, legal, and institutional walls.

    —“However, I think much of analytic philosophy would be useful training for a broad spectrum analytic methodologist who aims to improve the structure and interpretation of scientific practice. That should be a career field with specific vocational preparation: analytic methodologist. Analytic philosophy is just a proper subset of this.”—Duke Newcomb

    Scriptural, textual, spoken interpretation is dead. Things don’t speak. Only people do. Things have no intent, people do. All speech is testimonial(due diligence) or honest(warrantied), or dishonest(Fraud). Analytic philosophy is dead. It was killed when Godel wrote his sentence, dying when Popper wrote his, and dead when Kripke gave his first lecture, and Strawson gave the eulogy. Hayek understood he just couldn’t bring it across the line. He didn’t have Turing and Chomsky. I did. So we will have no more presumption of honesty and reciprocity until we have restored truthful speech as we have in the past through aggressive suppression, with every man a sheriff, in policing display word and deed for failure of due diligence, failure of warranty, fraud and theft. Until once again we are the able to speak truth regardless of cost, ake nothing not paid for regardless of need, defend the commons regardless of cost. The soft eugenics of truth, duty, and reciprocity. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute October 2019.

  • The Current Condition of Philosophy, Science and Western Civilization

    Oct 29, 2019, 11:45 AM (important)(profound)

    —“The best practical use of analytic philosophy was rooting out methodological problems in scientific inquiry that arise from conceptual confusion or can otherwise be treated with conceptual analysis. The process of formalization of a language of inquiry failed, but it was only a means to the end of improving scientific methodology.”—Duke Newcomb

    Sort of. This isn’t quite correct. The process of formalization failed, and in doing so took philosophical rationalism, and the claim that philosophy was a means of developing truth by proof, down with it. There is no closure outside of first order logic, and there is no ‘proof’ to be had in argument like there is in mathematics. Even in mathematics, it is only possible because it’s axiomatic (declared), and scale independence(there is no scale independence outside of the arrow range of human senses). The result is that the logics are only falsificationary. That’s all. So, popper’s program of falsification, which he evolved from jewish via-negativa pilpul and critique, was incomplete, and the anglo-germanic analytic via-positiva program was incomplete, and the pursuit of scientific method was incomplete – all for the same reason: all epistemology is eliminative (falsificationary) just like all market activity: trial and error by which that which is not false, survives competition between reason, action, and the results of action in reality.

    —“Continental philosophy is perfectly fine philosophy, if you judge it by the standard of concept production. It’s just poorly written and maliciously employed. However, some interesting, important, and insightful concepts have been produced in the mess of the Continental tradition. It would also be possible to construct an anti-Abrahamic Continental philosophy, starting with Heidegger and Nietzsche. Granted, it would be mostly just another kind of pilpul, but it could be effective.”—Duke Newcomb

    Again, agreed, but I might state this a little more precisely. The continental tradition advances the human technique of fiction we call parable, storytelling, mythology, and theology (free association – utility) requiring the least knowledge, into the human technique of idealism (hypothesis – good) requiring we falsify by reason with more knowledge, before we use the human technique we call science (theory – truth) where we falsify by evidence with the most knowledge. Someone brought up Compte last night and I suppose I should do us a favor and drawing the historical parallels as we developed social science over the past few centuries, by the same means Compte suggested in continental prose and I’ve formalized in anglo legal prose. And so it is perhaps better to say that a Reasonable Preference or Reciprocal Good aren’t decidable by Truth – only by preference and shared preference. Conversely, a Truth isn’t decidable by preference or good, only by decidability independent of preference or good. So the value of the continental method is in the reorganization of paradigms, for the choice and production of preferences and goods, because it served by the subjective and empathic, and communicated by the subjective empathic, and the question of the truth or falsehood, gain or loss, reciprocity or parasitism, that would falsify that claim of preference or good, is the function of science – or what I call Testimonial Truth under the Law of Reciprocity. So ideas move up and down the hierarchy, between fictions, ideals(preferential and good), and reals(Decidable), where we suggest, inform, agree, and falsify upon ideals, stated as fictions, ideals, or reals according depending upon our ability, experience(age), and knowledge(information). The principle difference being that the continental(ideal) method like the magical, occult (fictional) method, is open to use for deceit – especially the abrahamic deceits which evolved to take advantage of them – and between story on one end, and testimony on the other, we have room for supernatural abuse of storytelling, sophomoric abuse of idealism, and pseudoscientific abuse of testimony. Human Cognition Intuition—————–Reason————-Operationalism Free Association ——-Hypothesis——————Theory Empathy—————-Sympathy—————–Evidence Story ——————– Ideal —————— Testimony Fiction—–Theology — Sophistry — Pseudoscience —-Lie Internal Market – Interpersonal Verbal Market – Action Market Competition————Competition ———–Competition

    —“The problem is conceptual analysis isn’t enough.”–

    Let’s complete that sentence. Enough for what? To meet the demand for infallibility in the given question? It’s not enough to warranty due diligence that a preference or good is’t an act of fraud or deceit. Do you see what I did there? I removed the (foolish) presumption of intellectual honesty, reciprocity, and presumption of error, and moved the point of demarcation for lying from presumption to demonstrated. This is why the law of speech has to change. A high trust people able to presume intellectual honesty limited to error, because of thousands of years of (a)militia service for standing, training in reporting, and the criminality of courage (b) the oath upon adulthood, (b) our law to enforce it regardless of rank even if proportional in cost and disincentive, (c) punishment by one’s parents, kin, community, nobility, or aristocracy. We were invaded yet again in the modern world, because of our high trust and presumption of innocence, as we were invaded by jews and christianity (making us vulnerable to islam) using the lies of religion in the ancient world; this time with false promise of marxism (class and pseudoscience), feminism (gender and denialism), postmodernism (identity and sophism). And like the ancient world women were the target because they evolved not to speak truth but to obtain conformity from children through continuous false statements, and resources of men through continuous false promise – because that was their evolutionary necessity. Not truth before face and eugenic hierarchy, but dysgenic survival of children regardless of merit, and alliance with women against dominant males for the same reason, at the cost of being continuously undermined by women who do not form a hierarchy of rule, but complete for attention in a rotating market for female sexual, caretaking and social, value.

    —“There are a lot of practical technical problems in empirical methodology of science, as well as in mathematical statistics, the real language of science.”—

    As far as I know, yes, but these are problems of failure of due diligence in the limitation of claims made from the data, because we have created a market under which publication regardless of merit must be justified in order to obtain funding. Which we can easily correct. In statistics, which does nothing more than seek to provide commensurability between different distributions at different scales, assisting us in the discovery of hypotheses, we can then attempt to operationalize, there is a very simple test:

    (a) are you engaging in conflation (almost always) (b) can you construct an operational hypothesis, theory, or description (meaning operational name) that reproduces those statistics – particularly those statistics that involve rational choice (See Gary Becker’s works) in psychology, or sociology, or politics, or group strategy. In mathematics are you doing the same? (almost never outside of applied mathematics). In physics are you doing the same (absolutely not – Bohr brought postmodernism AND idealism back into physics. And this is the problem with the copenhagen interpretation, and the vast woo woo and mathematical “wooo woo” and pseudoscience that has emerged from it. the failure of mathematicians to develop operational rather than statistical and probabilistic models to describe the wave form we call string that produce the wave form we call quantum fields, that produce the density of quantum fields we call particles. As far as I know the problem is operational acna cannot be solved by mathematics upon which the entire discipline wastes its time, only by trial and error construction of primitive geometries in the manner of protein folding. Why? There is nothing left to “average” below the quantum fields’ underlying wave form, the String. (I doubt very very much I will err in this prediction, since I am simply predicting the dominance of this category of error, given the history of this category of error prohibiting human innovation. ) So, If we required operationalization of all statistical claims, and due diligence against categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, and reciprocal inconsistency and therefore inflation and conflation, and obscurantism, very few statistical claims would be published. And those that did would be truth candidates rather than misleading or deceptive, or in furtherance of fraud, for personal, group, political advantage or destruction. Repairing the incentives means only (b) restoring government research grants to basic knowledge of the universe, within a list of publicly available known problems, with military (political physical), applied technological(commercial physical), basic bio (political biological), applied medical(commercial bio) and in the private sector – because this is all that is economically possible and demonstrably and operationally successful. (c) separating funds of teaching (undergrad, grad) from research (phd postgrad) in universities by hard financial, legal, and institutional walls.

    —“However, I think much of analytic philosophy would be useful training for a broad spectrum analytic methodologist who aims to improve the structure and interpretation of scientific practice. That should be a career field with specific vocational preparation: analytic methodologist. Analytic philosophy is just a proper subset of this.”—Duke Newcomb

    Scriptural, textual, spoken interpretation is dead. Things don’t speak. Only people do. Things have no intent, people do. All speech is testimonial(due diligence) or honest(warrantied), or dishonest(Fraud). Analytic philosophy is dead. It was killed when Godel wrote his sentence, dying when Popper wrote his, and dead when Kripke gave his first lecture, and Strawson gave the eulogy. Hayek understood he just couldn’t bring it across the line. He didn’t have Turing and Chomsky. I did. So we will have no more presumption of honesty and reciprocity until we have restored truthful speech as we have in the past through aggressive suppression, with every man a sheriff, in policing display word and deed for failure of due diligence, failure of warranty, fraud and theft. Until once again we are the able to speak truth regardless of cost, ake nothing not paid for regardless of need, defend the commons regardless of cost. The soft eugenics of truth, duty, and reciprocity. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute October 2019.