Curt Doolittle

Form: Full Essay

  • HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very impor

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW

    (very important ideas inside)

    1-Find a Lie

    2-Ask if it is really true.

    3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away.

    4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed.

    AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW

    (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.)

    1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments.

    3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law.

    4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism.

    5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law.

    6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain.

    8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law.

    11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded.

    13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time.

    14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law.

    20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW.

    22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia.

    23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying

    28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language.

    30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies.

    33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women.

    38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek.

    43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER.

    46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law.

    50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading.

    52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique).

    54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth.

    55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON.

    58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ.

    62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse.

    I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 15:33:00 UTC

  • Q&A: –“CURT: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TAXATION?”– (important post) GREAT QUES

    Q&A: –“CURT: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON TAXATION?”–

    (important post)

    GREAT QUESTION:

    I’m going to answer this set of questions in a different order from the one they were asked:

    –“Have you spent much time on taxation and it’s various forms? Perhaps you could do a post on your thoughts about how such a treasury would function and it’s relations to taxation. “–

    Of course. I think it’s a national preoccupation. I’m not alone.

    –“What is your position on taxation?”—

    Well, my position is that under rule of law – meaning if we possess liberty in fact, not fiction – that there exists no discretion in the use funds. That’s the purpose of rule of law: the elimination of discretion. If there is no discretion involved we are not in fact ruled by men, but by law: we govern ourselves by contract.

    Once we eliminate discretion we eliminate what we call corruption and, assuming we require truthful speech in the commons – not only in advertising and marketing, and warranty, but in ethical, moral, and political speech – we eliminate almost all of what we consider politics.

    Now another property of rule of law, if we are to prevent discretion, is ‘calculability’ or what we tend to call ‘operationalism’ in science and ‘specific use, or use of funds’ in contract law. Meaning that any fund collected must go to the purpose it was intended, or be refunded.

    Rule Of Law = Contractualism. Period. Discretion != Rule of Law.

    However, we must understand, that Rule of Law = Meritocracy, and many people living cannot prosper, compete, or survive on their merits. There are a limited number of strategies for preserving liberty, rule of law, and meritocracy: (i)limit the size of the bottom classes through control of reproduction and culling; (ii) limit their damage by paying them not to reproduce, and (iii) make use of them through involuntary organization of production (maintenance of the commons).

    This is one of the reasons for taxation: paying for the cost of suppression of reproduction of those who cannot prosper, compete, or survive in meritocracy. Just as the problem external orders (military defense and constructive offense), and internal orders (the judiciary and police).

    If we negotiate such contracts between groups and classes, and there is no means under natural common judge-discovered law, by which we can object to those contracts, then we have created a market for the construction of commons, in addition to the market for the construction of goods and services. Those are not taxes but installment payments, and enforceable like any other contract.

    If those taxes are used to make the evolutionarily competitive results of liberty possible, and if it’s not possible otherwise, then taxes for this purpose are simply the market price for the production of a condition of liberty under which we can produce the results of liberty: necessary commons, competitive commons, and desirable private goods and services .

    The problem then is not taxation per se, but the use of taxes. If we are paying contractually agreed to prices for goods and services obtained through under rule of law, and free of discretion, refunded if paid for, then that is merely contractual payment.

    Now, there is no reason to argue against either for income or consumption ‘commissions’ (taxes), on the production of goods and services in the voluntary construction of production distribution and trade we call capitalism, since that order is itself a good that is bought and paid for by shareholders, with both personal, normative, and material costs.

    And furthermore, there is no reason to argue against progressive taxation (commissions) on income or price, either. The question is ownership: In ancient societies order was created by force at substantial risk and expense. And it is probably the most important service we create. In modern societies, almost everyone is enfranchised (a shareholder). And if the shareholders can determine the use of funds by economic voting (proportional voting by contribution), or if they can determine the use of funds by share voting (voting their share of the tax pool), then we preserve operational rule of law and eliminate discretion.

    The inverse question is whether it is possible to produce a condition of liberty, meritocracy, and prosperity, that has been so rewarding in the ancient and modern worlds. And the answer is that familial, local, social, economic, political, and military orders exist in competition for people(consumers), human capital(skills and knowledge), business and industry, wealth, and leadership (the advocacy for the organization of normative, economic, political, and military capital). So people flee to regions that produce wealth and flee from regions that don’t. Which is a significant problem if they’re imposing a long-term genetic cost on the absorbing market. And this is the problem we face with immigration of underclasses and the rate of underclass reproduction vs middle and upper-class reproduction.

    The answer to the problem of creating an order in people of diverse abilities is not to choose either a monopoly capitalist market(voluntary organization of labor) or a monopoly socialist market (involuntary organization of labor), but to make use of both markets: one for the production of innovative consumer goods, and one for the production of ‘simple’ common goods: cleanliness, order, construction of bulidings, parks, and monuments, roads, sidewalks, and in general, beauty.

    —“Let’s assume a treasury issues currency and that through the treasury citizens can borrow money interest-free for consumption. Now the treasury needs to be funded through taxation, whether voluntary or otherwise is superfluous for arguments sake.”—

    Well, first, let’s clarify: the treasury can be funded through the sale of assets (minerals, territory, etc), inflation, taxation, fees, profits(returns on investments not possible otherwise – the Panama and Suez canals for example. Some of the great dams. Many projects cannot be ‘insured’ by an insurer of last resort other than the shareholders themselves). And hopefully we would fund the treasury in the opposite order: 1) profit, 2) fees, 3) taxation, 4) inflation, 5) sale of assets.

    In practice, if it cannot be achieved through profit or fees, it would suggest a political failure. Taxation and inflation are debt instruments. And sale of assets is a form of liquidation.

    Members of Nations(extended relations) do not squabble about taxes the way oligarchies and empires do.

    —“hrough the treasury citizens can borrow money interest-free for consumption”—

    I think that this is the great economic question of our time: why should distributors (banks) earn interest on money borrowed from ourselves for the purchase of consumption, when the data says that they perform no function not equally provisible by purely statistical analysis of data produced in extraordinary quality by actuaries.

    There isn’t any reason. None. There is no reason that we do not borrow to some percentage of the maximum of our statistical repayment ability from the treasury, and then when the economy slows, that money is equally distributed to those same accounts facilitating further consumption. Other than under democracy people would vote to increase such distributions by various schemes untili we were again bankrupt.

    But the financial sector is disproportionately rewarding given that it’s basically trivial clerical work that privatizes wins and socializes losses.

    There is no reason we don’t treat lending the public monies just as we do licenses of Lawyer’s, CPA’s and Series 7 holders. These individuals could have public records, and must retain certain scores in order to maintain their licenses. In exchange they can obtain a small percentage of each customer’s accounts that they manage from the treasury. And they would have no protection against suits that is afforded to our bureaucrats.

    Now aside form the misappropriation of profits by the financial sector, why is it that we charge interest on consumption? That makes no sense at all really. Why do we charge interest on production? Because that’s the only way we can judge whether intertemporal lending as increased productivity by compression of time.

    So my recommendation is to professionalize lending from the treasury (regional offices of central banks), and interest on consumption entirely (imagine the effect it would have on housing if the maximum period of a home loan using any treasury funds was 15 years, and at zero interest?) And to issue liquidity directly to consumers, on regular (yearly) basis. And to constitutionally eliminate the state manipulation of these funds for any purpose (preserving rule of law by preserving the probhition on discretion.)

    From what I can see ih the behavior of most countries, if yo have a small homogenous people they will be hightly redistributive voluntarily, and heterogeneity radically decreases willingness to both redistribute or to contribute in any way to tthe commons.

    Just to stay on message, and continue to falsify rothbardian libertinism: What separates libertarianism (anglo saxon) from libertinism (jewish) is that libertarians want to do no harm to the commons, and libertines want to do no good to it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    (I have no idea where I am right now) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 07:20:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY STATE EDUCATION? Q&A: —“What are your thoughts on universal public ed

    MONOPOLY STATE EDUCATION?

    Q&A: —“What are your thoughts on universal public education being provided by the state.”—

    GREAT QUESTION

    WHEREAS

    (1) Education provides both offensive and defensive benefits.

    So (a) Offensively, it increases the possibility of productivity (a commons).

    And (b) Defensively it reduces crime(loss), insurance(restitution) and welfare (prevention) costs. (Humans are really expensive things.)

    While we probably teach largely the wrong things today, and that we teach them poorly, (not enough repetition of basic operations), that does not mean that we cannot teach the right things.

    After Defense (external), and Law and order(internal), education is probably the most important offensive and defensive capability a group can add to the commons.

    So I am pretty sure education needs to be mandatory in order to avoid externalizing costs of failing to educate (prevention) on fellow shareholders (citizens), due to loss, restitution. ( Same with driving a vehicle without insurance. Or driving aggressively. You’re exporting risk onto others. ) Failing to educate is just like failing to respect property. It’s just more indirect.

    Now, if you have the right of exit, and your offspring have the right of exit, and you leave the market (territory), that’s not the case. But then you lose the benefits of being a member of the market (territory). So it’s your choice. It’s pretty hard to find a market that will allow entry of an uneducated person. It’s just going to force costs on shareholders (citizens)

    (2) So if education is both a necessary good, and a moral obligation, then the question is only (a)whether universal provision by the state is a necessary or preferable, and (b) whether the monopoly provision of it by the state is necessary or preferable.

    Well first we have to answer the externality question.

    Does universal provision by the state solve the problem of the costs of loss, restitution, and prevention? Well yes. It does.

    Does the scale of that provisioning convey any price benefits? Actually no. Because the bureaucracy consumes a disproportionate amount of the funds, without any measurable positive impact, and arguably negative.

    Does universal education using the same curriculum have positive or negative consequences. Well the answer is that any education must provide some minimum: reading, writing, basic math, basic personal accounting, basic principles of contract, basic principles of the economy. Basic principles of natural law, basic principles of physical laws. Note that I’ve included no mythology in that list. No justificationism.

    Does universal education need mythology? Well I think that teaching anything antithetical to natural and physical law, antithetical to contract, accounting, mathematics, and reading (the common tongue), is something that exports costs onto others through the propagation of falsehoods.

    Can I teach my own children mythology at home, or in religious school? Of course you can. If it is taught as spiritual, as faith, as psychology, but not in conflict with physical, natural, contactual, mathematical, literacy, or rhetorical, grammatical, and logical truth.

    There are no ancient texts that cannot be translated into ratio-scientific language as necessary and possible traditions of the time. There are no normative family and cultural traditions that cannot likewise be explained. There is no harm in prayer, ritual, and faith, even if there is harm in conflating spiritual(experiential) and truthful(testimonial). It’s very hard to argue with the sermon on the mount. And it’s not hard to state that them miracles are fairy tales meant to educated us on how we should aspire to behave toward one another.

    CLOSING

    So like anything, when we want to produce a private good (education) for common goods (costs of loss, restitution, and prevention), then the market will succeed at providing some goods (private education, church education, public education) just as it will succeed at providing other goods (private health care, church health care, state health care), and many other goods (private investor banking, commercial banking, credit unions, and state treasury support).

    So the problem we have had in the past, is not the failure to understand this problem, but the failure to require truth, while preserving faith. Because man does not live by truth alone unless he lives in a large primitive tribe where he is saturated by information supplied by peers and there is no meaningful information available to him that is not shared by those peers. Even in those circumstances we require faith in order to ease the various sufferings, and to cause the community to unite in celebration of the service of the common good.

    Ergo, we must warranty all speech, products and services against error, bias, wishful, thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    And we must warranty the minimum (not ultimate) services that an individual must possess in order not to be a burden on others such that he invokes moral hazard, and by invoking moral hazard, creates the incentive in the commons to abandon perfect-care of the commons. This is a profoundly important issue: preservation of the incentive to preserve and expand the commons.

    And as long as one warranties minimum provision, no falsehood, and treats myths as necessary goods as long as they do not violate the natural and physical and contractual and logical law, then there is no reason we cannot provide public (insured education), private education(market provided education), and community education (church, etc),

    My suggestion, as always with regard to the professions, is (a) that I don’t believe anyone that is not a grandmother or grandfather should teach anything to anyone. Otherwise we have a person without life experience conveying the necessities of surviving life’s experiences. (b) that it’s the teachers who are paid, not organizations, and that the teachers contribute some part of their fees to the maintenance of the organization. And that organizations that desire capital investment can lend against future earnings. And that we can only lend against future earnings if the citizenry is to insure the loan. These are the terms by which teachers can teach, schools can form. Not in the interests of the school owners, but in the interest of the teachers and the students.

    I think all education should be paid for as deductions from future earnings (payroll fees). And current costs covered from the treasury. Why? Because it’s an investment that produces guaranteed returns, if we keep honest statistics on the performance of different degree programs and their classes. (Early childhood ed is a very bad investment, right behind Sociology). Then universities and schools will not charge money for the modern equivalent of “indulgences” which they give people paper in exchange for participating in nonsense for years, all at the public expense.

    In university, paying teachers directly and separating teaching and researching staff, and paying them accordingly. (the way oxford and Cambridge were started)

    We can let the market regulate education by using the courts to punish people who teach untruths contrary to natural, physical, contractual, and logical laws. If we did this in just one generation we would change the world for the better nearly as much as we changed the world with greek reason, British science, and enlightenment literacy. Truth is as important an innovation as were literacy, reason, and science. It’s just unfortunate that it took us this long to discover what it means.

    So that’s my position:

    Private(wealthy), civic(middle), and public(lower) institutions for the purpose of education, paid for out of future earnings, teaching the minimums, requiring warranty, and separating spirituality and myth from action and truth.

    What will rapidly occur is that government schools will rapidly improve else the stigma close them, and as usual the wealthy will innovate and the rest benefit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 05:41:00 UTC

  • OVERSING – SERIOUS QUESTION – GO TO MARKET? (thinking in public) (long) (busines

    OVERSING – SERIOUS QUESTION – GO TO MARKET?

    (thinking in public) (long) (business questions) (oversing details)

    QUESTION: Will the WordPress/Craigslist Strategy Work for our product Oversing?

    WHEREAS (challenges and opportunities)

    – Oversing is a huge and fairly complex product, it’s an ERP.

    – It is bigger than Jira by an order of magnitude, because it addresses the needs of the entire business not just development and help desk.

    – It is easier to use than Jira and MS-CRM and Sharepoint.

    – it is relatively easy for us (me) to customize oversing for and organization’s use.

    – It is possible for someone with experience with CRM’s or ERP’s to configure oversing for use in an organization.

    – It will take someone with experience with Jira or a less advanced product to configure it for departmental use.

    – It will take users some time, and administrators more time to learn all of it.

    BUT (handling challenges)

    – We can turn features on and off incrementally as users need them by simply assigning features to roles, and flipping a switch on a user’s profile granting the user access to that role’s features.

    – Jira is notoriously unintuitive and complicated, and for that matter, so are Salesforce and MS CRM. Complexity and learning curve are not a challenge for market leaders. However,

    WHEREAS (current conditions)

    – the product is in beta state, and we have spent the summer with clients, and only half our efforts or less focused on the bug and usability issues.

    – The bugs are standard fare. But the little usability issues in this complex a system can frustrate users. And we did not predict many of them – simply because it’s so large.

    – There are three areas that concern me: (i) we need a lot of help and tutorial work (ii) we have improved the performance of the ui, but we can still improve it, and possibly need to. But my decision was this: given the rate of advancement I should design the app for a decade or more, not for current limitations. (iii) the gantt view doesn’t work well enough because honestly it is just too big and heavy. It will handle more records than any competitors products. But I feel it is not yet usable in mutli-project businesses that I want to address in agencies and consultancies. So I want to write something custom and light. (iiii) We can migrate workflows just fine, but we haven’t written code to migrate between organizational structures.(v)

    – It will take us three years of additional versions to complete the vision we have for the program. This involves (i) the future of email messaging, (2) the addition of financial accounting to our existing management accounting, (3) custom properties, (4) changing our database searches to rely on Elastic Search technology. (i viewed it as something I could push until later since it’s not important until we have custom properties.).

    THE VISION (Goal)

    – The vision is that we provide both web and desktop equivalents, and provide an alternative to the Microsoft platform stack (although not the document creation suite).

    – But more importantly, that Oversing captures much more detail about you and your organization’s behaviors than do google and Facebook combined. But instead of selling this information to marketers *against your interest, and against your will* we will provide this information about you and your organization back to you – and provided it in the context of similar organizations in the marketplace.

    This is our long-term objective: to provide continuous career-enhancing feedback to users, managers, and executives that reflects the needs and wants of individual personalities (characters and goals), while producing reputations for people in the workplace that are independent of political and personal bias.

    We want to disrupt the business sphere as much as Facebook has disrupted the social sphere – but for entirely different reasons.

    THEREFORE (hypothesis)

    Given that we need to incrementally expand the product over the next two or three years, How do we enter the market now?

    Originally we had thought that we would take the enterprise sales route, and grow slowly. But this creates a fairly high barrier to adoption since it’s a huge commitment on the part of a customer.

    On the other hand, if you have ever run a services organization in tech, marketing, or advertising of more than 200 people (I have) you really stop caring about the cost of learning, because without that information it’s really hard to maintain operational profitability.

    The reason we were (wildly) successful at our business is (a) we had Microsoft as a cash-cow, (b) we could overpay for talent to serve them, giving us room to experiment (c) even if we were creatively weak, we were operationally excellent in ways that only the big six firms can match. And the reason we were operationally excellent is we used the internal precursor to Oversing to run the entire business under the agile model using weekly sprints for project management and resourcing.

    Now you know, the truth is, most management doesn’t manage the organization, but instead, tries to (a)contribute in say, sales; or (b) play with financial information – meaning they have lousy systems, because your systems should tell you everything every moment without investigation, or (c) do anything they can to shirk management by pushing it off on someone else. When the answer is working people as a process of continuous improvement in them, the work, and the relationship with the customer,and of course, reaching profit goals without sacrificing people, work, or relationship with the customer.

    So the challenge to this model is that Oversing is designed to allow you to manage an EXCELLENT business, not a lazy one. I built it to duplicate our agile management of the entire business.

    Then we thought we should create a community edition without financial and administrative features – purely project and program-centric, and then allow users to purchase (license) their own database instances (like Asana etc), all of which run off of the same web server instance, but different database instances. Yet all reputation and statistics are promoted to the main server database, giving you a superior reputation to that of say, LinkedIn. This is how Oversing works today.

    But again, we feel we need a lower barrier to entry.

    This summer we started working with one of the online talent marketplaces, (freelancer and contractor type work). These sites take a commission on arranging work between buyers and sellers of talent in all sorts of fields – particularly technology. Becuase the workforce has gone global. Particularly for even moderate English speakers.

    We’d originally designed oversing for in-house use, then for public use, but we hadn’t addressed the issue of freelancers bidding on work. But adding the freelancer marketplace to Oversing was just a matter of a few additions: (i) creating a few new panels (talent market, work market), and modifying the Skills panel so that it updated both of those market panels if they’re open. (ii) creating new entity types to add to the workflow engine for bids/bid-requests, bid-invoices, and bid-invoice-payments (there are 30+ types of tasks you can add to a project, and this adds three more. you can think of a project as a combination of a task list, project plan, and project accounting journal). Then hooking into the payment processing system. (iii) updating our various reporting views (there are really just a few of them) to include the new entity types. Sure we can do more, but that’s the minimum necessary. So we set about doing that.

    This seemed to us that it might be the right level of barrier to entry – because it’s free. Yep. Free. Just as WordPress sites are free unless you want customization, and just as Craigslist is free unless you want to post a job ad.

    So we can run the site overhead on (low) fees; charge for custom instances for those who want them; charge for setup and integration services if customers want them.

    Fees in the business work about like this:

    (i) – The “dating service’ between talent and project manager: 20%,10%,5% depending upon the size of the customer relationship. Basically after 10k, you’re just making 2.5%.

    (ii) – Outsourced project management of freelancer projects for customers: 20%.

    (iii) – Outsourced work at agencies and consultancies: 50%.

    (iv) SAAS Licensing Fees for instances: $5-25$-$50-$300 per user per year depending upon which product we’re talking about. In my view we want to be at the bottom end of that. Even though we will offer a combined stack that is far beyond what established companies provide. (100 people 6k-60K per year). (It’s cheap really if enterprise software costs you one admin headcount per year there is no way it’s not a wash.)

    BUT IS IT ENOUGH?

    Entry points at different levels of the application allow users to get exposure to the features they need without feeling that they need to master the entire thing from the beginning.

    We need entry points for end-users, so that they create profiles, and reputations, and bid on and post work. In house or out of house.

    We need entry points for the various kinds of leads, project managers and department managers

    We need entry points for the executive team that decides upon which package to implement.

    If you told me as an exec of a large services business that I could modernize without much risk, and really cut my licensing, and software costs, and probably cut my headcount costs, I think I would at least give it a shot assuming the analysts were paying attention to it.

    Now, if you told me that, as an exec, I could use Oversing for free, and that the only price I’d pay was a commission on freelancer deals, then I would say that was pretty cool. Most of the time it’s 10K+ for the software, then 10-100k for the configuration and training.

    If you told me as a department manager that I could get an enterprise platform for free, I think I would find that pretty interesting – certainly, I would take a look at it.

    If you told me I could use another project management site, I don’t know why I would pay the high learning costs without having a client request I use it.

    If you told me that I could sign up for another freelancer site, I doubt that I would bother unless someone invited me to in order to get work.

    If I saw advertisements suggesting I try oversing versus Jira I think that would be a pretty interesting choice. But you know, most of the expansion in dev tools has been at the low end, and for them, simple things like Basecamp are fine.

    So the customer is really not the casual user but the professional that is accountable for performance: project, program, department, operations, and execs.

    I mean the difference between oversing and Jira is the difference between internal support and consulting, agency, and freelance businesses.

    SO, REPEATING THE QUESTION

    If we can make enough money (we can) on transactions, why not make it free, and only charge for private instances? Can we make the same attack on the mainstream platforms over time the way FB, WordPress, Craigslist, and to some degree, Jira has?

    OUR BUSINESS PROBLEM:

    AWARENESS VIA ENTRY CLIENTS ->

    …..TIME FOR EXPANDING FEATURES ->

    ………COMPLETE MAINSTREAM CORP STACK COMPETITOR

    OVERVIEW OF OVERSING FEATURES

    ====================

    OVERSING SYSTEM SERVICES

    —-Workflow System

    ——–Users

    ——–Contacts

    ——–Companies (customers)

    ——–Invoices

    ——–Programs

    ————Overhead, Cost Center,

    ————Revenue,

    ————Vacation/holiday,

    ————Personal

    ——–Program Task Types

    ————Strategy (Management initiatives),

    ————Sales,

    ————Recruiting,

    ————Career(hr/mentoring),

    ————Delivery (any kind of other project)

    ——–Operational Periods (‘Revenue Sprints’)

    ————–Timecards

    ——————-Work Logs (Timeslips)

    ————–Expenses

    ————–Adjustments

    ————–Transfers

    ————–Commissions

    ————–Proposals(bids)

    ————–Proposal-Invoices

    ————–Proposal-Payments

    —-Reputation Systems

    ——–Skill and Reputation System

    ——–Awards (Gamification) System

    ——–NPS Survey System

    —-Accounting Systems

    ——–Currency System (real time, fully preserved)

    ——–General (Project) Ledger

    ——–Project Accounting System (no accrual services)

    ——–Costs allocation system

    ……………….(to individuals giving real p&l per person)

    —-Security Systems

    ——–User Authentication System (access to app)

    ——–Access Roles System (access to features)

    ——–Workflow Automated Permissions

    ——–Permissions System (access to content)

    —-Support Systems

    ——–Internationalization (translation) system

    ——–Scheduling (cron) System

    ——–Queue Manager (‘Ratchet’)

    ——–Workspace State System (‘Redis’)

    ——–Websocket Publishing System

    USER SERVICES

    My Organization

    —-My Org Structure

    ——– My Workflows

    ——– My Chart of Accounts

    ——– My Rate Sheets

    —-My Users

    ———My Workspaces

    ———My Favorites

    ———My Programs / Projects /Tasks

    ———My Skills and Reputations

    ———My Files

    ———My Rates

    —-My Customers (Organizations)

    ——–My Contacts

    ——–My Contracts

    ——–My Invoices

    ——–My Programs

    ————-My Program Accounts

    ————-My Projects / Tasks / Xactions / Files

    ——————Deliverables / Tasks / Xactions / Files

    ——————Documents

    ———————- Sections / Articles / Scrivenings

    ———————- Citations, Definitions, References

    1) FINISH TALENT MARKETPLACE WORK

    2) OPERATIONAL TEMPO WORKSPACE

    (Not yet)

    allows you to manage the different time periods more easily

    3) REPLACE HEAVY GANTT WITH LIGHT TIMELINE

    4) WORDPRESS INTEGRATION

    (not yet) Easy but not done.

    5) FULL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING

    (not yet)

    6) Elastic Search

    7) Point to point secure messaging and mail.

    If you made it through this, thank you. I always appreciate feedback and the opportunity to air my ideas in public.

    I’m aware that most anyone who reads this probably is not working in an executive capacity. And oversing is too much for you as an individual or small business member.

    Affections all

    Curt Doolittle

    (h/t: and many thanks to my good friend Kevin Dillon for the WordPress Strategy)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 04:28:00 UTC

  • No estamos de acuerdo

    [C]uando decimos “no estamos de acuerdo” estamos usando una falacia retórica. Toda declaración puede ser verdadera, falsa o incompleta, estemos de acuerdo con una o no.

    1. No existen leyes de ciencia en sí. Hay procedimientos que han evolucionado que son utilizados para eliminar error, sesgo, ilusiones y engaños de nuestras hipótesis. Estos procesos no nos dicen si una premisa puede ser verdadera, sólo nos da a entender que puede ser una premisa cierta si sobrevive a una serie de críticas.
    2. Existen intuiciones, hipótesis, teorías, leyes y tautologías porque las hemos construido y hemos demostrado que existen como tal.
    3. Existen premisas no tautológicas, aunque ciertas: en otras palabras, en cualquier declaración de precision arbitraria, debemos buscar límites, porque todas las reglas generales poseen límites. Aquí fue donde Ludwig von Mises fracasó al intentar hacer uso del racionalismo Kantian en lugar del racionalismo crítico de Karl Popper: las ciencias. Ya que no hay premisas ciertas, no hay deducciones ciertas. Ya que hay leyes que podamos deducir de los resultados de igual precisión. Pero estas son imprecisas, y por ende, también lo son nuestras deducciones.
    4. Nosotros podemos construir premisas descriptivas (teorías) que son verdaderas, pero no son ejecutables porque carecen de precisión suficiente. Una regularidad puede ser tan lenta (como los ciclos económicos, políticos, ciclos de generación y ciclos de civilizaciones) que no importa lo que hagamos dentro de ellos porque a la larga, es solamente ruido.

    Ludwig von Mises propone que la historia no es regular y lo hace presumiendo que el intercambio es único porque es subjetivo y momentáneo. Pero también Mises propone que podemos simpatizar con premisas económicas y por ende probar la racionalidad de cualquier incentivo. Este par de propuestas constituyen una contradicción lógica. Ya que nosotros podemos decidir si un incentivo es racional, y podemos probar la racionalidad de las decisiones de toros (así es como ponemos a prueba a los mentirosos en las cortes), luego nuestros juicios son marginalmente indiferentes. Si son marginalmente indiferentes, entonces pueden ser representados como constantes. Así que a un lado del espectro, las decisiones son marginalmente indiferentes y hemos probado esto en miles de formas tanto en la economía como la psicología experimenta. Y al otro lado del espectro de los pretendidos axiomas Misesianos, y sus pretendidas leyes (inflación, neutralidad de la moneda, salario mínimo) son ambas suficientemente imprecisas para no poder ser puestas en ejecución. Cuando de hecho, es posible producir exterioridad adrede cuando de forma intencional se manipulan estos comportamientos causados por información asimétrica y distribución de recursos. Este tipo de distorsiones pueden ser medidas de forma bastante precisa. Así que noe s que estos sistemas no sean regulares (porque si lo son), o que no sean deterministas (que también lo son) o que no sean ejecutables (lo son) y que por ende son científicamente probables. En lugar de ser impermeables a la ciencia en el desarrollo de las reglas generales, éste tipo de acciones son inmorales: Estas acciones tienen como consecuencia transferencias involuntarias de gente con un preferencias de tiempo más largas o más cortas, a aquellas personas que tengan una preferencia de tiempo más alta o más larga. Es decir que no solamente roban sino que privan a los bienes de cambios de comportamiento necesarios para preservar la preferencia de tiempo extendida. Por ejemplo: Mises confundió el robo de la moralidad con una verdad científica. Su segundo gran fracaso fue que no pudo aprehender que intuir (como Bruwer pudo en las matemáticas y Bridgman lo hizo en la física) que la praxeología producía pruebas de construcción, pero que eran insuficientes para deducirlas. Una prueba de construcción es requerida (no sólo en economía pero también en matemática) para demostrar que una premisa económica es existencialmente posible. Es un medio para intentar falsear una declaración. Pero la mayoría de los efectos económicos no son deducibles, sólo son observables empíricamente y luego pueden ser explicados. Son explicados al intentar construirlos a partir de una secuencia de operaciones racionales. Si no pueden ser construidos, entonces no podemos construir prueba existencial de ellos y por ende, esas premisas no pueden ser posibles. Es posible construir pruebas existenciales para acciones humanas en el Keynesianismo. Pero estas pruebas nos dicen que tales manipulaciones son un acto de engaño que tienen como consecuencia transferencias involuntarias (robo). Por ello esas acciones no son científicas. Por ello, Mises está equivocado. El confunde lo inmoral y lo no científico. Confunde el justificarse bajo el contrato de la moral, con premisas candidatas a ser verdad que sobreviven la crítica. Esto es un asunto que no es trivial. Es probablemente una de las premisas filosóficas más importantes del siglo XX que los pensadores no lograron resolver de la misma forma que todos los que estaban antes que ellos. Pero ahora está resuelta. Mises simplemente estaba equivocado. Era un austro-húngaro cosmopolita y sencillamente fracasó. Fracasó peor que Brouwer y Bridgman. Y porque fracasó, también lo hizo Hayek. Hemos sido sujeto de un siglo de engaños  

  • OUR CAUSE IS TO OVERTHROW AND PREVENT THE GREAT LIES FROM EVERY HARMING MANKIND

    OUR CAUSE IS TO OVERTHROW AND PREVENT THE GREAT LIES FROM EVERY HARMING MANKIND AGAIN

    (important piece)(read it and weep)

    I had a transformative conversation just out of college with an activist lesbian, and close friend of my girlfriend, who – upon my statement that I tried to be objective and neutral in matters of politics – responded by saying that neutrality is a luxury of those who can afford it.

    I think the consequences of that conversation were subtle, but cumulative – and that the only solution to fulfillment for all, is not a monopoly of commons -universalism – but a market for commons. And that such a market for norms requires territories in which to plant, maintain, and harvest that which we desire from them – while at the same time paying the full cost of their development and maintenance rather than supporting one’s preferred norms by parasitic survival on the norms of others.

    So while universal negative commons exist: the natural law of non-imposition of costs. Universal positive commons are impossible. because the commons advances the group evolutionary strategy, and within that strategy, the life experience, of the population.

    Furthermore, just as groups of all men and all women produce exaggerated behaviors, and their own externalities, groups that favor different compositions of wants(short) and interests(long) will produce their own exaggerated behaviors, and their own externalities. And so these people are either kept in check by their wants and interests, or they will, as western man has done, discover superior means of organizing, superior wants, and superior interests, and modify their norms accordingly.

    Ergo, the more ‘diverse'(heterogenous) a single society, the less knowledge is gained, the most redistribution possible, and the most parasitism performed. While the most homogeneous a single society the more knowledge is gained, the most redistribution possible and the least parasitism performed. Because we will fund our wants and interests through redistribution but we will not fund our competitors willingly.

    We developed truth telling, sovereignty, and high trust norms, traditions, and institutions out of self-interest. And we domesticated man as a consequence. Because he was drawn to our order out of his own interest in exchange for abandoning parasitism.And where he was not drawn to his order, we out-competed him into adapting it. And where he was incompetent at adaptation we imposed it upon him by colonialism, political coercion, or outright conquest.

    And this is where we failed. Because we are not liberating man from oppression. We are suppressing his native parasitism, and domesticating him no differently than we have domesticated plants, animals, and most of the earth’s land, sea, and air.

    And this domestication is not in the interests of those who cannot compete in the production of norms, traditions, goods and services, that further extend non-parasitism in concert with our ever-expanding innovations in production, technology, market, and political orders, and the corresponding means of parasitism we also evolve along with them.

    Just as the Jews had to invent a false promise of eternal salvation in heaven in order to rebel against our ancient greco-roman ancestors who had dragged man out of ignorance and poverty with truth and contract, the descendants of these same people, in their reaction to the enlightenment, had to invent a false criticism of the west, and a false promise of utopia on earth in order to create a rebellion against our Anglo-Germanic-Italian-French ancestors, who likewise had dragged man out of ignorance and poverty upon finally defeating the curse of mysticism that

    Man must be domesticated into prosperity. He must be domesticated into national(genetic interests), contractualism(productive voluntary exchange), productivity(non-parasitism), and eugenic reproduction(non-harm) through the organized use of violence to produce normative, traditional, and formal institutions of domestication. And we must not only domesticate ourselves, but all those who would return us to barbarism through genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional means.

    We have insufficiently domesticated man and attempted to rest on the laurels of our ancestors – living in the luxury they have made for us. We have perhaps worse, insufficiently domesticated women – whose parasitism is indirect, consumptive, political, normative, and reproductive, rather than conducted by theft and violence of men. And we must next domesticate ‘those who lie’ so that never again is mankind doomed to the lies of the people who lie – because they cannot compete in innovation, production and reproduction, and so must poison the well of competition in order to succeed.

    We must bear arms and defend man, and his future, from the animals that seek to restore the order of animals. And we must make new constitutions, with new laws that treat the informational commons upon which each of us relies, and our future relies, from another cataclysmic grand suite of lies.

    THE FIRST GREAT ERA OF LIES: SUPERNATURALISM VS REASON

    The First Truthful Civilization: Greco(rational)-Roman(legal)

    The First Great Lies: Mysticism: Abrahamism, Christianity, Mythology including Monotheism, supernaturalism, and a holy book of supernatural myth and law, and the promise of life after death in a paradise.

    THE SECOND GREAT ERA LIE OF LIES: PSEUDOSCIENCE VS SCIENCE

    The Second Truthful Civilization: English-Anglo-Saxon-Hanseatic-Lotharyngian)

    Pseudoscience: Boazian anthropology and mythology, Marxist economics and mythology, Freudian psychology and mythology, Cantorian Mathematical Metaphysics, Frankfurtian sociology and mythology, and a promise of a paradise on earth.

    We must never gain allow ourselves, or others, to subject mankind to dark ages caused by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and prevent our transformation into the gods we aspire to be.

    The end of history is not Democracy. The end of history is the Truthful Civilization, in which none of us prey upon one another, because none of us need to prey upon one another.

    Western greatness was achieved through the imposition of non-parasitism, and the demand for productivity in exchange for reproductive possibility.

    The problem facing the rest of the world, and a problem the Marxist-socialists have given them because we lacked either the understanding of our domestication of animal-man, or we lacked the courage to state it in the face of our Christian mask of compassion over the face of our Aryan Domesticating Universalism, and lose the self-congratulatory status signals we obtained from the illusion. (Albeit, such acknowledgment may have created in-group cognitive dissonance against our lower classes. )

    We must defeat the great lies, with the great truths that we lacked either the knowledge or the courage to admit to ourselves, and advocate to others: that we have since the time of the horse and wheel, dragged man out of ignorance, poverty, and disease by the simple act of governing conquered territories such that we could kill his predators, replace his rulers, and constrain the reproduction of his lower classes leaving only the good behind.

    Because the uncomfortable truth of man is that just as each of us can only produce so much excess production above that which we ourselves need, those who organized production in the legal, financial, entrepreneurial, managerial, clerical, and laboring classes cannot compensate for large numbers of the underclasses who parasitically exist by constant warfare against our norms, traditions, myths, institutions, nations, and genes. There is a very simple mathematics to this process in that we must alter the rational choice to engage in production by purchasing that incentive by rewards. But that means that the percentage of people that can be incentivized to engage in non-parasitic actions is determined by the productivity of the nation (group), and its institutions. And if relative competitive productivity of the group declines, then the productive classes that remain will no longer be able to incentivize increasing numbers of the underclasses to refrain from parasitism. Ergo: we must constantly cull the lower classes if we wish to maintain the prosperity that the productive classes seek, and that is necessary for creating the incentives that create the order, that produces the luxury under which we now live.

    So it is not just the ecology of the earth that is limited in the population it can support. It is the ability to produce incentives for a population necessary to maintain the status quo.

    We fight not just the red-queens of disease, competing tribes, the of the earth, the aging of the earth and sun, but we fight the red queen of productivity upon which the ability to organize society voluntarily using those incentives we call capitalism, depend.

    This is what the pseudoscientists wished to hide with their second great era of lies: darwin found the truth and this truth was too much for the parasitic peoples to bear since it meant their extermination.

    So we must rule out of self-defense. Not just for us. Not just for our ancestors. Not just for our descendants – but for all mankind. And until we know we are not alone in the universe, for all eternity. We may be little more than gods-in-making. A calculation that the universe makes in an attempt to save itself from the laws that govern its limits, just as our intelligence has allowed us to save ourselves from the laws that govern our limits.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 05:57:00 UTC

  • The Human Argument Spectrum

    Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human. And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse. Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention. We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.) It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions. But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions. We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life. In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack). Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli. Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes. Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic). This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response). This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon. But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud. It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand. And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results. So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules. And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality. All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism. So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science. Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony. Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal. And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties. So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars? Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails. So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific. When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter. Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions. And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act. And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds. So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility. It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence. But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description. CLOSING I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages. There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology. It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud. I hope this was helpful to you in some way. It’s a very important set of ideas. We do what we have the knowledge to do. We do what we have the energy and resources to do. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
    LikeShow more reactions

  • The Human Argument Spectrum

    Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human. And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse. Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention. We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.) It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions. But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions. We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life. In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack). Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli. Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes. Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic). This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response). This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon. But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud. It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand. And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results. So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules. And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality. All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism. So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science. Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony. Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal. And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties. So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars? Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails. So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific. When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter. Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions. And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act. And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds. So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility. It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence. But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description. CLOSING I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages. There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology. It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud. I hope this was helpful to you in some way. It’s a very important set of ideas. We do what we have the knowledge to do. We do what we have the energy and resources to do. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
    LikeShow more reactions

  • THE GREAT COMPROMISES All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical va

    THE GREAT COMPROMISES

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful.

    Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianisn: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies.

    Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid.

    Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided.

    Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption.

    THE CLASS COMPROMISE

    The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible.

    This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation.

    We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction.

    MARRIAGE COMPROMISE

    Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring.

    Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation.

    Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws:

    Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff).

    CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE

    The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory.

    This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male.

    You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises.

    The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 11:42:00 UTC

  • A Lesson In Natural Law

    FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”…. … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests. Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution. The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it. What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family. Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male. The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law. The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years. 1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households. 2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world. 3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan. 4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it. 5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes. 6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year. 7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class. Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes. WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST? Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs. 1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers) In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves. In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies. 2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors) The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order. The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the 3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors) The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival. In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors. 4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers) In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding. We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit. We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses. THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) The Caste System (which is evolving in south america) The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism) In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets. Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper. There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction. This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with. Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies. And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine