Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION LEADING TO THE NATURAL RELIGION OF MAN ME did not deve

    RELIGION AND CIVILIZATION LEADING TO THE NATURAL RELIGION OF MAN

    ME did not develop trifunctionalism because despite the center of world trade, the supply of a sequence of ‘hill people, desert people, then steppe people’ caused rotation of conqueres of concentrated capital production along the rivers preventing trust formation.

    There are only three means of human coercion (seduction, exchange, force) -> three sets of institutions (religion, contract law, state) -> the sequence of institutions determines the hierarchy of influence.

    ME sequence was Religion -> State -> Common Law (Contract). ie: all civilizational differences are caused by degree of heterogeneity, number of competitors, means of agrarian age production, and geography.

    So ME heterogeneity (tribalism), serial conquest, river production, and religion (first generation institution) generates demand for authoritarian religion and authoritarian state, instead of common law (Indo-european) or bureaucratic state (china).

    So despite ME invention of all mechanisms of trade ( writing, recording, accounting, weights/measures) other than Greeks and their money. And despite being center of world trade, conflict maintained demand for low trust abstract authority rather than high trust empirical law.

    As we see in China, in India, and in the ME, the rate of evolutionary computation is determined by the degree of empiricism FIRST, the degree of trade second, and the homogeneity of the population third. Ergo: Which civ evolves fastest is more influential than which was first.

    If I am correct, each civilization revolts against empiricism, because it produces inequality despite raising overall prosperity(envy), then ME should only require another generation (max three) if present rates of development continue, presuming no new wave of fundamentalism.

    This is evident in the younger generation. Interestingly the west has become degenerate b/c of tolerance, the russians and chinese are preventing this and I assum ME will do so as well.

    So we see in europe, that advanced analog computing technology had evolved by 200bc, but christian religion destroyed aristocracy, replacing cooperating families of empirical-entreprenurial-military with supernatural-authoritarian-priesthood.

    From this understanding we learn (a) our cultural differences are accidents of geography (b) rule of law (empirical law of tort) matters more than the form of government or the religion (c) this rule of law is just ‘applied evolutionary science’. (d) all people can apply science.

    And lastly (e) the result of the applied science, of the rule of empirical law of tort, produces the greatest trust, and the greatest trust and surplus produces greatest possibility of producing commons, and commons reduce costs of living and need for for the poor and the middle – offsetting the inequality of income through commons production that is a radical discount not achievable through indivicual or familial income.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-28 19:01:36 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107701632779075773

  • To some degree, this ‘love of man’ is my ‘religion’. It requires one to have fai

    To some degree, this ‘love of man’ is my ‘religion’. It requires one to have faith in man. And that the law of nature and nature’s god is: ‘Evolve through individual sovereignty, reciprocity in display word and deed, truth-before face, duty to commons before self and family.’

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-28 18:32:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487131608272547841

    Reply addressees: @elbanna101

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487130905525334020

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @elbanna101 So IMO it is easy to love all mankind if you can equally trust all to equally share the risk of producing complex networks of cooperation in which none of us siezes an opportunity for gain at others expense – thus decreasing prices, increasing wealth, and increasing commons.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1487130905525334020

  • So IMO it is easy to love all mankind if you can equally trust all to equally sh

    So IMO it is easy to love all mankind if you can equally trust all to equally share the risk of producing complex networks of cooperation in which none of us siezes an opportunity for gain at others expense – thus decreasing prices, increasing wealth, and increasing commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-28 18:30:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487130905525334020

    Reply addressees: @elbanna101

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487130079775932426

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @elbanna101 … and lastly (e) the result of the applied science, of the rule of empirical law of tort, produces the greatest trust, and the greatest trust and surplus produces greatest possibility of producing commons, and commons reduce costs of living for the poor and the middle.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1487130079775932426

  • WE CANNOT ASSUME IT’S POSSIBLE TO TEACH SCIENTIFIC LAW — “We cannot assume that

    WE CANNOT ASSUME IT’S POSSIBLE TO TEACH SCIENTIFIC LAW

    — “We cannot assume that the understanding of P, and its teachability will percolate downwards, but that need not be the case for the benefits of the reforms to be detected and pursued across the distribution. It appears that in each case the discovery of the utility of P was made by upper outliers, and primarily teachable to those outliers. But the benefits it produces a means to secure are not constrained to those outliers.” – contrafabian @ContraFabian

    Agreed. Science -> Law -> Constittuion -> Policies -> “The Cure”

    The people only need to understand the policies and the cure. Some of them may need to understand ‘it’s just the science, and that’s all’. But some of them can’t even undrestand that. So our job is to sell the policy and the science only when necessary or possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 20:16:26 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696264712675155

  • HOLOCAUST TRUTH Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were i

    HOLOCAUST TRUTH

    Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were imitations of the Jewish bolshevik use of camps of Russia, or that the prisoners were put to work as forced labor, or that by the end of the war the prisoners were starved to death or murdered in large numbers because the state decided no longer to pay for their maintenance and care?

    As far as I know the only debate is over whether the jews were practicing corruption by the usurpation of institutions of cultural production (as they had repeatedly elsewhere), whether the numbers of dead were dramatized, whether or not there was use of gas chambers, whether the original intent was relocation or extermination, and that the natural economics of any such program by a country losing a war would be to maximize resources directed to the people and military rather than ‘undesirables’, resulting in the camps we saw at the end of the war.

    In other words, who is being honest or dishonest? what is the truth. The truth is rather obvious from the evidence. The untruth is rather obvious from t he evidence, and the motivated reasoning, and motivated propaganda. AFAIK every objector is just demanding the truth. (And yes, there may be some fking crazies who deny it all, just as there are crazies that fictionalize it all. )

    As far as I can tell when the postwar generation has died off, which will occur shortly, the public understanding will adjust to the evidence, and the evidence is pretty clear that camps were created with the intent of relocation, that the war caused need for slave labor, then drove deprivation, starvation, and killings. That smaller numbers died than claimed. That postwar propaganda was used for political purposes. That the Germans were organizing to prevent the expansion of Jewish bolshevism from Russia into Germany (and anglo liberalism as well). That the postwar jewish marxists moved from germany to the usa and converted from class warfare that caused russian and german conflict, to race warfare that caused broader european and american social conflict. As such, there was no different intention of a purge of the jews this time than any other, or any different from the exit of the Moors from Spain, and that the original rather optimistic nature of the camps degenerated as the war pressed on for rather ordinary reasons that would occur and have occurred in history as resources are depleted.

    As far as I know, that’s the empirical evidence, and it’s all rational, it’s not dramatic, or especially ‘evil’ at all. It’s nothing compared to the Albegentsian crusades, the Inquisition, or even the protestant use of claims of witchcraft as a proxy for continuing the dominance of Protestantism over catholicism and other ‘heretics’.

    ( continued in comments … )

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:44:14 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696138112274496

  • HOW MANY ARE ENOUGH, AND WHO ARE THE NAZIS? — “Q: How many do you think is enou

    HOW MANY ARE ENOUGH, AND WHO ARE THE NAZIS?

    — “Q: How many do you think is enough?” — Empire’s Frontiers

    Enough is something on the order of 2M. Sufficient is the 10k that allows us to collect the 25K, to the 100K, to the 1M to the 2M. Mao strategy: recruit the countryside. We only need enough men to produce confindence from recruits. The more we have the more we can get because size decreases uncertainty. However, the point of 2M is to attract enough attention that we can issue demands for corretion under the plausible possibility that we can force those demands. In other words teh value in numbers is that we eliminate the need for civil war. Our proposals (my work) is a moral soluton to the problem of modernity, and it simply restores and reinforces the original constitution which itself was the first written attempt at a scientific government. If we can ‘get attention’ without the nazis or christians ruining it, then we can propose our solution which satisfies the majority center-right and center left, and protects the ‘right’ propert, and only screws over the hard left, academy, financial sector, and the state.

    — “Who is a Christian is clear, but what in your view constitutes the nazis? Beside posters here on Gab who have more or less similar desires as what your work means to achieve, are there more established groups/men you would describe as nazis who might interfere?” — Empire’s Frontiers @EmpiresFrontiers

    I equate ‘nazi’ with just being imature and stupid.

    If we begin with rule of law by the natural law (as I’ve exhaustively documented it) it results in a nation with all the benefits of national socialism, none of the negative symbolism, and none of the authoritarianism, because (contrary to Schmidt etc) the science says we are right, and that if we launder christianity of its judaism the underlying ethic expressed in legal terms is scientifically right.

    In other words, nazism, national socialism, like communism and Woke is an ingorant religion for the dumb folk.

    We get an even better result without the baggage.

    Ethnocentrism is the optimum group strategy. Europeanism is the optimum evolutionary strategy. Rule of law is the optimum rule strategy. And monarchy, cabinet, and houses for the classes is the optimum political strategy, and mixed economy cmbining state time preference and capital, with private time preference and use of capital, is simply the optimum political order FOR THOSE WHO CAN DO IT.

    The thing is, you have to be more genetically and culturally evolved to do it. Thats why it’s a more evolved strategy. So our ‘competitors’ can’t do it.

    So why ‘carry their dysgenic incompetent dead weight’ instead of separating and leaving them behind?

    Same for naziism national socialism. Leave the dead weight behind. Learn the science. Join the 21st century. And depriec the enemy of their means of demonizing you and deplatforming you.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-25 22:10:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107685388306113064

  • LEARNING CYCLE THEORY (HUMAN POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DETERMINISM) — “What I’d lo

    LEARNING CYCLE THEORY
    (HUMAN POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DETERMINISM)

    — “What I’d love is a conversation dedicated to cycle theory and a brief overview of all the cycles concluding and converging in this window until 2030. Keep up the great work.” — KnowingDasEin

    I can do a video on cycle theory, but working with cycles requires a great deal of knowledge. So while we can understand cycle theory, and predict cycles, it takes a great deal of general knowledge to predict what the cycle will produce – even if all our behavior is deterministic.

    I do cover cycles a bit in ‘the book’ and in ‘the course’ but I can certanly do a video at some point:
    (a) introducing cycle theory and explaining:
    (b) ‘the learning and forgetting curve from the individual to the polity” and
    (c) the “generational incentive cycle” all of which lead to the truism that strong men make good times.

    And we can also address (c) the underlying problem that continues regardless of cycles, and that’s the accumulation of calcification in the form of corruption, rent seeking, and free riding, that consumes all avalilable capital, including adaptive capacity of the population, and dooms a civilization when it lacks capital and incentives and behavioral training to adapt to changes or shocks.

    READING FOR THE NERDS:
    Cycle Theory, from simple to hard:

    • Wiki: Kondratiev and Kondratiev Cycles (cartoon).
    • Strauss and Howe – Generations by (intro)
    • Carrol Quigley the Evolution of Civilizations (general)
    • Peter Turchin: Secular Cycles; Complex Population Dynamics. (demographics)
    • Spengler: For Extra Credit – though as a continental he’s got the usual german pessimism. (cultural)
    • More Extra Credit: The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle. (economics)

    That’s it.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-25 17:14:38 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107684225226925921

  • #CRYPTOCRASH AND THE FUTURE OF #CRYPTO The #cryptocrash is not yet severe. It’s

    AND THE FUTURE OF

    The is not yet severe. It’s driven by the fact that most holders are techies, and tech stocks are taking the hit,so they are moving with tech stocks. However,non-tech is down 50% already meaning all tech stocks are hyperinflated as people try to time market exits.

    It’s not possible to predict whether crypto stocks will restore, disentangle from tech stocks, or if when tech stocks reach margin calls, that people will sell crypto. It’s possible that they will flee to crypto if brave. I suspect in panic they will flee to cash.

    Y’all can hate me for this but as I said, crypto is simply free offbook research and development for the state that will impose even more economic intervention using Fedcoins. Thursday the Fed asked for input on Fedcoin. Today Russia bans crypto. This is just the beginning.

    Like I’ve been saying for a decade now: the money in crypto is provisioning tech to governments the way Blackrock and Visa provision tech for the state. They will outlaw by closing in and out doorways all competing digital coins, and will convert all to Fedcoin as I predicted.

    And FWIW, as I predicted, it’s not money. Each coin is just a divisible share in the coin’s network. As such it will not behave like money, it will behave like shares, and mirror the share market not serve as a defense from it. This is what we are seeing in the markets.

    Again – I’m not anti crypto. Just the opposite. I just don’t think that it results in money substitute. Everything else but. The problem is the FEDCOIN is specifically not what we need – fed managed.

    My concern with crypto over the past decade is that discourse on crypto is not based on first principles of monetary instruments, and instead on sophistic and pseudoscientific analogy with extraordinary bias. I’ve been criticized for truthiness – but I was correct

    If you understand that the crypto innovation is that it’s a stock in an asset-less, unbacked, uninsured corporation(technically a voluntary partnership) that it’s relatively difficult to steal shares from, and as such a divisible share of token money, you can predict behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-21 20:22:07 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107662313240172163

  • Background: I asked how me and my (small) organization would differ from Bannon

    Background: I asked how me and my (small) organization would differ from Bannon

    Background: I asked how me and my (small) organization would differ from Bannon and his (large).

    ENDING THE FALSE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN CIVIC AND ETHNONATIONALISM.

    (The supermajority of Europeans can practice scientific social, economic, political, and group evolutionary strategy that the enemies pejoratively call ‘whiteness’. Only a super-minority of non-Europeans can do so.)

    I don’t do ideology. I do science. The science says what it says. Restore scientific law, we call the constitution of natural law, and in doing so restore a ‘scientific’ civilization, including the unscientific method by which christianity indoctrinates the common folk into the scientific basis of optimum social order: the solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: the exhaustion of forgivness by the extension of kinship love.

    The thing is, you need a homogenous ethnocentric polity to pay the cost of the purely scientific european group evolutionary strategy of continuous innovation, application, and adaptation to the continuous discovery the laws of the universe: the only laws any god if there is one ever made.

    All we have to so is raise our standards (which my work on restoring the constitution and completing what’s missing from it), and we will drive out the enemy and the inferior simply because they cannot tolerate the demand for people of good character that put family, society, polity, nation, and race before their individual hedonism.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-20 17:41:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107656019027848876

  • THE PROBLEM WITH LAUNCHING A REVOLUTION The primary reason for business failure

    THE PROBLEM WITH LAUNCHING A REVOLUTION

    The primary reason for business failure is launching too early. The secondary reason for business failure is focusing internally rather than on customers. The third reason for business failure is a lack of capital. The fourth reason is a weak team or a divided team. We would fail for all of these reasons. ‘We can’t release buggy software and right now we’ve got buggy alpha software”

    The market has to be ready. The overton window has to be over the middle class. It probably has to be over ‘moms’. The economy has to create uncertainty. And the people must be angry about their conditions. Most of these conditions are converging as expected.

    The problem remains that the dumb young f___ks make coalesence and convergence of the factions impossible. As such we must understand that the people who are currently active and providing feedback and participating in conversations are the people least likely to matter. They are the least likely to show. The least likely to be competent. and the least l ikely to follow direction.

    Ergo 1) our bottom feeders will most likely cause failure of any revoution 2) we will need to leave large numbers of them behind and silence them in order to produce a revolution 3) because they are such ‘shits’ that they poison the well for any and all emerging talent. In other words, we may need a way of ‘burning’ them in order to achieve fictory if we cannot find a way to prevent the harm they do with every character they type on social media.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-19 03:18:04 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107646961869019592