Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Tactics

    [T]hese posts are an illustration of the current form of warfare – fourth generation warfare. This is the dominant form of warfare – as illustrated by iran – because military action is no longer possible by most actors. Therefore the use of “irregulars” is once again returning to norm after the long ‘rules of war’ institutionalized by europeans to the point where we assumed our ‘pacification of warfare’ was a given. TACTICS Washington DC caved to the civil rights movement in just three weeks. As soon as fires started. Why? Control is an illusion. A tiny number of people create the pretense. The state cannot tolerate the illusion of loss of control. This is why Baltimore and Kansas City and such were let go: the force necessary would result in the loss of political legitimacy and the evidence of the illusion of institutional control. FAILED TACTICS For those of us who remember the marxists and civil rights movements of the sixties and seventies, bombings were a daily if not weekly occurrence. We are reminded of a few right wing activists frequently, but we are never reminded of the fact that marxists of all sorts and the civil rights movement was a continuous campaign of ATTENTION-SEEKING violence, with as many as five bombings per day. Civil terrorism doesn’t work. It never works. Revolts against the institutions do work. Revolts with SPECIFIC DEMANDS work – if those demands are JUST. Self determination is just. FROM TIME MAGAZINE

    —“Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: “Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’” The underground groups of the 1970s were a kind of grungy, bell-bottomed coda to the protests of the 1960s; their members were mostly onetime student leftists who refused to give up the utopian dreams of 1968. While little remembered today, there was a time during the early 1970s when the U.S. government—the Nixon Administration—considered these groups a genuine threat to national security. Alarmed by a series of Weatherman attacks, Nixon told J. Edgar Hoover during a June 1970 Oval Office meeting that “revolutionary terror” represented the single greatest threat to American society. Hoover promised to do what he could, which wasn’t much. As paranoid as Nixon could be, it was hard to argue with his line of thinking: Bombing attacks were growing by the day. They had begun as crude, simple things, mostly Molotov cocktails college radicals hurled toward ROTC buildings during the late 1960s. The first actual bombing campaign, the work of a group of New York City radicals led by a militant named Sam Melville, featured attacks on a dozen buildings around Manhattan between August and November 1969, when Melville and most of his pals were arrested. Weather’s attacks began three months later, and by 1971 protest bombings had spread across the country. In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance. The deadliest underground attack of the decade, in fact, killed all of four people, in the January 1975 bombing of a Wall Street restaurant. News accounts rarely carried any expression or indication of public outrage.”—

    TACTICS Governments require economies. Economies require people, People require consumption. Consumption requires money. Commerce requires electronic transfer. Where they don’t have electronic transfer, it requires cash. Under duress demand for cash increases. Deprive the system of cash, and its value multiplies for those that have it. ISIS, with ex-Ba’ath party members, took out all the banks – fast. Source: ISIS TACTICS Their confidence comes from controlling the discourse, security in anonymity, and plausible deniability. This is a false confidence. Easily reversed. And commercial organizations lack coercive power. Or defensive resources. Source: napolitano mafia TACTICS Their confidence comes from communication, mobility, rallying nearby resources, and the concentration of forces. That confidence is easily eradicated by attrition of equipment. After that it’s just calling, and telling them to stay put. Don’t make an enemy. Appeal to incentives. Source? ISIS. TACTICS They are only in control until the third trap, and they figure out they’re involuntarily in the business of delivering supplies. Then they aren’t. Source: Mexican Cartels TACTICS The primary use of fifties is: helicopters. Ground or Air. Source: Taliban.

  • The Transformation of Mathematics

    [I]’ve come to understand that my long standing frustration with mathematics and the failure of mathematics in the 20th is that mathematics is fundamentally statistical and that the sequence counting-accounting(operational measurement), programming (operational change), and mathematics (commensurability by scale independence) reverses our understanding of mathematics as the primary logic. As human knowledge and the scale of our inquiry increased, the ‘hand calculation’ of statistical measures (math) failed. The evidence that computers provided with computation was predictable, but the insights we had from mandelbrot’s fractals, conway’s ‘life’, 3d cellular automata (advanced ‘life’), and wolfram’s current physics project, is that the statistical-probabilistic revolution, and the subsequent wave-form revolution together resulting in the half-truth, half-catastrophes of keynes’ pseudo-economics and bohr’s pseudo-probability of wave forms, and the loss of a century in economics and physics for having failed to invest in the ‘right’ mathematics and apply operational on the fundamental, and limit statistics to the expression and measurement of aggregates. When the underlying problem was that these questions cannot be solved by the use of statistics (aggregates) and only by discovery of their underlying operations.

  • The Transformation of Mathematics

    [I]’ve come to understand that my long standing frustration with mathematics and the failure of mathematics in the 20th is that mathematics is fundamentally statistical and that the sequence counting-accounting(operational measurement), programming (operational change), and mathematics (commensurability by scale independence) reverses our understanding of mathematics as the primary logic. As human knowledge and the scale of our inquiry increased, the ‘hand calculation’ of statistical measures (math) failed. The evidence that computers provided with computation was predictable, but the insights we had from mandelbrot’s fractals, conway’s ‘life’, 3d cellular automata (advanced ‘life’), and wolfram’s current physics project, is that the statistical-probabilistic revolution, and the subsequent wave-form revolution together resulting in the half-truth, half-catastrophes of keynes’ pseudo-economics and bohr’s pseudo-probability of wave forms, and the loss of a century in economics and physics for having failed to invest in the ‘right’ mathematics and apply operational on the fundamental, and limit statistics to the expression and measurement of aggregates. When the underlying problem was that these questions cannot be solved by the use of statistics (aggregates) and only by discovery of their underlying operations.

  • When We Perceive Something Wrong – We’re Right

    May 2, 2020, 11:07 AM (The Economics of Communication) To profit we must exchange. To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange. To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange. All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests. So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange. When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards. When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms. Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly? Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced? If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case? So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than universal commercialization (privatization). We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption. If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.

  • When We Perceive Something Wrong – We’re Right

    May 2, 2020, 11:07 AM (The Economics of Communication) To profit we must exchange. To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange. To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange. All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests. So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange. When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards. When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms. Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly? Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced? If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case? So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than universal commercialization (privatization). We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption. If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.

  • You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law

    May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.

  • You Won”t Be Able to Criticize or Falsify P-Logic and Law

    May 3, 2020, 9:40 AM Every professional discipline uses a methodology. P creates a single professional discipline of the metaphysical, psychological, social, political, and group strategy. It is to sentient sciences what physics is to non-sentient physical sciences. P is a methodology that produces a formal grammar (or logic). As such it is what we refer to as a formal science (formal logic of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology). We use that science to explain western civlization. We use the explanation of western civilization to explain why it’s the optimum civilization. We explain and advocate our preference for that optimum civilization. We use that understanding and preference of optimum civilization to correct past and present errors in that civilization, and to restore, reform, and, innovate on that optimum civilization. It is impossible to criticize the methodology (science). It is very difficult to criticize what we do with it. At best one can argue for preference of different organizations of our or other civilizations given the tactical advantage of circumstances, within that strategic optimum. You must be able to criticize P on it’s foundations and it’s propositions. (You won’t be able to). The difference between counting, accounting, mathematics, programming, and P is simply the increasing number of causal dimensions in the domains they describe). You certainly can criticize the choice of continuing the strategy of western civlization or the policy implementations we suggest to do so. But you aren’t going to be able to criticize the logic or science whatsoever. It won’t happen. You don’t know that yet. But I do. Hostility to criticism of any of the sciences (logical facility, logic, mathematics, accounting, mathematics, programming, P (P-logic, P-Law) is simply hostility to laziness and ignorance rather than informed debate. P is not a theology, philosophy, ideology, or analogy. It’s a (the) formal grammar (logic, vocabulary, paradigm) of sentient life if not all life.

  • The Current Transformation of Formal Sciences in The Context of History

    May 3, 2020, 10:09 AM [T]he Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’). Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics. Human logical facility > … Operations > … … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting …………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria) …………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american. I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right. We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese. The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Edit

  • The Current Transformation of Formal Sciences in The Context of History

    May 3, 2020, 10:09 AM [T]he Four Color Problem is an example of the limits of mathematics. A proof is just a test of internal consistency within the limits of mathematics. The point of mandelbrot’s work, and now wolframs, is that we are past the point of linguistic mathematics (‘statistics and sets’) and we are in the domain of computable mathematics(‘operations’). Or put differently – we have finally discovered the foundations of mathematics, and are in the process of falsifying the flawed project of the set foundations of mathematics and restoring operational foundations of mathematics. Human logical facility > … Operations > … … Counting -> Arithmetic -> Accounting …………………..-> Computations -> Symmetries(equilibria) …………………..-> Sets -> Mathematics -> Symmetries Or in historical terms we have restored the aristotelian-achimedian basis of mathematics and science that was lost and overtaken by greek platonism and middle eastern verbalism and pseudoscience in mathematics, that was restored to geometry by Descartes and Empiricism by the British, and undermined by the Jewish logicians and mathematicians and german and jewish philosophers, but is in the process of being restored by the present generation which is jewish-german-british-american. I’m kind of … sad, wolfram beat me to it. Because I would have loved to work on the problem if I had another lifetime. But I’m happy to stick with the social sciences and explain why he’s right. And to provide perhaps a better explanation of why he’s right. We are seeing the end of the ‘jewish century of pseudoscience’ and my argument that we have paid the cost of jewish integration into aristotelianism like we have paid the french, german, russian ,and chinese costs. But that the problem is the jews were among us rather than in their own country, so their undermining was more successful than the french, german, russian, and chinese. The question is whether we can correct course in the social sciences before immigration destroys our civilization and it’s ability to restore course in aristotelian-archimedian european realism, naturalism, operationalism, consistency, correspondence, sovereignty, rational choice, reciprocity, and markets in everything as the spectrum of near perfect correspondence with the universe in its physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Edit

  • No. Gold Isn’t Money any Longer

    May 3, 2020, 11:32 AM

    —“GOLD IS MONEY!”–

    No. You are confusing unperishability, collateral, commodity, and money. If gold was money it would not be priced in currency (which is liquid). It’s illiquid and volatile for the purpose of commerce and trade – particularly in imputation of prices and organizing production cycles – and that is why it’s not money: the transaction costs are ridiculous. And that’s why gold bugs want to sell it: to profit from the transaction costs of selling a commodity that is barely consumable but universally valuable by virtue of it’s demand, scarcity, unperishability, by false promise, fear, and doubt to suckers who feel out of control of their lives and the societies and their polities, and are desperate for psychological sedation by some sense of security – despite the fact that between purchase price and sale costs, they lose at least ten percent of its value, and the vaunted collapse never comes – because it can’t come under fiat currency targeted to maintaining price-inflation stability. Which is why we use fiat currency instead of gold: (a) we can maintain stability, (b) which increases the duration of the hierarchy and network of complex production cycles, (c) which decreases costs, and (d) continuously expands the sustainable networks of production and trade. (e) and gold isn’t insurable on deposit, and can’t be used as credit money in fractional reserve, so the price of credit would skyrocket. Gold is free to circulate. People don’t do it because THERE ISN’T ENOUGH OF IT. It’s possible to use gold as a backing for a physical currency money, but not for credit money. Almost every cent in circulation is credit money not money. So, the way we solve this problem is the way we do today: buy silver and gold as a hedge against volatility in the currency and use currency as a hedge against the volatility of the precious metals.