Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552041503 Timestamp) SOMEONE COMPLAINED ABOUT ME ELSEWHERE …. (I thought I was promoting their ideas….) From the Rules….

    1. No Fed posting. It’s fine to want revolutionary change, but we don’t need to bring unwanted attention to yourself and the group. If you want to talk about that, for the love of God(s) don’t do it on Facebook, they can see everything you do.
    2. Keep it civil. Do you think of yourself as pillar standing above the ruins of modernity? Prove it by acting like a higher man, and not some uppity snivelling modern. This is a place for building unity and community.
    3. Confidentiality, no unauthorized screenshots. That’s an immediate ban.
    4. I don’t want to do the Christian v Pagan thing here. I’ve got my opinions of Christianity, and I know some of you have your opinions on Paganism. It’s a pointless debate that will do nothing, but sowing division. I’ll say it again, this is a place for building unity and community.

    … Yep, that’s me. … Yep, that’s me. … Yep, that’s me. … Yep, that’s me. My goal with this group is to build fellowship, and that many of us will come to eventually see ourselves as brothers in arms. … I think maybe I should just leave the group. 😉 … I mean, they could have just ASKED me. … So….. I left the group. No axe to grind. We all fight the good fight as best we know how.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551988756 Timestamp) “THE GOYIM KNOW” Their technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. It’s not just usury. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard. Instead, it’s every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and crique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional. It ends now. De-financialization, De-politicization, De-distinformationalization, and restoration of our eugenic group evolutionary strategy in our own self interest. It’s easy. The law. The most intolerant law ever made. With the law we make the extirpation of parasites a for-profit business for every citizen of character Propertarianism.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552010801 Timestamp) NOPE NOPE —“Curt: What would (….) in a propertarian society?”— PROP IS A METHOD. Propertarianism is a methodology, consisting of a set of methodologies, a set of definitions, and a set of arguments, that produce a commensurable language, complete the scientific method, and embody that scientific method into rule of law. What you do with that law is wide open – it just has to be transparent, and it will prohibit all sorts of lying in public about whatever order you have. P-law is extremely facist out of the box – it is extremely nationalistic, and extremely intolerant, and especially intolerant of our ancient enemy’s means of deceit. And It is very hard to engage in malfeasance under P-Law since it is simply too profitable for individuals to report criminals for fun and profit. It is a ruthless system of government for enemies of the productive people. It has no mercy for enemies foreign or domestic. FOR MY PEOPLE My focus has been on correcting the United states first, and the other european states second. I recommend, for my people, and my people alone, because my people alone appear capable of it: 0 – An independent judiciary of the natural law 1 – A militia of all able bodied men in the regimental model, attached to a ‘church’/’school’. A standing army of professional warriors, and citizen employees of the military who are inducted in emergencies, since an increasing scope of military work is technical and administrative. 2 – A Hereditary Monarchy with a professional cabinet 3 – Virtual Houses of Governors, Industry, Business, Labor, and Family(homeowners). Where house members are selected randomly from the population, to provide assent or dissent to proposals by the monarchy in the raising and use of taxes. And where all houses must ‘pass’ (ascend). 4 – A near prohibition on bureaucracy; all government service “at the pleasure of the monarchy”; and a prohibition on pensions for public servants. 5 – My understanding is that this would provide all the benefits of fascism without the need for a dictator-character and the attendant risk. Even then, there is no reason a monarch cannot appoint such a person as did the romans, in times of crisis or need. FLIPPED INCENTIVES This produces a very different set of incentives since everyone is always and everywhere accountable for everything. MIDDLE CLASS IS HARD TO BEAT Monarchies appear to run better governments until they cannot. They cannot when the commercial complexity reaches the point of choosing limited investments from a host of possible investments. In this case the middle class appears to do well UNTIL they start socializing losses and privatizing the commons or engaging in arbitrage against the long term interests of the people. FEDERATION Any number of these monarchies can be federated under a supreme court of the natural law, just as the church federated the monarchies under church ‘license’ – the principle value of the court and the church being the ‘delegitimization’ of a ruler or a government, there by sanctioning the people and neighbors to replace that ruler, in the european tradition. This would, I expect, be rare, since royal families are extremely intolerant of family members who risk their status – and often make them ‘disappear’. My preference (Fantasy) would be to restore the anglo empire, and the germanic (Holy roman) empire, and to complete the intermarium and end the conflict of the 20th century brought about by ((())) the enemies of our people under the banner of world communism and the destruction of our peoples. FOR OTHER PEOPLES For other peoples I recommend a flexible system of government not terribly different from the Roman and English:

    • Fascism (Generalship) for time of war or conflict.
    • Monarchies with professional cabinets as long as possible
    • Adding Houses of government as via negativa juries when too large. These juries must only approve/deny raising of funds by the monarchy (cabinet).
    • If for some reason some semblance of democracy is necessary (it isn’t, but it may be impossible to avoid it for pragmatic reasons) I recommend virtual houses for each of the classes and genders, where classes trade in a market rather than pass legislation by majority rule. Where resources are either equally or proportionally distributed. Then posting proposals for x months, then using a lottery (Greece) rather than politicians to select the juries (houses), then allowing the juries to conduct business (trade)

    In other words, there is no ‘propertarian society’ per se other than all those societies run under rule of law by natural law. So…. You can ask me questions of natural law – ‘what would the law say about ????’ You can ask me about different political orders: “what order, or what would you recommend for ????” You can ask me what constitution I’d recommend for america or germany, or england or poland etc. “what would you recommend for????” You can ask me what I’ve put in the working constitution. As long as they are under natural law they are ‘propertarian’. If they are not then they are not.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552153817 Timestamp) –“Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103 Foundations is done, and LAW203/6 and we have worked through the method, the definitions, and then the long list of applications of that law, we have a purely descriptive science of the psychological and social sciences. I am on the third revision of LAW103 – Foundations, and it is … well it’s where you can understand it pretty easily as a single thing in a hierarchy of applications. And that the number of component parts is just a handful that I could roll off right now with east. I will be done with 103 fairly shortly, and doing so has helped me shorten the book down to something very simple. Between the constitution (which is a chinese menu) , the Course LAW103/LAW203/6, and a book containing both, the work will be rock solid. And it is achievable. And while y’all complain about me taking so long (and I complain too) the time I take matters because it allows me to turn all of this prose into something parsimonious, clear, and accessible to most people by one means or another. b) The Institute owns everything I do other than my software biz which is owned by me and my investors. If anything happens to me all IP goes either to the institute, or to my investors, with a portion of any software profits for my family. c) In the case where something happens to me, the institute, a few people whose names I won’t mention, and the donors will have license to do what they will with the work after I’m gone. d) There are people here today capable of continuing the work. The problem is that I am able for various economic reasons to devote full time to the effort, and they are not. The best people have limited time to devote. My hope would be that the institute will evolve successfully into an online university for teaching this material, and a network of schools and teachers will evolve and will provide income to those people willing and able to continue the work whether contributing or simply persisting it. e) I need to be clear though that my age and health are not in my favor. Even this winter I’ve been questionably effective since maybe mid december because of health issues. But, if I can finish the courses, constitution, and book, and then spend the rest of my time using the same method to produce courses and books I will be productive as long as I am able, and reconstruct the western canon – a full academic program that is defended against the left forever. I have to get into a living condition where i can walk and lift every day but sleep enough every night so that I stay healthy enough to do it. And I’m not keen on abandoning care of my elders to do that. LAW103 – Foundations – The Method (“The Core”) LAW106 Foundations: Man, Law, and Argument LAW206 Application and Reformation It is possible that if I continue making similar progress that law 106 will be just another 3 credits. I can’t easily estimate the work load without completing the course. People might be able to do the work faster than I assume. Law 206 (application to the scope of knowledge) should be a 300 level course i think, and Law 306 a 400 level course, since it involves writing constitutions for different groups of people. After that we then go to comparative legal systems and tear apart constitutions and legal systems on a country by country basis. Once that is donet here will be no legal scholars in the world that can compete with Propertarian Jurists with any excuse other than ‘it’s tradition’. Now that I feel REALLY secure about the Foundations, I feel like the workload for students will drop, because once you get the hang of it I think a lot of this will come more naturally than I expected. I would love to get this into a two year program, and then spend more time on economics, history and war to fill out a degree. But again. I have this work and my software work to do and I’m not 30 years old any longer.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.

  • (FB 1552574419 Timestamp) As far as I know we are very close to submission to th

    (FB 1552574419 Timestamp) As far as I know we are very close to submission to the inescapable necessity, that the physics of the universe at existential scale is complete, and that no forces or interactions exist or can that we do not know of. Moreover that modifying our ‘stories’ such that they, our experiences, our thoughts, and actions work ever closer to those rules. In other words, a majority of people demonstrate preference for the results even if a minority demonstrate preference for what produces those results. Worse, that we evolved our language, cooperation in a division of labor, and all our works, in a period of very short ‘safety’ here on this earth, and here in this place in the universe. We do not have any luxury of ‘free riding’ on this world or the universe. But it is this particular difference between those of us who seek to consume(relax) above all else, and those of us who seek to produce(achieve) above all else, that separates our understanding of the world. As far as I can determine, we all seek to create stories that are discordant with that universe for a host of reasons – all of which are reducible to our desires being contrary to it. Because we survive and prosper by the same means as does all life: the seizure of opportunity to resist entropy.

  • (FB 1552574419 Timestamp) As far as I know we are very close to submission to th

    (FB 1552574419 Timestamp) As far as I know we are very close to submission to the inescapable necessity, that the physics of the universe at existential scale is complete, and that no forces or interactions exist or can that we do not know of. Moreover that modifying our ‘stories’ such that they, our experiences, our thoughts, and actions work ever closer to those rules. In other words, a majority of people demonstrate preference for the results even if a minority demonstrate preference for what produces those results. Worse, that we evolved our language, cooperation in a division of labor, and all our works, in a period of very short ‘safety’ here on this earth, and here in this place in the universe. We do not have any luxury of ‘free riding’ on this world or the universe. But it is this particular difference between those of us who seek to consume(relax) above all else, and those of us who seek to produce(achieve) above all else, that separates our understanding of the world. As far as I can determine, we all seek to create stories that are discordant with that universe for a host of reasons – all of which are reducible to our desires being contrary to it. Because we survive and prosper by the same means as does all life: the seizure of opportunity to resist entropy.