Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE OLDEST RELIGION? —“Which is the world’s oldest religion? What is the evide

    THE OLDEST RELIGION?

    —“Which is the world’s oldest religion? What is the evidence of it?”— Quora

    The correct question is “What is the oldest political religion?”, because that is the function of all surviving religions from the Axial period. Sumerians first wrote down their religions in 3500 BCE and most political religions evolved evolved from competition with theirs. We see evidence if organized religion in Anatolia from 8–9,000 bc, predating stonehenge by 6000 years.

    It appears we developed religious practices (what we call sacred, but is more correctly, suppression of all self interest, status signal, and dominance expression ) no less than 40k years ago. There was our first and longest dark age around 20–21k bc. Then practices resumed, around 13k bc.

    it wasn’t that long – about 8000 bc – until farming, and farming creates folk religions in an and around anatolia -still burial focused.

    Around 5500 bc the indo europeans developed sacrificial religion, and spread it – man now bargaining with the gods.

    And again, by 3300 we see the rapid development of political religion in every region of eurasia.

    |Religion|: Burial > Sacrificial > Political > [Theraputic]

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-22 18:48:00 UTC

  • Dear Overconfident Young Men

    Dear Overconfident Young Man. [W]ords mean what we define them to mean, that is why definitions evolve with our knowledge. I have to convert terms and phrases, sentences and arguments into operational language, and deconflate terms into series in order to increase precision and prohibit error, bias, and deceit. Ergo, words mean what I define them to mean. Reforming language is part of what we do here in our pursuit of defeating the lies of the left. re: A term such as natural law. Search my site for ‘a short course in natural law‘ for definitions and explanations. I use the internet for market testing, not peer review. You aren’t the peer review because you lack sufficient knowledge to function as a peer, or a reviewer. at best you are a market test of the difficulty of educating the ignorant and lazy, who demand spoon-feeding in fast food rather than engaging in educational discourse. yet i am at present investing my time in attempting to educate you anyway. because i understand the folly of young men, but also that such folly can be put to good use if correctly directed. I don’t make claims I am infallible, only that I limit myself to claims upon which I have performed the scientific method of due diligence against ignorance error bias, fictionalism, and deceit. As such it is extremely difficult to err. and I have applied this technique in many fields so I have accumulated an inventory of claims I can make with high confidence. Otherwise I say I don’t know, or the question is undecidable, or my presumption not having performed due diligence, is that this set of options is possible. I teach men by playing King if The Hill Games, and rewarding those that succeed with feedback and additional investment in their progress. The internet is a locker room and I teach men in men’s fashion: dominance play. I am nothing like this in person. This is my job and it is how I have learned to do my job by managing, teaching, negotiating with, and persuading people over decades. I have written about each of these topics dozens of times. Yet you walk into my virtual classroom and presume you are a font of intelligence, wit, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue, and have no idea what goes on or why, nor basic knowledge of the subjects spoken of, when in fact you are just another young man taught by too many women and postmodernists to have conviction despite your ignorance. I teach many such foolish young men. and those who have the intellectual honesty to admit their error are the ones I invest in. Things are not what they seem on first blush. First blush is nothing but a measure of your ignorance of the context. cheers.

  • Dear Overconfident Young Men

    Dear Overconfident Young Man. [W]ords mean what we define them to mean, that is why definitions evolve with our knowledge. I have to convert terms and phrases, sentences and arguments into operational language, and deconflate terms into series in order to increase precision and prohibit error, bias, and deceit. Ergo, words mean what I define them to mean. Reforming language is part of what we do here in our pursuit of defeating the lies of the left. re: A term such as natural law. Search my site for ‘a short course in natural law‘ for definitions and explanations. I use the internet for market testing, not peer review. You aren’t the peer review because you lack sufficient knowledge to function as a peer, or a reviewer. at best you are a market test of the difficulty of educating the ignorant and lazy, who demand spoon-feeding in fast food rather than engaging in educational discourse. yet i am at present investing my time in attempting to educate you anyway. because i understand the folly of young men, but also that such folly can be put to good use if correctly directed. I don’t make claims I am infallible, only that I limit myself to claims upon which I have performed the scientific method of due diligence against ignorance error bias, fictionalism, and deceit. As such it is extremely difficult to err. and I have applied this technique in many fields so I have accumulated an inventory of claims I can make with high confidence. Otherwise I say I don’t know, or the question is undecidable, or my presumption not having performed due diligence, is that this set of options is possible. I teach men by playing King if The Hill Games, and rewarding those that succeed with feedback and additional investment in their progress. The internet is a locker room and I teach men in men’s fashion: dominance play. I am nothing like this in person. This is my job and it is how I have learned to do my job by managing, teaching, negotiating with, and persuading people over decades. I have written about each of these topics dozens of times. Yet you walk into my virtual classroom and presume you are a font of intelligence, wit, wisdom, knowledge, and virtue, and have no idea what goes on or why, nor basic knowledge of the subjects spoken of, when in fact you are just another young man taught by too many women and postmodernists to have conviction despite your ignorance. I teach many such foolish young men. and those who have the intellectual honesty to admit their error are the ones I invest in. Things are not what they seem on first blush. First blush is nothing but a measure of your ignorance of the context. cheers.

  • (Revised Intro To Propertarianism) THE NATURAL LAW PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL

    (Revised Intro To Propertarianism)

    THE NATURAL LAW

    PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL LAW

    AS PHYSICS IS TO THE LAWS OF NATURE

    But what are we more precisely referring to when we use the term “Propertarianism”?

    1) The completion of the scientific method and its application to social science.

    The completion of the scientific method is the core achievement of the work, and in retrospect it explains the reason for the rise of social pseudoscience from Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Mainstream Economics, The Frankfurt School, The Success in circumventing the Constitution, the libertarianism of Rothbard/Rand, and the Neoconservatism of Strauss. The Postmodernists and the rise of postmodernism in the academy. And the Feminists, and the feminization of markets, the workplace, norms, educations, and institutions, and the infantilization of the population as a consequence.

    2) The Natural Law of Human Cooperation

    However we focus our application of the completed scientific method on Economics, Ethics, Law Politics, and Group Evolutionary Strategy, and we use demonstrated property in its totality as a unit of measure – in not only economic, but ethical, moral, legal, and political commensurability. So the word ‘propertarianism’ refers to the use of demonstrated interests, and the defense of those interests, as a unit of measure providing commensurability, and the test of reciprocity as truth or falsehood, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, and legal or illegal. And in fact, this is how all law is constructed today in one way or another, and to one degree or another.

    So, the correct name for the work we call ‘propertarianism’ would be The Natural Law.

    We just can’t use it because the term has been so loaded throughout history, on the one hand, and because it’s not an identifiable ‘brand’ on the other.

    So the simple version is:

    Laws of Nature = The Physical Sciences.

    Natural Law = The Social Sciences.

    Sorry but it’s a paradigm shift that we just have to pay the cost of learning.

    3) A Set of Related and Dependent Ideas

    We use the ‘brand name’ Propertarianism to refer collectively to three different sets of ideas:

    – Methodology: The Natural Law including restatements of metaphysics, psychology, sociology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy (the cooperation, competition, and conflict of civilizations).

    – Application: The Use of the Natural Law to Produce Constitutions, and therefore Societies, Nations, and Civilizations, in Accordance with Natural Law.

    – Explanation: The reason for the disproportionate contribution an success of the west in the ancient and modern worlds. And The history of the cycles of conflict between western(european) and eastern(asian) masculine civilizations against and central(semitic) feminine civilizations.

    Counsel: Given that we are now in the post subsistence-agrarian era, we are wealthy enough to express our genetic differences, and as such are entering into political conflict between the ancient female herd reproductive strategy and civilizations, and the male pack reproductive strategy and civilizations. It appears we can no longer compromise, and neither interest can be pursued without some sort of oppression or genocide. So we can no longer assume we will create a one-world-government and a uniformity among peoples, but instead, we must separate, prospert, and speciate according to our genetic interests, and our differences in moral intuition because of those interests. As such the constitutions we recommend, are those that facilitate ‘letting a thousand nations bloom’ and returning to the speciation that we were in the process of achieving prior to both the anglo conquest of the world by sea, and the gradual transformation of our means of production from hunter-gathering and speciation, to agrarianism and unification. The future is very different from that under which the majority of our history was written down.

    It is often challenging to understand which of these things we are discussing in at any given moment even if they are independent, because we use them in concert in most of our discussions. The reason is that we tend to be working on Counsel, because we already understand Methodology, Application, and Explanation.

    Summary: Only europeans could invent The Laws of Nature and the Natural Laws – but EVERY people can use them to prosper. And to some degree, our future prosperity, is dependent upon doing so.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-22 09:28:00 UTC

  • UM NO. HERE IS WHERE THEISM COMES FROM: CONFLICT AVOIDANCE AND COOPERATIVE DISCO

    UM NO. HERE IS WHERE THEISM COMES FROM: CONFLICT AVOIDANCE AND COOPERATIVE DISCOUNTS

    —“Atheism can only be tenable if consciousness can be explained.”— Carl Onni

    A declaration not an observation. I can explain consciousness, the demand for mindfulness absent life in the band(tribe), and the means by which gods provide that mindfulness.

    —“But since consciousness can not be explained by a materialist paradigm; theism is tenable and atheism untenable.”— Carl

    Consciousness can be explained scientifically and it’s not even complicated. Within a few decades we’ll be able to both explain it biologically, and reproduce it mechanically.

    Sympathy/Empathy between conscious creatures is limited to shared sensations. Shared sensations and language in particular, overstate the equality of our experiences.

    Theism and Atheism are choices of decision models, just like theology, philosophy, history, law, and science are choices of decision models. It’s that each of these models places greater demands on our intuition or greater demands on our knowledge and reason. in other words, it’s just a question of neural economics. Particularly because the solipsism-autism (female-male) cognitive spectrum burdens us with either greater intuition (female) or greater reason (male).

    —“Clarification: mere matter can never explain consciousness. Because consciousness is made up of a completely different category of things (qualia) than the material (matter)”— Carl

    The experience of changes in state between neurological connections and the accompanying responses from our reward systems are rather easy to explain. The fact that due to informational sparseness required for our continuous forecasting (humans) rather than continuous experiencing (apes, crows, dogs ) – our mental models are inverted where chimps are almost always experiencing the present and humans vary from partly experiencing the present to entirely experiencing the forecast (model, imagination).

    In other words, consciousness is made of actions (verbs) and material is made of objects (nouns), and so the comparison of the two is a sophism of conflating a constant category with a continuous category. In other words, we run, we experience consciousness. They are actions. Actinos transform state they are not a state. So like most philosophical questions this one is rather dimwitted. Like I say regularly – there are no difficult philosophical questions that are not errors in grammar. If sentences are stated in operational grammar then these philosophical questions are immediately shown to be simply malformed equations.

    –“There is a fundamental categorical separation between them. That separation negates the explanatory value of any scientific understanding of consciousness.”– Carl

    Yes, continuous actions vs static states.

    The fact that the continuously recursive neural processing – the ‘light of the christmas tree lights’ that make up your brain – takes time to decay preserves state from millisecond to millisecond, provides you with persistence of vision across a series of changes is rather simple – and your ability to introspect on those changes is not possible because it would require a separate memory to do so. But it’s literally no more complicated than what occurs when watching a video at x frames per second.

    –“It will always miss the mark so to speak. Even if the “phenomenon” of consciousness where to be described perfectly down to the quark level.”—

    We well can explain it down to the quark level. Which is why we know we have some degree of free will: neural economy requires we assemble experience from a combination of sensory inputs and fragmentary memory. And our rather fragmentary memory is necessary in order to reduce costs sufficiently to produce speech continuously and recursively in real time.

    —“Some “thing” would be missing. That thing would be qualia.”—

    Nothing is missing other than training in how to avoid sophisms in language, how to avoid sophisms in philosophy and theology, and the general construction of brain regions and reward systems, and the general problem of solving problems with bayesian networks.

    In other words, any sufficiently advanced understanding appears like magic to the ignorant.

    There is no magic here. There is nothing supernatural here.

    The brain is a rather understandable object at present with the caveat that we will spend the rest of the century if not longer exploring its nuances.

    None of which, so far, have been more complex than we imagined in the 1950’s.

    We all need models in order to calculate action amidst complex social orders. We can create models with the people we have: family, band, clan, tribe, nation, man; or we can create models of imaginary families, bands, clans, tribes, nations.

    There is some value in using imaginary pack leaders, parents, friends, families, bands, clans, tribes, and nations, because we can idealize them and therefore neither fear judgment nor judge, fear grudges, nor begrudge, fear offense, nor be offended. By circumventing fear of judgement, grudge or offense we can relax and role play truthfully with these imaginary individuals. We can idolize them and use them as role models to calculate actions with others who also use them as role models to calculate actions with you. This is how we use imaginary pack leaders, parents, friends, families etc.

    With men more likely to use a pack leader and women more likely to use the consensus of the herd. FOr this very reason women are more susceptible to idealizations then men are. It is impossible to calculate the herd without models. it is rather easy to calculate using a pack leader.

    It’s really that simple.

    No. Really. It’s THAT SIMPLE.

    We are still carrying the intuition that evolved with us: male packs and female herds held by males.

    Everything else is narrative attempts to compensate for those differences and many others between the super-predators that we are.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-21 08:55:00 UTC

  • THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION You know, we taught Propertarianism (social science), Ec

    THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION

    You know, we taught Propertarianism (social science), Economics (micro, human, and macro), and Stoicism (mental fitness), and Fighting (physical fitness and war) then it would be possible to read Spengler, Nietzsche, and Hegel (not kant), without doing harm along with the good. Not sure yet about any of the others. The difference between the anglo scientific and german experiential is almost as vast as between the german experiential, russian spiritual, and the semitic supernatural. The problem is, that accessibility to anglo-scandinavians, continentals, orthodoxy, and semitism increases along that spectrum. Once we have the criticism of religion, abrahamism, sophisms and sentimentalisms written down as a science, they become nothing more than a spectrum of literature just like science, history, biography, novel, myth, and parable.

    I mean I know that my distaste for continental thought has declined rapidly with my increase in articulate criticism of nonsense-religion and abrahamism.

    I assume this would serve as a subconscious reaction by everyone educated.

    We saw the same thing with empiricism and the scientific revolution that we are seeing with the biological and computer science revolution.

    As I said in the past, I am pretty sure the leap in cognitive ability of the average person under Propertarianism would be as large as the leap of the average person under sciences.

    in other words we might be able to DRAMATICALLY SHIFT the demographic burden of demonstrated intelligence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-20 10:55:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE IN GRAMMARS IS A DIFFERENCE IN METHOD BTW: Regarding Greg, Richar

    THE DIFFERENCE IN GRAMMARS IS A DIFFERENCE IN METHOD

    BTW: Regarding Greg, Richard, (and many others): I respect both of them (and those less well known) and their heroic efforts – and I won’t speak other than in support of them.

    But I will ask you to notice in them the study of philosophy and their advocacy by moral and sentimental appeal to generate understanding and consent.

    The spectrum of argumentative methods:

    1) Religion and Theology to agree on a means of resistance for the collective good.

    2) Philosophy and Morality to create understanding and to obtain consent on a collective good.

    3) Science, Economics, Law, and War to impose a collective good regardless of resistance, understanding, and consent.

    We are and always have been the minority.

    We drag mankind behind us on a heavy sled.

    There is no sovereignty by undrestanding or consent, only the organized application of violence to deny anyone and everyone the alternative. If they understand and consent all the better. But understanding an consent are not necessary.

    This is the difference in my message.

    War.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-20 09:18:00 UTC

  • The west in the ancient and modern world raised mankind out of superstition, ign

    The west in the ancient and modern world raised mankind out of superstition, ignorance, poverty and dysgenia. The muslim world put people into superstition, ignorance, poverty, decline, and disgenia. It’s not complicated.There was no golden age any more than napoleonic artwork.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-19 15:56:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075419485102841856

    Reply addressees: @Theocracy4all

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075413875560996864

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1075413875560996864

  • THE MUSLIM EXPANSION WAS CATASTROPHIC FOR THE WORLD – JUST AS WAS THE JEWISH AND

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kcYES THE MUSLIM EXPANSION WAS CATASTROPHIC FOR THE WORLD – JUST AS WAS THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN.

    The west in the ancient and modern world raised mankind out of superstition, ignorance, poverty and dysgenia. The muslim world put people into superstition, ignorance, poverty, decline, and disgenia. It’s not complicated.There was no golden age any more than napoleonic artwork.

    The islamic destruction of every great civilization of the ancient world and the descent into ignorance, poverty, and genetic dysgenia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7y2LRcf4kc …

    The west fell by overexpansion into the middle east in a foolish attempt to maintain alexander’s empire. The result was inability to resist the germans given the migration due to the Celtic Holocaust. The spread of jews into the empire, and resulting Jewish revolutionary undermining, spread via women and slaves, later imposed by emperors in the east as a means of destroying the aristocracy and the empire, and the islamic prevention of the restoration of roman population and order after war, and plague. The muslims then conducted 1400 years of raids against europe – we invented castles to stop

    them. Everywhere the west touches people get wealthier (or die) Everywhere islam went people declined. If it wasn’t for the turks providing new genes arabian lands would be indifferent from africa.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-19 11:00:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND STOICISM VS BUDDHISM? —“We ought to discuss Buddhism (I am

    PROPERTARIANISM AND STOICISM VS BUDDHISM?

    —“We ought to discuss Buddhism (I am a Buddhist) and Propertarianism (I’ve discussed various matters with Curt Doolittle) in the future.”— Andrew Taylor

    by The Propertarian Institute

    It’s not complicated. Buddhism evolved out of hinduism’s ‘spiritualism’ and because of that started out very similar to stoicism but with less empirical names of phenomenon, and was largely a way of developing mindfulness by way of REJECTING the world.

    Stoicism began as self authoring and was very close to the then-greco-roman empirical method. It’s purpose was to facilitate ACTION in the world, despite our emotions. Stoicism was incorporated into christianity when the stoic schools were forcibly closed by the christian hordes. Buddhism was adopted widely but evolved into a religion rather than a discipline.

    This has to do largely with the means of spreading stoicism (middle class schools) vs the means of spreading buddhism (common folk under direction of independent teachers, and eventually out of political utility as in japan. )

    Where buddhism is pacific and heroic, stoicism is martial and heroic. Otherwise they are similar.

    My suspicion is that stoicism would have turned into a religion like stoicism if it had not been suppressed by the jews, christians, and the byzantine (greek) re-conquest of rome.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-18 11:37:00 UTC