Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • INCARCERATION RATES IN CONTEXT OF TIME AND PLACE There is a reason we are {a hig

    INCARCERATION RATES IN CONTEXT OF TIME AND PLACE

    There is a reason we are {a high trust society, a prosperous society, a ‘diverse’ society, a rule of law society, and a high incarceration society}. While we might question the utility of imprisoning people over some drug use, we do not have levels of petty crime endemic to european countries, as well as the pervasive crime that troubles the rest of the world. And the violent crime we have is {drug related, race-restricted, and race-location-restricted} because proximity creates hostility.

    So, in other words, the cost of preservation of our relatively superior condition is high rates of incarceration, and the subsequent increased risk those who have been incarcerated face, and the subsequent grouping-together, and monitoring of those what have been incarcerated with those who are at risk, into areas that can be monitored.

    If we were to secede into racially exclusive and racially heterogeneous polities, then we would, as a consequence, also secede into high trust, high income, high commons, low crime polities, and lower trust, poorer, low commons, lower crime polities. Because groups would produce appropriate signals, behavior, manners, ethics, morals, commons, policies, and laws – and only enforce those laws suitable for their populations.

    White crime in america is not dissimilar from white europe. Although white under, lower, and working class intermixture with the non-white underclasses is causing defection from the middle class values we have spent 1500 years developing, and degeneration of those whites is accelerating.

    The data is what it is: we have lower testosterone in white groups, and greater neoteny (we mature more slowly), and higher IQ distributions, and testosterone and rapid maturity and lower IQ distributions create demand for more criminal behavior. East asians have lower demand for stimulation and lower demand for identity expression (greater conformity). This is because we have selected for heroism and identity, and they for harmony and conformity for all of known history. So we see as good or better performance from east asians as we do from our own. Strangely, Latinos have similar levels of testosterone, slightly lower neoteny, but still lower distributions of IQ, so their excessive criminality is due to only one of the biological factors, while africans to three factors of developmental differences. Given sufficient IQ, neoteny and testosterone can somewhat be ameliorated. But that is not possible without positive eugenics in the short term or negative eugenics in the long.

    Incarceration is visible but the smallest consequence of forced integration. We have lost so much of our civil society, our commons, our manners, ethics and morals, due to attempts at heterogeneous polities. You have to go to norway today to experience the difference. Finns are ‘different’, so they are an unfair comparison. But the germanic peoples all together from italy to norway were a very special people before forced integration. And this century has been a curse for us for reasons some of us fully understand. The freed slaves precisely the damage the protestants warned against. The catholics were precisely the political damage the protestants warned against. The jews were ten times the damage the protestants warned against. The opening of immigration by the left in 65, as ten times the damage the protestants and catholics warned against.

    The experiment has failed. Democracy failed. Globalism failed. The belief that people were oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated like all other animals failed. We debate whether we domesticated the dog, or it domesticated itself. We do not face the rather obvious genetic evidence, that we domesticated ourselves. And that we did so by some groups being more domesticated and therefore better organized and cooperative than others.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-13 08:57:00 UTC

  • Armies evolved to fight armies. Men will join armies more easily the guerillas.

    Armies evolved to fight armies.

    Men will join armies more easily the guerillas.

    Guerillas are very hard for armies to defeat.

    Armies are are hard to for guerillas to defeat.

    it costs more to sustain an army than a band of raiders.

    It costs more to sustain a city than a band of raiders.

    Ergo these are wars of attrition.

    The difference is that we are in an era where there is nothing accumulated in the supply lines.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-12 15:43:00 UTC

  • ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE COURSES —“Hey Curt, I saw your post about “young me

    ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE COURSES

    —“Hey Curt, I saw your post about “young men searching for answers” and I’m interested in the courses.

    1) —“Do you think these courses will be accessible to someone like me, or should I wait a while and try to learn a bit more first?”—

    I have worked very hard to make them accessible, by handing out the ideas one at a time, in incremental fashion. I don’t think you will need to know anything much prior. And the discussions (as you can see from participating in my feed) will often compensate for differences.

    2) —“How much will these courses cost?”—

    It depends upon the number of people who register for a course. We are not trying to make money at this, just cover costs.

    (a) When courses roll out they will be at a discount.

    (b) After that they will increase. They will increase further when (if) we obtain Accreditation (USA).

    (c) We will *probably* use Purchasing Power Parity to price the courses since not everyone lives in western economies, and we want worldwide students.

    (d) The courses will be either 3 or 6 credits. We don’t have the same issues as physical universities, so instead of breaking first year courses in two, we will teach them as one six credit course. A 3 credit course must consist of 45-48 hours of class time, and a six credit, (two semester) course double that.

    (e) Accredited University courses of this nature are usually in the $500+ Range for three credits at a community college and $3000 in a proper liberal arts college. Which is obvious something we cannot do, do not need to do, and is not in our long term interest to do. We are targeting 100-200 for these courses. And we will reduce the price if more people take them. It’s a matter of paying for time, equipment, and servers.

    (f) there is some behavioral tendency we need to deal with, which is that it if isn’t expensive enough we won’t filter for the right people – those who are truly interested in working thru it.

    One way or another we will find a way for everyone who wants to, to study together.

    3) —“How much time/week do you think would be needed to take them?”—

    Believe it or not there are recommended time allotments for different courses. So there are some general rules. And they are roughly about the same as the credit hours. ie: 3 hrs per week per class. That includes ‘think time’. Most classes require you read a few wiki or SEP articles, and then answer a few questions. Then critique others in the forums. Mostly so that I can judge whether you’re onboard or not.

    So far we are aiming at classes consisting of one weekly one three hour ‘class’ that may or may not be broken into two or three sections.

    These courses do not have to be completed all at once. And I don’t use due dates so to speak. So if you need to take longer it’s fine. You either complete the course, and do so successfully or you don’t. I am not, and the university is not, testing whether you will make a good employee. We are teaching you to be a contemplative judge of the Truth and the Law.

    —“4) Do you have any idea when the economics course will be available?”—

    Economics course consists of defining economics as a discipline divided into a spectrum of levers, and then stating the problems with economics as it sits today, and how to repair it. Then teaching it through that ‘corrected lens’. Which involves Austrian (legal), Micro (standard micro), Chicago (insurance), Beckerian (human capital), and Macro (Levers of policy) with less emphasis on keynesian/Post-keynesian macro equilibria, and more on specific attempts to manage the spectrum of capital in the polity. From what I understand at this moment this will be 12 credits, or two 6 credit courses over two years. It is not meant to teach mathematical economic analysis, but political economy – understanding sufficient for rendering legal judgements on disputes over economic conflicts and proposals.

    —“Good to see the progress you’re making with this kind of thing, glad my patreon shekels aren’t going to waste.”—

    Your shekels are much appreciated. We do have costs. And it’s very helpful when you help us cover them. And it makes a big difference (especially in my stress level). And I’m forever grateful that you’re making Propertarianism and the White Law possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-11 10:11:00 UTC

  • A NOTE TO ALL YOUNG MEN SEARCHING FOR POLITICAL ANSWERS —(response to email re

    A NOTE TO ALL YOUNG MEN SEARCHING FOR POLITICAL ANSWERS

    —(response to email request for help)—

    It is in the nature of ambitious young men to rush to an hypothesis of their own construction upon their first few encounters with enlightenment – accompanied by the desperate wish to share their revelation. It is in the nature of great theorists to develop a question or hypothesis, and to survey the great thinkers of history to date, and those similar innovations in related fields, to inform, correct, or falsify that hypothesis – with extraordinary effort and thoroughness – and all but those few we remember, fail.

    All of us write to learn. It is the most effective way of learning that we know of. It is easy to fool yourself in your imagination. A little less so in speech. Far harder in the written word. And very challenging in the published word – where your cherished efforts are the subject of misunderstanding, legitimate criticism and often, legitimate ridicule.

    We are in a period of change. There is vast pent up demand during these periods. Ours is a more catastrophic period than most due to invasion and population collapse due to the policies of the last century. And so you, like many others, are searching for an answer that the thinkers of the last century, and the present, failed to provide.

    We generate demand for types of social orders (the suite of cooperative economies), governments (means of production of commons, insurer of last resort), and rule (decision making of last resort) with the geography, capital, demographics, and military capacity to produce those we desire, and to deny alternatives – by seizing opportunistic moments in time. We do not have undiscovered countries (borderlands, continents) to settle as greenfields under the protection of distant empires. So just as we must work with the people we have, we must work with the opportunities we have, and the social orders that are possible to bring about with them.

    At present western advantage in other than demographic distribution has been liquidated through redistribution to the rest of the world. Nationalism is returning – largely in reaction to islamism, the same way we reacted to communism. And as strange as it might seem at the moment, with Chinese leadership, what looks very much like national socialism with communist dress of some sort, is emerging rapidly as the principle model of the 21st century.

    There is a reason that libertarian thought consists largely if not entirely of introductory books. There is a reason that geostrategy, economics, law, and war, do not. There is reason all Sovereignty (european aristocracy), Liberty (Anglo), Free City (German), Libertarian (the Pale), and Libertine (French) opportunities existed, and why they no longer do so.

    What all of these systems share is Sovereignty of the Individual under our ancient european customary laws (tort), and a Demand for Reciprocity to produce that sovereignty. The result of doing so is Rule of Law. What we differ in, is the GROUP COMPETITIVE STRATEGY, and the POSSIBLE organization of rule, government, economy, and social order within it that allows that social order to survive in competition with the other social orders.

    A general fights with the resources available, not the one he wishes to have. A people fight with the social, economic, political, and military order they have, not the one they wish they had. An activist fights with the available conditions by applying, like a general, the most force in the weakest places, to steer a more favorable outcome than the one at present, but not the most optimum he desires. A theorist fights with the knowledge available not the knowledge he wishes he had.

    A man is sovereign because he has the power to be so, because he has sufficient insurers to guarantee so. A man has liberty by permission of the sovereign. A man has freedom because he is a more profitable asset to the sovereign than a serf or slave. A man is a serf or slave because he has no alternative. The uniqueness of western civilization is the militia. The organized application of violence, by sovereign men, producing rule of law, and as a consequence, no alternative but markets in every aspect of life. There is no theory you can construct to sell. In the market for sale of political orders, you will find liberty is the want of the few even if its proceeds are the want of the many, and freedom is a synonym for theft from some and gifts to others. There is only one means of producing sovereignty: a sufficient number of men willing to use violence to deprive everyone else of imposing any alternative.

    Suggest you watch George Friedman and Peter Zeihan’s videos from this year and last. They are accessible summaries of work from around the world. This will help you understand the environment in which we are producing the upcoming social orders.

    IF YOU WANT THE INSTITUTE’S HELP

    Our reading list is here and there is none better to choose from: http//Propertarianism.com/reading-list/.

    Most if not all of the books, plus hundreds more, are in our library and can be read for free online.

    We will be offering courses in “The education you wish you had” beginning in January.

    They will include:

    The Uniqueness of Western Civilization: European History from the ice age forward.

    The Theory and History of The Arts

    The Theory and History of the Conduct of War

    The Natural Law (of Sovereign Men): The history of our law, and the Strictly Constructed Natural Law of Reciprocity (which is my restatement of hoppe’s german rationalist method in anglo scientific prose)

    The Means of Cooperation: Micro, Social(human Capital), and Macro Economics (they way econ should be taught)

    The Perfect Government: The various possible political orders given the conditions in which one produces the private and common.

    The Group Evolutionary Strategies of Competing Groups, Cultures, and Civilizations

    Online Courseware. Video. Short Readings. Assignments(essay). Discussion. Feedback. More Discussion.

    This is not feel good material. It is US 300-600 level material. And requires work.

    So far ART and LAW look like they will start in January. WAR sometime later.

    Otherwise, if you have very specific questions I’m available on FB pretty much all the time.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-10 20:19:00 UTC

  • EMERGENCE Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what ar

    EMERGENCE

    Yes, indeed, we share 98.9 percent of our DNA with chimps. But what are the differences? About half code for olfactory receptors – we can’t smell much compared to chimps. Pelvic shape. Spine. Body Hair. Immune recognition. Reproductive isolation. There are hardly any difference in the brain. Those differences that do exist, code for the number of rounds of cell division during fetal brain development. We have like three times as many neurons as chimps due to three times as many cell divisions during early development.

    So when I tell you intellectual phenomenon are EMERGENT, and “It’s all just layers of memory (Neurons)” I’m trying both to horrify you and demonstrate my point about both artificial intelligence, the possibility of alien intelligence, our capacity as humans, the differences between humans – it’s just neurons (computational power) offset by limits of computational efficiency that is better named neural economy.

    In other words, the model I use, and try to teach you, is to think about our behavior in terms of neural economy (bias), neural responsibility(bias), neural distribution(bias), and our chemical reward systems(bias).

    And why does this matter? Because our language functions as a system of computation that improves that neural efficiency, and that language consists almost entirely of a set of references (functions) that are analogies to experience (reactions, actions). And that all language (references, symbols) consists of changes in state (neuronal changes) of those experiences, and as such the underlying semantics and grammar is the human experience. And since we SHARE that human experience closely enough to communicate within the limits of that experience, that the human body, senses, emotions, and cognition (experience) provide the semantics and grammar of changes in state: ‘stories’. And as such all speech consists of continuous recursive disambiguation of arrangements of changes in state (a model) by the accumulation of stories (changes in state), and understanding(meaning), agreement(understanding), and error reduction(warranty) the three phases of speech, that together constitute a transaction. and we combine those transactions into a sets of transactions, that are recursively updated. So our brains are not that different from a database other than we are always and everywhere trying to ‘fit’ those models that result from those transactions into an arrangement with other transactions.

    So, to tie this into Propertarianism, (a)Consciousness will emerge within the limits of the system. (b) Decidability is provided by the limits of the system, and its reward systems. if you do not teach an AI to ‘want’ something it can’t want it’ Because want (acquisition) provides decidability. We decide by our wants. Absent wants an AI can’t decide. Without decidability it can’t act. [2]

    Propertarianism consists of restating the disciplines in these Operational(causal) rather than the traditionally Experiential(consequential) terms:

    – Metaphysics: Vitruvianism(man as measure of all things to man),

    – Psychology: Acquisitionism.

    – Sociology: Compatibilism .

    – Ethics: Propertarianism

    – Law: Sovereignty and Reciprocity.

    – Politics: Markets in everything.

    – Epistemology: Testimonialism.

    Together they produce high trust. adaptive velocity. at some non-trivial cost to neural economy.

    Greater neural capacity increases adaptive velocity. higher neural capacity more high investment to create the same neural economy.

    The greatest adaptive velocity you can produce for your people is not necessarily the improvement of the individual, but the culling of FRICTIONS from less competent individuals, increasing overall neural economy. (remove friction and error from the system).

    Together these function as the highest correspondence with reality at the cost of greater demands for neural economy.

    So The White Law provides the highest correspondence, consistency, identity, and constructability, with the most complete explanation that man has provided to date.

    One Continuous Consistent Explanation of The Human Experience from Subatomic Physics to the Wonder of Mankind’s Arts.

    Cheers

    [1]primate info is quoted from Sapolsky who uses this example frequently)

    [2] This was the end result of my study of AI in the early 80’s, and, it’s why I stopped working on it – technological limitations (cost) in that era.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-09 09:03:00 UTC

  • WE BEAR THE BURDEN Under our constitution we are all just ordinary peers (equals

    WE BEAR THE BURDEN

    Under our constitution we are all just ordinary peers (equals) contracting the services of government from one another and we are all responsible for one another under that rule of traditional english, anglo saxon, germanic proto germanic, common law we call tort under nomocracy. Government without rulers: rule of law.

    We bear the burden.

    We bear that burden in order to prevent the redevelopment of Rule

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 17:33:00 UTC

  • The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from bla

    —The enlightenment – or rather – the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency. —Doolittle

    *NEVER FORGET THAT Rousseau, Kant and the Continentals were the Abrahamist reaction against Hume’s resurrection of Greek reason.

    (h/t: Ahmed Reda for repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 12:47:00 UTC

  • IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION? Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to

    IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION?

    Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to deny that religion did serve as a (very) cheap (simple) universal (available to morons) education (training) in mindfulness (and sacredness – non-consumption ), and in the positive laws (manners, ethics, morals, rituals, traditions) in an era where only the privileged could get an education.

    The only difficult education in that list is mindfulness and stoicism was clearly the best of all methods of mindfulness discovered in both the ancient world and the present (cognitive behavioral therapy).

    The rest is just ordinary education through repetition (ritual) and oath (prayer). There is nothing else other than the act of doing all that repetition and oath in public. There is some advantage and giving that oath to a proxy (ancestor, king, hero, god) rather than to each other – those with whom we have material conflicts.

    That abrahamism and the abrahamic religions are outright evil is not to say that the category of training (education) religions provided is not both beneficial, and very likely, necessary – because it’s as unnatural as reading and math.

    The question is how can we convert the depreciating asset that is our existing religious infrastructure into a new asset that is appreciating, and removes the vulnerability and harm of the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 12:19:00 UTC

  • The Rational Risefacebook.comCHRISTIANITY Just finished a talk with James Fox Hi

    The Rational Risefacebook.comCHRISTIANITY

    Just finished a talk with James Fox Higgins of The Rational Rise. (Damn, seriously love that man. Wonderful human.)

    In that discussion I think I have talked about my view of reforming christianity more so than any other public venue.

    The net of it is that christianity (and all our european religions for that matter) are compatible with natural law. Yet, it is christian tolerance that has made us vulnerable and is the reason we can be so easily undermined. The most intolerant wins, and we were not intolerante enough.

    So hence my advocacy of a very intolerant law. But a law that must somehow accommodate our traditional religion(s).

    He did bring up one interesting idea that (foolishly) hadn’t occurred to me: is our vulnerability as christians due to our failure to legislate christianity and thereby prevent other religions. The answer to which I think was yes.

    But taking it further, what would have happened if we had been smart enough to (a) legislate america as a christian country, (b) had used the jefferson bible as the definition of christianity, (c) and encoded the christian ethos (as I have), as well as (d) natural law of reciprocity (as I have)?

    In retrospect that would have been a very good thing.

    Now, i still hold the opinion that training in mindfulness by stoic (cognitive behavioral) method is superior to supernaturalism; that training in ‘sacredness’ by ‘church lesson, ritual, and oath’ is superior to any other method available to us because unlike schools it involves the whole family; that the model of jesus is excellent for teaching optimum cooperation; that the natural law can be taught in church – because the church advocated it; that it can be taught with sacredness not supernaturalism; and that the church did a much better job of educating the people than the state. I think these things are almost impossible to argue with.

    This is a very non-supernatural method of achieving christian ends. But it preserves the church(es) as the center of civil society and restores via-positiva to the moral discipline and limits the state to via-negativa actions. Thereby ending the means by which our civilization has been undermined.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 05:53:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WOMEN HATE MEN WHEN THEY END A RELATIONSHIP? —“Curt I must ask about so

    WHY DO WOMEN HATE MEN WHEN THEY END A RELATIONSHIP?

    —“Curt I must ask about something you related a while back. About how a woman can detach and so hate a man, viewing him as a subhuman worthy of almost any Ill. Yet men like you or I cannot bear such a notion, even to these very women after having deeply caring for them. Why do you feel that is?”—GS

    1) Males are dependent upon the success of the tribe. Females on the success of their offspring. Mates are Temporary Alliances, while Tribe and Offspring are Permanent Genetic Necessities. For this reason, Male love is driven by loyalty, Female by devotion. Absent devotion women have no loyalty. Loyalty (infrequent exercise of) is more durable but less costly than devotion (constant exercise). This is the explanation. The rest is consequence.

    2) Females evolved for their children not men. Men ‘rotate’, lose their value, or die off. Children remain. … forever. Males evolved to rotate women and monogamy is a … norm, not a necessity. Men will kill over mates more so than any other reason. We retain ‘value’ to retain ‘opportunity’.

    3) Poisoning the well (socially) for a lost or discarded man forces a cost on him and trains him that losing a woman is costly in future opportunities – so stay with them. It also eliminates the cost of keeping him ‘away’ (resisting his advances) and creating an opportunity for new or other males to make advances without fear of violence or conflict.

    4) Women ‘fight’ to the death because they are so comparatively vulnerable to ostracization, but they fight by reputation destruction to CAUSE ostracization (from opportunity) – so women engage in wars of reputation destruction, with the vehemence of it determined by the social status (social and sexual market value) differences providing ammunition. Upper not caring. Lower not caring as much, but peers caring greatly.

    5) (This topic is harder to understand) Men are more dependent upon their economic, political, and military value for less of their lifetimes. (think sprinting) Men are faster and stronger but cheaper and more disposable. Women are more dependent upon their sexual, caretaking, and social value for three generations. (think marathoning). Women are generally a good bet for men. Men are a riskier investment for women. Women are more expensive and less disposable. Losing a man by choice or accident is a kind of failure for women. It’s a Loss for men, less so a failure. A Failure for Women far more so than a loss.

    6) Women’s hatred of men is a way of controlling their impulsive emotions so that they do not have to bear the cost of unpleasant feelings, and anger, hatred, blame, allow the intentional suppression of those feelings. Men don’t have the problem of emotional lack of agency.

    I hope that helps.

    -Curt

    —“This explanation in such terms is both troubling on an emotional level, but that will pass and help me with the knowing of it. Moreover its immensely pleasing on a visceral level to have it laid out in such an orderly way, as a fellow autist I genuinely appreciate it. Please do post this if you haven’t. Thank you for this and all you do.”—GS

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-05 09:34:00 UTC