Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. RELIGION VS CULT —“What is the difference b

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    RELIGION VS CULT

    —“What is the difference between a cult & religion in practice?”—Zach Edward

    First, religions and cults consist of a mythos and costly rituals that require demonstration of advocacy (not necessarily belief) in one or more falsehoods as a substitute for reason and a signal of contribution to the group’s informational and as a consequence, behavioral commons.

    It’s that a religion is adopted at scale and has political influence, and a cult has a smaller scale and does not have political influence.

    And because a cult differs from the mainstream, and requires higher costs of adherence, members of a cult are generally more devoted than those of a religion or major religion.

    – Major Religion (influential in a civilization – many governments)
    – Religion (Influential in a polity – government)
    – Cult (not influential in a polity or government)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 13:51:41 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. YES, OBJECTIVISM IS A RESTATEMENT OF ASHKENAZ

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    YES, OBJECTIVISM IS A RESTATEMENT OF ASHKENAZI SEPARATISM (key concept)

    (But the same method of analysis allows us to decompose every group evolutionary strategy)

    (a) Objectivism like libertarianism, is simply private property marxism – a monopoly of private property, just as marxism is common property monopoly. With Marxist disincentive to produce private property at one end, Objectivist and Libertarian disincentive to produce common property on the other.

    (b) Objectivism is argued using the positive and negative sophisms of pilpul and critique, just as are marxism, postmodernism, and the abrahamic religions use the same method of constructing sophisms.

    (c) All groups must choose between the hierarchy of decisions that allow us to hold territory(property in all forms) from competitors necessary for agrarianism and the production of fixed capital; or the hierarchy of pastoralists that rent the land and treat it as renters (badly – the majority of earth’s peoples); or the hierarchy of predators that treat the land other human groups as resources to extract from (ashkenazi, roma-gypsies, mongols, islam, and late-empire [Disraeli] British). And we can determine which groups pursue which strategy on that spectrum by nothing other than the commons they produce and the condition of those commons.

    These strategies are *Necessary* given the group’s ability to produce commons (or lack of ability to produce commons) and the (vast) multipliers (returns) that commons produce as a consequence.

    One does not knowingly pursue a strategy – that would weaken its utility in the population by exposing it to argument just as religion would be weakened by science and rationality.

    In general, the feminine strategy consumes the commons, the ascendant male strategy trades without paying for commons, and the established male strategy conserves. These are reproductive strategies that are *necessary* given our class, age and gender capital demands.

    Objectively speaking, Objectivism is, as its origin in Russian Ashkenazi Middle Class would suggest, the middle class philosophy of diasporic askehnazi who seek to preserve pastorlist poly-logical (immoral) ethics, by privatizing host commons (physical, normative, cultural, institutional) rather than contributing to them.

    Which is what objectivism and libertarianism are reducible to.

    Every philosophy can be decomposed using these same strategic criteria. And most philosophy consists of middle class appeals for greater influence(ascendant male), the way religion(feminine) is for underclass, and law is for upper class (masculine).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 13:23:23 UTC

  • TRUMP PUTIN Sorry but Trump was simply willing to pay a high cost of personal ca

    TRUMP PUTIN

    Sorry but Trump was simply willing to pay a high cost of personal capital in order to return Russia to the world stage as a potential ally in our fight against the destructive regressive left.

    I was certain thats what he would do, because Its what I would have done.

    He’s returning the balance of powers by treating people who do not RENT SEEK on the united states as peers against those who DO rent seek on the united states.

    Personally I thought it was brilliant.

    He did overplay his hand on the spy thing, but the truth is very simple: RUSSIAN LAW allows the intelligence agencies to act in Russian interest without supervision by the executive. Russian intelligence can both kill traitors and sew dissent in support of Russian interests without approval. They have wide discretionary powers.

    JUST LIKE OURS DO.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 11:42:00 UTC

  • ART AND NATURAL LAW Since art is fictional, and therefore analogical, we judge i

    ART AND NATURAL LAW

    Since art is fictional, and therefore analogical, we judge it by its morality first and truthfulness second. If a hero is a marxist it’s immoral. If it promoted abrahamism and marxism it’s immoral. it it misrepresents history it’s immoral. If it’s fiction and it claims to be, and it’s not immoral then it’s neither false nor immoral.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 10:39:00 UTC

  • RELIGION VS CULT —“What is the difference between a cult & religion in practic

    RELIGION VS CULT

    —“What is the difference between a cult & religion in practice?”—Zach Edward

    First, religions and cults consist of a mythos and costly rituals that require demonstration of advocacy (not necessarily belief) in one or more falsehoods as a substitute for reason and a signal of contribution to the group’s informational and as a consequence, behavioral commons.

    It’s that a religion is adopted at scale and has political influence, and a cult has a smaller scale and does not have political influence.

    And because a cult differs from the mainstream, and requires higher costs of adherence, members of a cult are generally more devoted than those of a religion or major religion.

    – Major Religion (influential in a civilization – many governments)

    – Religion (Influential in a polity – government)

    – Cult (not influential in a polity or government)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 09:51:00 UTC

  • YES, OBJECTIVISM IS A RESTATEMENT OF ASHKENAZI SEPARATISM (key concept) (But the

    YES, OBJECTIVISM IS A RESTATEMENT OF ASHKENAZI SEPARATISM (key concept)

    (But the same method of analysis allows us to decompose every group evolutionary strategy)

    (a) Objectivism like libertarianism, is simply private property marxism – a monopoly of private property, just as marxism is common property monopoly. With Marxist disincentive to produce private property at one end, Objectivist and Libertarian disincentive to produce common property on the other.

    (b) Objectivism is argued using the positive and negative sophisms of pilpul and critique, just as are marxism, postmodernism, and the abrahamic religions use the same method of constructing sophisms.

    (c) All groups must choose between the hierarchy of decisions that allow us to hold territory(property in all forms) from competitors necessary for agrarianism and the production of fixed capital; or the hierarchy of pastoralists that rent the land and treat it as renters (badly – the majority of earth’s peoples); or the hierarchy of predators that treat the land other human groups as resources to extract from (ashkenazi, roma-gypsies, mongols, islam, and late-empire [Disraeli] British). And we can determine which groups pursue which strategy on that spectrum by nothing other than the commons they produce and the condition of those commons.

    These strategies are *Necessary* given the group’s ability to produce commons (or lack of ability to produce commons) and the (vast) multipliers (returns) that commons produce as a consequence.

    One does not knowingly pursue a strategy – that would weaken its utility in the population by exposing it to argument just as religion would be weakened by science and rationality.

    In general, the feminine strategy consumes the commons, the ascendant male strategy trades without paying for commons, and the established male strategy conserves. These are reproductive strategies that are *necessary* given our class, age and gender capital demands.

    Objectively speaking, Objectivism is, as its origin in Russian Ashkenazi Middle Class would suggest, the middle class philosophy of diasporic askehnazi who seek to preserve pastorlist poly-logical (immoral) ethics, by privatizing host commons (physical, normative, cultural, institutional) rather than contributing to them.

    Which is what objectivism and libertarianism are reducible to.

    Every philosophy can be decomposed using these same strategic criteria. And most philosophy consists of middle class appeals for greater influence(ascendant male), the way religion(feminine) is for underclass, and law is for upper class (masculine).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 09:23:00 UTC

  • THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF LATENESS. (ON PUTIN BEING LATE) Believe it or not, it is

    THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF LATENESS.

    (ON PUTIN BEING LATE)

    Believe it or not, it is the single best operational security tactic you can make, because very few if any of us can remain on high stress alert for an hour without demonstrating avoidance behavior.

    It also guarrantees your time is not wasted by the organizers and staff of the meeting.

    It also guarantees that you have people’s attention when you arrive.

    It also exhausts peoples excitement in hoping to get your attention.

    It also buys you time to rehearse key points with your team without planning a session to rehearse key points with your team. I always role play meetings with staff before hand.

    I have practiced strategic lateness and voting with my feet if a meeting is ineffectual my whole life.

    While it does demonstrate power (value), its not an ego thing. It’s just what you learn after years of observation of people’s behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-16 21:41:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE WEST
    (just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale)

    Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains.

    We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority.

    What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes.

    This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean.

    Capitalism.
    —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”—

    All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working.

    Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law.

    The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest.

    The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities.

    In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons.

    This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets.

    Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact.

    The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism).

    We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence.

    We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons.

    Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique.

    (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 13:52:01 UTC

  • UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE WEST (just takes a great deal of r

    UM. NO. CAPITALISM HAS EXISTED FOREVER IN THE WEST

    (just takes a great deal of rule of law and trade before it has any scale)

    Western civilization has been making use of capitalism since its inception in pre-history. We can see it in the language artifacts of the period, and in their various archeological remains.

    We did not invent corporations in the period, only extended them to the middle and upper middle classes thereby expanding the institutions that had previously served a very limited minority.

    What the article describes is the expansion of free capital from a small pool of secular individuals (aristocracy, priesthood) to the middle and upper middle classes in those places with sufficient rule of law also extended to the middle and upper middle classes.

    This was possible because of technological improvements in sail, increase in population, the culmination of success of the germanic states (Hansa), and the extreme windfall of opening of transatlantic trade – rapidly expanding beyond the previous trade routes of the mediterranean through the indian ocean.

    Capitalism.

    —“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”—

    All we see is the necessity of redistributing people from subsistence farming and production with minor market participation and speculation to the majority if not all of people, gradually depending upon market participation and speculation for their subsistence, in order to increase the division of labor, increase productivity thereby, and as a consequence decrease the costs of goods, services, and information in relation to time spent working.

    Capitalism consists of nothing more than property rights insured by rule of law.

    The expansion of capitalism raised us out of poverty – particularly the poorest.

    The problem with the current condition of capitalism (property rights) is that in order to generate the taxation from improved commerce, the state (beginning in the coal era) rapidly removed rights of suit for damage by externalities.

    In other words, the state removed universal standing in matters of the commons and took to itself (centralized) governance (management) of the commons.

    This is an easily reversible bit of legal fudge-ery that will restore via negativa competition by court to its historical parallel with via positiva competition by markets.

    Now the capitalism vs socialism debate is in fact a dishonest bit of rhetorical framing (critique) by a certain minority specializing in propaganda – that’s just historical fact.

    The debate instead is economic rule of law (capitalism) versus economic rule by arbitrary discretion (socialism).

    We do not repair the problem of licensed-predation-via-externality by simply granting the state the right of arbitarary discretion free of punitive consequence instead of the private sector the right of arbitrary discretion free of punitive consequence.

    We fix the problem of insuring that NO ONE has license for predation by externality, by restoring universal standing in the matters of the commons.

    Replacing one minority’s use of pilpul and critique (lying) with our own use of pilpul and critique (lying) only reduces the only people capable of rule of law to the same (low) level as those that invented and use pilpul and critique.

    (Which you seem to have a pattern of doing yourself it seems.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 09:52:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE EXISTENCE OF GODS. No. You don’t get it.

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE EXISTENCE OF GODS.

    No. You don’t get it. Gods exist the way Socrates (Historically), Siegfried(Mythically), and Gandalf(Fictionally) exist. Given that enough people study the wisdom of that mythos that emotional and intellectual norms develop from the ‘ritualization’, those gods exist in effect on our behavior if not in cause. These gods function as a standard of measurement at our most intuitionistic and most universal scale. Sympathy with shared experience and Synchronicity due to universal subjectivity to the same temporal streams of information, achieves what we consider supernatural, but is simply the consequence the culmination of patterns of behavior in concert with momentary information. I talk to gods every day. For the technique to work, whether with the god, a therapist, a friend, or yourself, you must be unable to lie in the role-play (prayer). If you can manage emotional and intellectual honesty with any god (collectively shared pattern of values), then you can obtain the benefit of the character’s frame of reference. The reason being that it is extremely hard for us to be intellectually honest with ourselves, and the act of speaking whether external or internal, forces continuous recursive disambiguation, which forces our brains to test our thoughts, just as we test our thoughts while we are speaking to others and anticipating their responses. By and large this system works extraordinarily well. If you combine that with self authoring and the virtues and select characters from history to represent those virtues and goals, and if you read enough about those people, you will in fact, obtain their wisdom through role playing discourse (prayer) – assuming you can practice intellectual honesty. Now, some of us lack the agency for this and this is why we have doctrine. But admission that you require doctrine is admission that you lack the agency to call yourself fully human. This is acceptable as long as you do not claim to possess the agency necessary to influence the decisions of others. And as such those of us who have agency must police those that do not, such that those who do not possess agency do not attempt to spread their lack of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 17:13:09 UTC