Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • SHIFTS WITH (A) INTELLIGENCE, AND (B) WEALTH Contrary to Pinker’s “Better Angels

    https://www.quora.com/Are-verbally-fluent-intellectuals-often-handicapped-by-their-exceptional-verbal-ability-because-it-allows-them-to-subconsciously-manipulate-their-language-to-effortlessly-produce-verbally-persuasive-but-otherwise/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=2bbe0b99&srid=u4QvIMMORALITY SHIFTS WITH (A) INTELLIGENCE, AND (B) WEALTH

    Contrary to Pinker’s “Better Angels of Our Nature”, all that occurs as we either gain intelligence or gain income, is that we** shift the means of predation** upon others up the chain of complexity and indirection.

    Here is a simple series of the means by which we commonly increase the complexity of parasitism and predation upon one another:

    Murder -> Violence -> Theft -> Fraud -> Fraud by Hazard Creation -> Free Riding -> Privatization of Commons, Socialization of Losses -> Fraud, Hazard and Privatization through Financialization -> Fraud, Hazard and Privatization through Proceduralization -> Fraud, hazard, and Privatization by Damage to the Informational Commons (“propaganda, advertising, public intellectual pseudoscience”) -> Material Conspiracy -> Political Rent Seeking -> Political Corruption -> Coup or Conquest.

    So yes. And some well known groups specialize in persuasive but hazard producing pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and propaganda. Particularly by utilizing the frailty of the law to ally with the government against the people.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 20:33:00 UTC

  • CONTINUING MY ATTACK ON MALE ESCAPISM (leave escapism for women. they have an ex

    CONTINUING MY ATTACK ON MALE ESCAPISM

    (leave escapism for women. they have an excuse. men don’t.)

    I think most young men lack agency, and that we all evolve from impulsive to imitative, to intuitionistic to calculative as we move from searching for strategy, retreat, for opportunities, consolidating capital, and managing our assets.

    I think that stating man has universals rather than stages is the result of youthfulness (ignorance).

    I think the state indoctrination program seeks to create obedience to free expression without explication of the limits of that value.

    I think that seeking universals is an appeal for numbers (allies) to compensate for lack of agency.

    I think that individualism and atomism is why men seek these things since men only possess agency in groups.

    I think it is possible to produce agency and eliminate escapism in all its forms by producing groups and agency, by design (as we did in the past).

    (BTW: I was trying to explain the draw of the ‘almost religious’ and ‘religious’ methods of emotional inspiration as substitution for pursuit of existential opportunity. It’s not about individuals but that individuals are easily seduced by false promises.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 20:03:00 UTC

  • Everything Is Reducible to Calculation at Degrees of Precision and Degrees of Agency.

    READ JUST ONE PAPER BY POPPER, HAYEK, MISES, AND TURING BEFORE CHOMSKY – OR YOU WILL MISS THE POINT. Understand that Chomsky applied Turing to Grammar (language). That’s his insight. Just as Popper really needed to produce one paper (sources of knowledge and ignorance), Hayek One Paper (uses of knowledge in society), Mises (economic calculation), Turing (turing machine recursive computation), Chomsky produced one paper (Grammar). Most of this occurred in the pre-postmodernist period prior to 1960. We have been fighting pseudoscience since then, for the simple reason that universities could sell shit courses to proles and in doing so finance postmodern propaganda through tuition-debt, and the burning of intergenerational savings (Retirement Savings) as tuition fees. This is the most suicidal economic set of polities in western history other than perhaps the selling of indulgences. Once we further understand that universities do not teach but simply filter in, and out, we realize how catastrophic this entire state-propaganda driven experiment has been. Instead we should put the vast majority of people to work in part time apprenticeship (entry level work) by age 12-14, and limit university training to those forms of calculation (STEM) that cannot be learned until the brains are more fully matured. EVERYTHING IS REDUCIBLE TO CALCULATION AT DEGREES OF PRECISION AND DEGREES OF AGENCY.

  • Everything Is Reducible to Calculation at Degrees of Precision and Degrees of Agency.

    READ JUST ONE PAPER BY POPPER, HAYEK, MISES, AND TURING BEFORE CHOMSKY – OR YOU WILL MISS THE POINT. Understand that Chomsky applied Turing to Grammar (language). That’s his insight. Just as Popper really needed to produce one paper (sources of knowledge and ignorance), Hayek One Paper (uses of knowledge in society), Mises (economic calculation), Turing (turing machine recursive computation), Chomsky produced one paper (Grammar). Most of this occurred in the pre-postmodernist period prior to 1960. We have been fighting pseudoscience since then, for the simple reason that universities could sell shit courses to proles and in doing so finance postmodern propaganda through tuition-debt, and the burning of intergenerational savings (Retirement Savings) as tuition fees. This is the most suicidal economic set of polities in western history other than perhaps the selling of indulgences. Once we further understand that universities do not teach but simply filter in, and out, we realize how catastrophic this entire state-propaganda driven experiment has been. Instead we should put the vast majority of people to work in part time apprenticeship (entry level work) by age 12-14, and limit university training to those forms of calculation (STEM) that cannot be learned until the brains are more fully matured. EVERYTHING IS REDUCIBLE TO CALCULATION AT DEGREES OF PRECISION AND DEGREES OF AGENCY.

  • I think we have known for millennia that the optimum polity size is that of a sm

    I think we have known for millennia that the optimum polity size is that of a small city, but that the cost of financing war either offensive(france) or defensive (germany) or the suppression of local rents (all empires) or opportunism(athens,london,usa) provides malincentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 19:46:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002275107782447104

    Reply addressees: @crixuswhite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002266401598574592

    IN REPLY TO:

    @crixuswhite

    @curtdoolittle Is there any distinction of optimal community sizes? I think often about the removal of any sense of community in white america and wondered if you had an opinion on this.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002266401598574592

  • READ JUST ONE PAPER BY POPPER, HAYEK, MISES, AND TURING BEFORE CHOMSKY – OR YOU

    READ JUST ONE PAPER BY POPPER, HAYEK, MISES, AND TURING BEFORE CHOMSKY – OR YOU WILL MISS THE POINT.

    Understand that Chomsky applied Turing to Grammar (language). That’s his insight. Just as Popper really needed to produce one paper (sources of knowledge and ignorance), Hayek One Paper (uses of knowledge in society), Mises (economic calculation), Turing (turing machine recursive computation), Chomsky produced one paper (Grammar). Most of this occurred in the pre-postmodernist period prior to 1960. We have been fighting pseudoscience since then, for the simple reason that universities could sell shit courses to proles and in doing so finance postmodern propaganda through tuition-debt, and the burning of intergenerational savings (Retirement Savings) as tuition fees. This is the most suicidal economic set of polities in western history other than perhaps the selling of indulgences. Once we further understand that universities do not teach but simply filter in, and out, we realize how catastrophic this entire state-propaganda driven experiment has been. Instead we should put the vast majority of people to work in part time apprenticeship (entry level work) by age 12-14, and limit university training to those forms of calculation (STEM) that cannot be learned until the brains are more fully matured.

    EVERYTHING IS REDUCIBLE TO CALCULATION AT DEGREES OF PRECISION AND DEGREES OF AGENCY.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 11:18:00 UTC

  • God Was Enthusiastic with His Moron Wand

    (Modern Warfare Generations) The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886 —“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski That’s not an argument. Make one. “Modern War begins after Westphalia.” “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.” “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.” “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe” —“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique. 2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski —-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s. —“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—- 1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of. 2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. … 3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian. 4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names? 5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list? 6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”. 7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under? 8) an endless stream of morons waste my time. —“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses. So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon. May 29, 2018 7:39pm

  • God Was Enthusiastic with His Moron Wand

    (Modern Warfare Generations) The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886 —“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski That’s not an argument. Make one. “Modern War begins after Westphalia.” “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.” “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.” “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe” —“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique. 2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski —-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s. —“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—- 1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of. 2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. … 3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian. 4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names? 5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list? 6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”. 7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under? 8) an endless stream of morons waste my time. —“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses. So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon. May 29, 2018 7:39pm

  • GOD WAS ENTHUSIASTIC WITH HIS MORON WAND (Modern Warfare Generations) The idea t

    GOD WAS ENTHUSIASTIC WITH HIS MORON WAND

    (Modern Warfare Generations)

    The idea that governments are uniquely able to start fight and finish wars is a product of the treaty of Westphalia. This ‘irregularity’ of western civilization survived long enough that the average idiot can’t… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/1015638886

    —“This is a pretty gross misreading of history.”— Ed Rotski

    That’s not an argument. Make one.

    “Modern War begins after Westphalia.”

    “Westphalia Gave The State A Monopoly on War.”

    “Through all of history families, clans, cities, ethnic groups, religions, private companies (conquest of india) … fought wars.”

    “The Church lost it’s ability to conduct warfare in Europe”

    —“1. Treaty of Westphalia is hardly unique.

    2. The whole arc of state building in the middle ages was to arrogate war making to the central government, that is, to abolish private war. That process was largely done by turn of the 16th century.”—- Ed Rotski

    —-“Whoever told you modern war starts with Westphalia is just wrong.”— Ed Rotski

    I will let you argue with William Lind, and every other military historian. Rather than waste my time with someone lacking basic knowledge of the generations of modern warfare and their beginnings in the 1640’s.

    —“Really? Talk to Delbruck, or Kauper, or Lynn, Potter, Wilson, Weigley, Dodge, Duffy, Chandler, Nosworthy, or even Comines. Your assertions are not just bad, they’re “the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” bad. You are hideously ignorant.”—-

    1) OK. Game on. It’ll be good education for the audience. Here is the Generations of Warfare definition I made use of.

    2) Delbruck defines ‘modern’ as beginning with the italian renaissance. Kaeuper is a medievalist and I don’t know how he defines ‘modern’. …

    3) As far as I know Lynn defines modern as 1650 – the end of ‘pillaging’. So he agrees. Potter doesn’t make a distinction that I know of and I don’t know why you’d include him. Same with Wilson unless you’re referring to someone other than the Tower collection historian.

    4) Same for Nosworthy? Are you just spamming names?

    5) And Why not Lind, Keegan, or Van Creveld? Why aren’t they in your list?

    6) Just search for “Generations of Warfare”.

    7) And how does any author you listed have anything to do with my OP and its argument? How does it have anything to do with 4/5gw and the return of non-state actors? What rock do you live under?

    8) an endless stream of morons waste my time.

    —“Modern warfare doesn’t start until nation in arms and mass conscription, and the final adoption of the modern organizations, battalion, brigade, division, corps. That is so clear. And Lynn is wrong if he thinks people stopped pillaging in the 1650s.”— Ed Rotski

    OMFG. Look, do you know how many historical models and cycles have been proposed? You can make any distinction yuo want. However, the one that I referred to was the one that every theorist I know and every other think tank I know of, uses.

    So between your …. ‘opinion’. Your ‘straw men’ list, and the fact that the only person on your list who said anything close agrees with 1650, and that I pointed to a reference for an index of generations that gets 36M google hits, I”m gonna cast you as a basement dwelling loon.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 19:39:00 UTC

  • DUNNING KRUGER REVOLUTIONARY IGNORANCE As in all things: men overestimate their

    DUNNING KRUGER REVOLUTIONARY IGNORANCE

    As in all things: men overestimate their knowledge and ability prior to performing sufficient research in the specialty such that they are not engaging in dunning kruger overestimation of their abilities.

    I have no idea why men think they know such things from personal experience, or the mainstream narrative.

    Economics are simple. Generals are simple. Destroy what people dpend upon for predictabiliyt and chaos is the only possible result.

    My job, and the job of others, over the next year, is to help men envision what winning a civil war will look like in the current era.

    And it will NOT look like those revolutions of the Westphalian era. We have ended Westphalian constraints, and we’ve ended the era of millions in the streets, and we’ve ended the enlightenment experiment in an aristocracy of everyone.

    No one is going to put your pants on for you. You either fight or you talk, or you cower, or you’re the enemy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-29 10:51:00 UTC