Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE CORRECT ON BITCOIN’S FUTURE This video start

    I HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE CORRECT ON BITCOIN’S FUTURE
    This video starts with reflections on china but ninety percent of the content explains the vulnerability of bitcoin.

    Now, I’ve been ‘on message’ since something like 2012, and I know the fanboys are religious zealots. But like I said, a central bank can gut the system instantly, and they have multiple reasons to do so. In fact, as the speaker says in the video, the fact that bitcoin sucks at liquidity is the only reason Organized Crime has limited its use. There isn’t any ‘post-state’ world comging about. Instead the USA’s ‘connection’ of the world as an economy is coming about and the conflict of civilizations and the fragility of trade is returning along with the ’empires’ that failed to make the transition to federations: russia, china, and islam.

    So if you think you are smart enough to ride bitcoin up, and then time your exit that’s fine. I probably could do that if I was interested. That’s because the reaction time of governments and banks is slow.

    I am not anti-crypto. If it solved the ‘bankless’ problem alone I’d be thrilled with it. If it was used to force banks to hold their loans, but sell shares in them to restore their lending cycle I’d be even more thrilled. If it solved replacing the (corrupt) stock market I’d be more thrilled – it’s totally unnecessary. If it was used to create title registries for property of all sorts, I’d be thrilled with it – god knows how much a pain that is. I don’t put a lot of faith in ‘smart contracts’ but for some cases that might be good for commodity deals. And I love the idea of a traceable currency for the simple reason that it would provide solid economic data and allow the central bank and the state to move ahead of rather than behind the data. And as some of you know I’ve been a proponent of new accounting software that did the same internally – so that executives could understand how money REALLY flowed through their businesses without the human cost of creating vast numbers of complex transactions in existing accounting systems. All of those are good things.

    But if you think govts are going to give up control of borrowing and liquidity you’re clearly living in an archaic delusion. And if you think that if digital currency solves the transaction speed and volume problem sufficient to compete with a central currency, that they won’t give a 30 day window to buy fedcoins before they shut down the possibility of extracting the value, you’re just ignorant and delusional.

    I haven’t been wrong. I won’t be wrong. The only ‘miss’ I’ve had over the past decade is the rather ‘odd’ rescue of bitcoin by institutions – which I just didn’t expect. I understand why they’ve done it. I just also understand why they think they’ll be able to time it.

    Video (wrong title, about china, ignore it)
    https://t.co/ytccoGoO2b

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 21:41:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762231410503405568

  • THE GRADUAL CONVERGENCE OF VALUES AND THE LIMIT OF THAT CONVERGENCE You know the

    THE GRADUAL CONVERGENCE OF VALUES AND THE LIMIT OF THAT CONVERGENCE
    You know there are plenty of scholars who can answer many of the questions I do. The difference is that I have a conservative and judicial agenda of truth-before face regardless of cost. So one develops a trust in certain public intellectuals because you have an affinity for their moral bias. The reason this distribution of intellectuals is necessary is the problem of directly accessing and synthesizing the information from the sciences and history.

    If you follow my or my good friend Rudyard Lynch (@whatifalthist) you will find we have the same moral intuition, and same understanding of history, but I am concerned about governing and he is concerned about the governed. Even if we agree on everything our position will vary by this degree. So even people who agree on most everything still emphasize some set of dimensions of value vs others.

    But just as we see the physical sciences converge on a universal paradigm of universal commensurability, we also see the convergence in the behavioral sciences, and eventually morality – that if moral should and almost must, be consistent with the physical behavioral and physical sciences if we are to claim it is true.

    I do see this convergence. Though I do expect that the IQ and neotenic differences between major populations (races, ethnicities) to persist and as such the utilitarian composition of m oral rules in those polities must meet the needs of the demographic distribution within those communities.

    hugs all.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 20:16:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762210144895590400

  • Distinguishing Good People From Bad It’s pretty easy to distinguish the good peo

    Distinguishing Good People From Bad
    It’s pretty easy to distinguish the good people from the bad.
    The good people ask questions when something is counter to their understanding, assuming that they don’t quite understand. This means they seek to understand first, before they seek to disagree.
    Even then some who are presumptive, once informed, are appreciative of the time and effort you invested in them.
    It’s easier to explain those two virtues than it is to list the innumerable means by which people with an agenda other than the truth, or an agenda that is parasitic, or an agenda that seeks to shame others into agreement with them.

    Love all you silly humans anyway. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 18:49:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762188073029251072

  • Political systems that require consent from large numbers tend to fail at politi

    Political systems that require consent from large numbers tend to fail at political choice with regularity – especially as a government ages. (most governments outside of the usa and the uk are ‘new’ by comparison.) So read James Burnham to understand that, and Hoppe to understand why modern governments without monarchies tend to fail (deterministically will fail).
    Natural law isn’t an opinion it’s the science.
    A constitution of natural law isn’t a philosophy it’s a science.
    A government under natural law is scientific.
    Meaning that all political questions are decidable one way or another (and the left is just criminal).
    The changes over the past 200+ years have exposed holes in our constitutions both written (usa, aus) and unwritten (uk). But those holes are small in number and can easily be plugged and constitution, law, and policy corrected. Even though plugging that small number of holes will have vast consequences given how many ‘exploits’ were possible because of those few holes.
    If you have nearly any system of choice (government) under natural law (sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets) a judiciary limited to the law, and a ‘judge of last resort’ that is above the law in the restoration of the law, a populace with an IQ of at least 100, and an armed populace, then you have ‘perfect government’. Or at least, as perfect as can be imagined.
    Now, there are other requirements such as radical reform of the financial system and the govt role in strategic industry development (which used to happen via our military), as well as restoring competition to education, etc. My primary contribution in the end is just ‘truth in everything’ which results in ‘the science’ in everything.
    Once that’s the case, then the only thing we can do is trade. We cant use the government to steal from one another.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @VeritateIn

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 18:16:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762179802239242240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762169043132502108

  • Government needs a few tweaks, which in retrospect should have been obvious – I’

    Government needs a few tweaks, which in retrospect should have been obvious – I’ve done the work and it’s rock solid science. Monarchies don’t need to govern any more than do judges. But in the end, given the universality of the failure of political systems due to incentives (read Burnham and Hoppe) we do require a judge of last resort that can if necessary replace a government failing the people. If we had a king right now we could sue as the founders did. But without a king we have only civil war. The english monarchy in the 20th has the correct rights and obligations under rule of law – they are above the law in restoration of the law. The problem is that they are afraid to use that power in the current postwar climate. In other words, without a monarchy you have no intergenerational defense of the people from what the left has done to us. And without a means by which the people can defend the monarchy they cannot exercise the power to defend us from the government.

    Reply addressees: @TomKawczynski

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 17:49:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762173123535781888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762171894663360764

  • ( Thoughts – Strategic ) I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to emerge, assumin

    ( Thoughts – Strategic )
    I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to emerge, assuming it only had a small chance of emerging, and it appears that it has. “Secession into greater unification.” Like many things it’s strategically optimum, but will the population understand it?
    We can convert the five eyes into a greater number, by secession, disempower the costal hostiles and effectively restore the anglosphere (the british empire) into a federation with a monarchy serving as a judge of last resort.
    Like many propositions I put forward that seem unlikely at first, I think that over a few years it could develop into a rational choice. And in the end it might even save germany from it’s almost certain dissolution.
    The USA cannot govern the world, or even the eurosphere or even that anglosphere as it is constructed with such concentration of power and such capture by the destructive credentialists of the left. I can explain how this would be brought about and why it would be effective in bringing ‘DC-NY-LA’ to heel.
    I have a work day planned today, and do not need distractions from trying to get the “Pamphlet” (summary) done and published, but I expect to spend time producing that argument and possibly producing a video, in the near future.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-26 16:56:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762159589305237504

  • Comments on “The New Right Is All About Aesthetics” IMO the right is merely adop

    Comments on “The New Right Is All About Aesthetics”
    IMO the right is merely adopting the strategy that matters to women by adopting the strategy of women. This is in fact the only strategy that can work under desocialization, and dating-site shopping, when women are exposed to… https://twitter.com/whatifalthist/status/1760758595736535173

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-23 01:19:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760836849566716412

  • “What is this about?”– In the abstract it is about (1) whether the people are s

    –“What is this about?”–

    In the abstract it is about (1) whether the people are sovereign or the state or the court (the people) (2) whether the natural law (reciprocity, tort, demonstrated interest, individual sovereignty) provides universal decidability (yes), (3) and whether the injection of jewish authoritarian legal thought (Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, Hartt), like jewish marxist thought, can replace our 5000 years of sovereignty by demand for commonality in positiva legislation and concurrency in negativa findings of the court (no) (4) or whether we will continue the reforms started by Scalia to restore our law and our sovereignty, or whether the destruction of rule of law will continue just as the destruction of our culture, institutions, history, civilization, and frankly – genome – will succeed.

    So it’s THE question. The rest is just noise.

    Reply addressees: @Asha2044635 @FedSoc

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 19:17:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760383290303807488

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760281458491457832

  • EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY The relationship between epistemology and decidabil

    EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY

    The relationship between epistemology and decidability is both profound and integral to understanding the nature of knowledge, truth, and the frameworks through which we make decisions.

    Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, exploring the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge. It addresses questions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the extent to which any subject or entity can be known.

    Decidability, in a broad philosophical context, refers to the ability to make clear, definitive decisions or judgments about propositions, theories, or knowledge claims. In logic and mathematics, decidability is more specifically defined as the question of whether a given problem can be algorithmically solved—i.e., whether there exists a finite, systematic procedure that can always lead to a clear yes or no answer to a question posed within a specific formal system.

    The relationship between these two concepts centers on the idea of how we come to know what we claim to know (epistemology) and how that knowledge informs our ability to make decisions or judgments about truth, falsity, and the applicability of information (decidability). In many respects, decidability is a practical outcome or goal of epistemological inquiry: to not only understand the nature of knowledge but also to apply it in making determinations about the world.

    From an epistemological viewpoint, the criteria we use to judge the validity or truth of knowledge claims directly influence our ability to decide on the truth or falsity of propositions. For example, the principle of verification, a concept in logical positivism, suggests that a proposition is meaningful only if it can be definitively proven true or false. This principle directly ties the concept of meaningful knowledge (an epistemological concern) to the concept of decidability.

    In your work, given your interest in performative truth, morality, law, economics, and other areas, decidability becomes a crucial concern as it pertains to the application of epistemological principles. Deciding on the truth or falsity of claims, the justness of laws, or the efficacy of economic policies requires a foundation in how we know what we claim to know and how we evaluate the validity of these claims. This intersection is where epistemology provides the theoretical framework, and decidability represents the practical application or outcome of this framework in real-world decision-making processes.

    Moreover, in the context of your emphasis on Natural Law and the unification of the sciences, the relationship between epistemology and decidability extends into the methodology for deriving universal principles that govern human behavior and social order. This involves critically examining how we acquire knowledge across disciplines and how this knowledge can be consistently applied to make decisions that are congruent with Natural Law principles.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 17:45:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760360127486439424

  • DEFENDING RUDYARD LYNCH ( @Whatifalthist ) ON CIVIL WARS THE RHYTHM OF HISTORY H

    DEFENDING RUDYARD LYNCH ( @Whatifalthist ) ON CIVIL WARS

    THE RHYTHM OF HISTORY
    He is the only other ‘very smart person’ on the center-right that I know of. His knowledge base evolved from alternate history using deep knowledge of each time period. The job of intellectuals is to paint a field of possibilities for the future that we can then drive toward or away from. I do that. He does that. Every single intellectual who studies what we would call cycles from memory to development, to fashion, to business cycles, to economic cycles, to generational cycles, to secular cycles, to warfare cycles, to civilizational cycles comes to the same conclusions over time.

    COOPERATION > MARKETS > MARKET EXHAUSTION
    And since about 1990 a number of us have predicted this current collapse-war-restructuring cycle, because many cycles (markets so to speak) are converging on cycle (market) failure. I’ve been ‘on message’ since 2004. Huntington since 1981, Strauss and Howe since the 1990. And Turchin since about 2000. Plato, Aristotle, and Polybus discussed it. The romans made an institution of it (see Cato). Also see Machiavelli, Carlyle, Spengler, Pareto, Sorokin, Modelski, Kuznetz, Kondratieff(Where I learned it), and many others.

    I tend to underestimate the ‘slowness’ of the population so to speak (consistently) so I predicted it earlier, (by 2020) but I was close. Most predicted around 2030. It’s very difficult to see that number as not ‘close’. Like all markets, one cannot ‘time’ a market. One can only roughly estimate the range.

    THE OVERCONFIDENCE OF THE CONSERVATIVE MIND
    Instead I would suggest that you are overestimating your ability as do almost all conservatives (it is why conservatives are conservative) and overestimating your perception of the state of mind of the population. As Lynch points out repeatedly in his video (as have every synthetic historian), almost no one predicts them, and less so times them correctly. Instead, the conditions arise (they have) and a trigger event or sequence of trigger events occur, and the tiny fraction of the population willing to resort to force reach their limit of tolerance, and the result spirals.

    CONDITIONS
    Given the scarcity of US forces, the state of european forces, the divisiveness and the loss of trust in government, combined with the economic failures and the shift in world power structures, and the pent up demand for aggressive reorganization of borders and power in the world, it is almost impossible for a population with an oversupply of single males not to revolt – or for powers to seek coherence in suppression of revolt by initiation of external warfare in desperate attempt to increase dependence on the state. (Russia today, China Soon, Iran consistently).

    If civil war doesn’t happen in the USA it will likely escape that pressures by the emergence of foreign wars. Otherwise , massive foreign invasion, hypersupply of single men, hopeless economy, no faith in govt, ideological (religious) divide, sedition from within in the academy, the divergence of male and female interests behind it, and a democracy lacking a monarchy able to force resolution of it, will end up in civil war.

    It’s just deterministic.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @JackOfAwlTrades @demontage2000 @NetheriteSpart1 @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-19 15:39:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759603701008764928

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759596827358204378