Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE WISDOM OF RUSSIAN TOLERANCE: BUYING TIME. Russian tolerance for judaism and

    THE WISDOM OF RUSSIAN TOLERANCE: BUYING TIME.

    Russian tolerance for judaism and islam is the same as christian monarchic tolerance for judaism and Islam: when minorities have no access to political power, and you have a state-sponsored, state-owned church, and you have democracy in name only, then it’s possible to USE minorities but not be threatened by them – they have no access to power. And as we saw with the oligarchs, if they obtain it, they can easily lose it. The strong rule.

    Now, whether this remains true over time is something else. It’s doubtful Russians will tolerate islamic levels of ignorance spreading into in their society. They will continue to contain it. And it’s possible Russian leadership is just buying time – from what I understand, that’s the case. Because in twenty years, at current rates of reform – especially reforming rule of law in matters commercial and personal – despite the sanctions, Russia will be a major power again – at least in military, petroleum, and resources. And she will have an advantage: a small population. Which is not something that other nations understand. In a post-market economy, where technology has been equilibrated around the world, then a large territory, lots of resources, and a small population and an exemplary military are the most valuable assets.

    Why? Population – especially below 90IQ – has become a burden again. Whether russian leadership and thought leadership understands this or not is not something I am privy to. However, *it is the right strategy for them, and for Christendom*.

    The Intermarium may choose to go west to the germanic, or east to the finno-russian, or remain lithuanian-polish-ukrainian-czech. I would suggest that latin, germanic, intermarium, and russian civilizations would be more powerful as separate cultures than homogenized.

    The only problem is “how do we import german police and judges?” Because that is, largely, the world’s problem with modernity. They cannot create rule of law. Because they cannot evolve a militia into a judiciary, sheriff and police force without even greater risk of instability. This is the only way to end corruption: the ‘economic privilege’ of the military, judicial, sheriff, and police class must be maintained in order to suppress corruption. And this requires a smaller ‘professional’ military, judicial training via the military ethic, and staffing of sheriff (of the court) and police (of the region), and a large militia ‘reserve’ (of the nation). As long as that hierarchy polices its members, and as long as they are well paid, then corruption can be suppressed. But without it – it can’t.

    The military protects the people from outsiders. the judiciary and the sheriffs protect the people from the state, and the police protect the people from each other. Russia will succeed because like the japanese, they do not place the market about the nation. Which is the opposite westerners, who place the market above the nation – causing their own demise.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-31 13:48:00 UTC

  • THE RESIDUES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE RESIDUES OF ARYANISM Or even better. That those

    THE RESIDUES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE RESIDUES OF ARYANISM

    Or even better. That those myths and that content, was originally greek, roman, and european – and that it was always there even before the church.

    It doesn’t matter what name we call those residues (Pareto called them Residues and Derivations). It isn’t helpful to associate them with the church.

    Those residues and derivations can be stated scientifically, rationally, and mythically. They don’t need the fiction around them at all.

    Rabbinical Judaism was an innovation (reformation) produced from greek ideas.

    Christianity was an innovation (reformation) on judaism produced from greek, roman, and persian ideas.

    What was retained was the 1) the false history to add legitimacy by contrast to the new reformation, 2) the trials of christ story to replace the trials of Achilles story; 3) the underlying argument that the unlanded (poor, ignorant) pastoralists were somehow divine (rather than inferior) to the agrarians and their aristocracy (the strong, wealthy, powerful), 4) the use of all of the above to undermine the aristocracy, commercial, and agrarian society.

    —“when the Christian myths became unbelievable, they left in the minds of even intelligent and educated men a residue, the detritus of the rejected mythology, in the form of superstitions about “all mankind,” “human rights,” and similar figments of the imagination that had gained currency only on the assumption that they had been decreed by an omnipotent deity, so that in practical terms we must regard as basically Christian and religious such irrational cults as Communism and the tangle of fancies that is called “Liberalism” and is the most widely accepted faith among our people today. I am a little encouraged that today some of the more intelligent “Liberals” are at last perceiving that their supposedly rational creed is simply based on the Christian myths they have consciously rejected. I note, for example, that Mary Kenny, who describes herself as “a former radical”, has come to the realization that “so many of the [Liberals’] political ideas… are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally… The feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.”-Revilo P. Oliver—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-30 17:06:00 UTC

  • “Do you believe in absolute Truth? Do you believe it is knowable?”— Speaking t

    —“Do you believe in absolute Truth? Do you believe it is knowable?”—

    Speaking the most parsimonious (absolute) truth is possible.

    We can know a most parsimonious truth – particularly if we specify its limits.

    We can rarely know when we know it.

    The primary challenges we face are (a)not knowing the laws underlying the physical universe, and the operations that are possible prior to the elements (chemistry). (b) not knowing the mathematics of the intermediate patterns of variation caused by the set of possible operations – a mathematics we are just beginning to understand; (c) not knowing the laws of information – meaning, not knowing the information necessary to change state (for us to perceive a change in state) in a host of information fields (causal density).

    I try to avoid ‘absolute truth’, because it’s non operational.

    0)Tautology (identity)

    1) Analytic Truth (logical and mathematical proof)

    2) Ideal Truth ( imaginary, platonic, perfection )

    3) Most Parsimonious Truth ( real, perfection, law )

    4) Testimonial Truth (due diligence and warranty, theory.)

    5) Hypothetical Truth (reasonable but lacking due diligence)

    6) Honesty

    Most of the time, when people use the word ‘absolute truth’, they mean (2) Ideal Truth. What it means is “I don’t know how such a thing is constructed, so I will use this vague term.”

    That’s the value of operational language. We can know when we know what we’re talking about and when we’re pretending we know what we’re talking about. And when we use platonic terminology (the ideal) we are broadcasting that we do not in fact know what we are talking about.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-26 10:41:00 UTC

  • My god? My god is the god of my people. His name? He has many names. But all Tru

    My god? My god is the god of my people. His name? He has many names. But all True Names must be stated in operational language. As such, the true name of my god, is The God Who Works to Transcend My People. Does he exist? Existence requires persistence. He does not persist without my people. He exists as heroes, gods, myths, laws of nature, and numbers exist, by living eternally in the minds of our people – some part here, some part there, some parts everywhere – together creating the whole. So, I know my god’s true name. And I know his gift: transcendence, and I know his compensation: that we speak the truth and demand it of others, that we take nothing not paid for, and demand it of others, that cause others no loss, and demand it of others. These are high costs. He is the most costly of gods. That is why so few can choose to trade with him.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-24 11:29:00 UTC

  • Class 2 of 3 – Your Graduate Course In Epistemology – BOOM! (Jared Howe)

    (continuing with testimonialism’s synthesis of science, philosophy, morality and law) —“Denying apriorism whilst simultaneously making a priori truth claims = hopelessly confused.”— Actually, ah, but that’s not what I did, right? I deflated Kant to unite science, philosophy, morality and law and the techniques of deceptive argument by claims of distinctions without a difference that were used by the marxists-postmodernists, rothbardians and straussian neocons. (Which is what others will tell you.) (In other words, I ‘hardened’ philosophy by uniting it with science and law.) I said: – That analytic truth(thought), ideal truth(words), “testimonial truth”or existentially possible truth(actions) describe a spectrum of increasing differences in information between the statement and reality. – That all a priori statements are special cases of the single theoretical method that encompasses all of conceivable and actionable reality. – That Reality consists of a number of actionable dimensions, and that the various statements of a priori reasoning reflected the most simple of those dimensions. – That we can test each dimension of reality for consistency. – That any test of any dimension consistency requires appealing to the test of at least the next dimension, and that any test of reality requires appealing to the full set of dimensions of reality. – That survival of each dimensional test does not determine that the statement is true, but that it is non false within the scope of the limits defined. – That because of causal density, the application of economic theories can describe trends but not cases. – That we cannot know a subset of cases will follow the general rule without investigation. – That all not only can all cases not be determined, or not all trends be observable, but that all economic phenomenon cannot be and have not been discovered by deduction but by empirical observation (ie: sticky prices), because much economic phenomenon is beyond our perceptions without measurements. – That the predictability of economic phenomenon is (likely) determined by symmetries within intermediary states (in math “lie groups”) and that these are not deducible without empirical observation due to the limits of the human mind to model. But that once modeled will be understandable by the human mind. – That this epistemological method will apply even with the addition of new dimensions (which is the likely consequence of the current mathematical and physical investigation into symmetries. Symmetries we cannot conceive of. But once observed we can operationally explain. OR AS POPPER TOLD US: All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent. All scientific investigation is social and moral. OR AS I’M STATING MORE COMPLETELY All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent, and demand for completeness of truth claims is in fact nothing but demand for warranty of due diligence given the the externalities of the display, speech or action. THE LAW The ‘Law’ of the Analytic(thought), Ideal(word), Real(action), Reasonable(choice), Moral(reciprocal): – Analytic: i can or cannot think that. – Ideal:I think I can or cannot say that. – Real:I claim I can or cannot do that. – Reasonable: I can or cannot but would or would not do that. – Moral: I would or would not do that, but I should or should not do that. HOW CAN WE REDUCE THIS TO GENERAL RULES? (a) All non trivial statements about the reality require prior experience. (b) All non trivial propositions are contingent. (c) All non trivial tests of dimensional consistency are incomplete (d) These statements are all contingent. (e) All statements we know how to make are contingent, because all knowledge is contingent. (f) All display, speech, action, and externality CLOSING In other words, I eliminated the special pleading intended by, and made possible by kant by the mandation of ignorance, as a resistance against the tide of science. Which is why Rothbard used rationalism, just as abrahamic religious dogma was used: to place artificial constraints on our actions by placing artificial constraints on our reason. FWIW I use people like you as educational foils. Because while I understand that these advances are probably too difficult for you, they are not too difficult for everyone, and these conversations function as advertising and marketing by which I can locate those who CAN understand such things (likely because of a combination of education and intelligence). And what we have come to understand over the past few years, is that one generally must have an understanding of the methods of the sciences as well as economics, if not learned from computer science the difference between mathematics (arithmetic operations), logic (set operations), programming (algorithmic operations). The reason being, that algorithmic operations must be informationally complete, and training the human mind to think by decidability (informational sufficiency) rather than choice (informational possibility) is rather challenging. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Class 2 of 3 – Your Graduate Course In Epistemology – BOOM! (Jared Howe)

    (continuing with testimonialism’s synthesis of science, philosophy, morality and law) —“Denying apriorism whilst simultaneously making a priori truth claims = hopelessly confused.”— Actually, ah, but that’s not what I did, right? I deflated Kant to unite science, philosophy, morality and law and the techniques of deceptive argument by claims of distinctions without a difference that were used by the marxists-postmodernists, rothbardians and straussian neocons. (Which is what others will tell you.) (In other words, I ‘hardened’ philosophy by uniting it with science and law.) I said: – That analytic truth(thought), ideal truth(words), “testimonial truth”or existentially possible truth(actions) describe a spectrum of increasing differences in information between the statement and reality. – That all a priori statements are special cases of the single theoretical method that encompasses all of conceivable and actionable reality. – That Reality consists of a number of actionable dimensions, and that the various statements of a priori reasoning reflected the most simple of those dimensions. – That we can test each dimension of reality for consistency. – That any test of any dimension consistency requires appealing to the test of at least the next dimension, and that any test of reality requires appealing to the full set of dimensions of reality. – That survival of each dimensional test does not determine that the statement is true, but that it is non false within the scope of the limits defined. – That because of causal density, the application of economic theories can describe trends but not cases. – That we cannot know a subset of cases will follow the general rule without investigation. – That all not only can all cases not be determined, or not all trends be observable, but that all economic phenomenon cannot be and have not been discovered by deduction but by empirical observation (ie: sticky prices), because much economic phenomenon is beyond our perceptions without measurements. – That the predictability of economic phenomenon is (likely) determined by symmetries within intermediary states (in math “lie groups”) and that these are not deducible without empirical observation due to the limits of the human mind to model. But that once modeled will be understandable by the human mind. – That this epistemological method will apply even with the addition of new dimensions (which is the likely consequence of the current mathematical and physical investigation into symmetries. Symmetries we cannot conceive of. But once observed we can operationally explain. OR AS POPPER TOLD US: All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent. All scientific investigation is social and moral. OR AS I’M STATING MORE COMPLETELY All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent, and demand for completeness of truth claims is in fact nothing but demand for warranty of due diligence given the the externalities of the display, speech or action. THE LAW The ‘Law’ of the Analytic(thought), Ideal(word), Real(action), Reasonable(choice), Moral(reciprocal): – Analytic: i can or cannot think that. – Ideal:I think I can or cannot say that. – Real:I claim I can or cannot do that. – Reasonable: I can or cannot but would or would not do that. – Moral: I would or would not do that, but I should or should not do that. HOW CAN WE REDUCE THIS TO GENERAL RULES? (a) All non trivial statements about the reality require prior experience. (b) All non trivial propositions are contingent. (c) All non trivial tests of dimensional consistency are incomplete (d) These statements are all contingent. (e) All statements we know how to make are contingent, because all knowledge is contingent. (f) All display, speech, action, and externality CLOSING In other words, I eliminated the special pleading intended by, and made possible by kant by the mandation of ignorance, as a resistance against the tide of science. Which is why Rothbard used rationalism, just as abrahamic religious dogma was used: to place artificial constraints on our actions by placing artificial constraints on our reason. FWIW I use people like you as educational foils. Because while I understand that these advances are probably too difficult for you, they are not too difficult for everyone, and these conversations function as advertising and marketing by which I can locate those who CAN understand such things (likely because of a combination of education and intelligence). And what we have come to understand over the past few years, is that one generally must have an understanding of the methods of the sciences as well as economics, if not learned from computer science the difference between mathematics (arithmetic operations), logic (set operations), programming (algorithmic operations). The reason being, that algorithmic operations must be informationally complete, and training the human mind to think by decidability (informational sufficiency) rather than choice (informational possibility) is rather challenging. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • ARE RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY DEAD? WELL, IT DEPENDS – THEY ARE ‘NARROWED” SIGNIFI

    ARE RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY DEAD? WELL, IT DEPENDS – THEY ARE ‘NARROWED” SIGNIFICANTLY

    RELIGION

    No. I’ve spent the past three years on this problem and physicial fitness, mindfulness (mental fitness), myth-literature-history-narrative collections(macro rules), are just as important as recipe-formula-law collections.

    One of the things my work in philosophy has taught me, that this article demonstrates, is that if you can’t describe something in a series (spectrum) then you are very likely making the error of an ideal type (unlmited) instead of a category (limited).

    Ergo, the first discipline must be truthful speech. Science as we understand it consists of the process of performing due diligence prior to publication of our speech.

    Physics like mathematics is just *the simplest* of the disciplines. Whereas for example, economics is much harder, and sentience is much harder than economics.

    PHILOSOPHY

    Philosophy has made very little progress in its unique preoccupation: decidability(truth), consent (good), and choice(preference).

    As far as I know, formal logic was a dead end and a waste of a century.

    If I’m correct, and have produced operational logic(action) to replace verbal logic (meaning), then perhaps we will make some progress in philosophy, and finally separate theology, moral fictionalism, and rhetorical calculation, completing the categorical divergence of Zoroaster/Augustine/Constantinople(supernatural), Socrates/Plato/Greece(ideal), and Aristotle/Zeon/Rome(real).

    And we can finally put Plato and the continentals to bed as we have put theology to bed – forever.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-22 09:24:00 UTC

  • There Are No Ideal Governments, Only One Ideal Rule.

    IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. (you probably want to read this) Ideal RULE exists: rule of natural law, and markets in everything providing perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Ideal *Government*- meaning the production of commons, must adapt as does any organization to market (conflict, peace, prosperity) demands.

    —“Nazism, fascism are merely conservative and nationalistic versions of socialism. Nobody is under the illusion individuals own anything under nazism/fascism. Even men’s body’s become the property of the state. The world anti fascist war was fought from 1939-45 precisely because the sober knew the danger”— A Friend Correct. It was an era of warfare against communism. The difference was that while napoleon had invented total war of nationalism, the marxists and bolsheviks had created a total war of the underclass by way of rebellion, a pseudoscientific religion to replace mysticism, using the promise of heaven in this life rather than the next. Fascism responded yet again with nationalism expanded to economic and cultural warfare in return, where napoleon had responded with military fascism in the roman model. Hitler’s ‘genius’ was to combine mussolini’s nationalism with an aesthetic religion to match or exceed that of the communist underclasses, thereby uniting classes against communism’s cult. Neither model is economically feasible, but both are simply methods of conducting warfare by the use of propaganda made possible by rail, telegraph, radio, and cinema. The pulpit could be everywhere. But we can learn from rome as usual: fascism (generalship) in times of war, and markets (rule of law) in times of peace. And that a government must adapt to circumstance, whether warfare (fascism), peace (classical liberalism), or surplus (social democracy). And that such adaptation is merely scientific necessity rather than pondering the folly of philosophical ideals. In other words: Technology(Real) not philosophy(ideal). You are, I think, as a moral man, confusing the ideal ‘good’ (classical liberalism in times of peace) with the necessary (fascism in times of war), with social democracy (redistribution of windfalls) and that governments must flex between the three models as necessary given their circumstances. And better yet, that flexibility allows for the destruction of rents accumulated under each model. As far as I know the science of government is closed. All anyone can do is lie cheat and steal if they advocate otherwise. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • There Are No Ideal Governments, Only One Ideal Rule.

    IDEAL METHODS OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXIST. THEY ARE SIMPLY TECHNOLOGIES TO APPLY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. (you probably want to read this) Ideal RULE exists: rule of natural law, and markets in everything providing perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Ideal *Government*- meaning the production of commons, must adapt as does any organization to market (conflict, peace, prosperity) demands.

    —“Nazism, fascism are merely conservative and nationalistic versions of socialism. Nobody is under the illusion individuals own anything under nazism/fascism. Even men’s body’s become the property of the state. The world anti fascist war was fought from 1939-45 precisely because the sober knew the danger”— A Friend Correct. It was an era of warfare against communism. The difference was that while napoleon had invented total war of nationalism, the marxists and bolsheviks had created a total war of the underclass by way of rebellion, a pseudoscientific religion to replace mysticism, using the promise of heaven in this life rather than the next. Fascism responded yet again with nationalism expanded to economic and cultural warfare in return, where napoleon had responded with military fascism in the roman model. Hitler’s ‘genius’ was to combine mussolini’s nationalism with an aesthetic religion to match or exceed that of the communist underclasses, thereby uniting classes against communism’s cult. Neither model is economically feasible, but both are simply methods of conducting warfare by the use of propaganda made possible by rail, telegraph, radio, and cinema. The pulpit could be everywhere. But we can learn from rome as usual: fascism (generalship) in times of war, and markets (rule of law) in times of peace. And that a government must adapt to circumstance, whether warfare (fascism), peace (classical liberalism), or surplus (social democracy). And that such adaptation is merely scientific necessity rather than pondering the folly of philosophical ideals. In other words: Technology(Real) not philosophy(ideal). You are, I think, as a moral man, confusing the ideal ‘good’ (classical liberalism in times of peace) with the necessary (fascism in times of war), with social democracy (redistribution of windfalls) and that governments must flex between the three models as necessary given their circumstances. And better yet, that flexibility allows for the destruction of rents accumulated under each model. As far as I know the science of government is closed. All anyone can do is lie cheat and steal if they advocate otherwise. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The 21st CENTURY QUESTION FACING EUROPEAN AND EAST ASIAN MAN The 21st Century Qu

    The 21st CENTURY QUESTION FACING EUROPEAN AND EAST ASIAN MAN

    The 21st Century Question Facing Anglo-European- Slavic, and Chinese-Korean-Japanese Man

    “I can conquer and enslave you, and it will be profitable for me and mine, and unprofitable for you. The only reason not to conquer and enslave you and profit from it, is if we can agree to perfect reciprocity – Natural Law – such that it is more profitable to cooperate in markets than to conquer and enslave you. For the past century it has been more profitable to create markets to exchange with you, despite the high costs to us of building those markets, than it has been to conquer and enslave you. But given that due to the worldwide adoption of our technologies and the leveling of the global work force, the profitability of markets is rapidly declining, and the value of markets will shortly end, it is perhaps, no longer in our interests to tolerate the consequences of trying to trade with you, and instead, conquer and enslave you as our primary and most profitable industry. So why not, rather than allow you to exterminate us by means of our own markets, do not we simply return to conquering and enslaving you and living off of the returns of doing so?

    That is the question. In fact, that is the question that American/european/slavic and chinese/korean/japanese men must answer.

    Because at present, it seems much more profitable to return to colonization and enslavement than to tolerate the consequences of trying to domesticate you into adopting our markets.

    And there is nothing that you could do to stop it if Western and Eastern Man decide that our attempts to civilize you have failed.

    All theories have limits beyond which they fail. The value of markets is not infinite. And it appears that our limit has been reached.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 12:45:00 UTC