Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I WILL GUT THE ALT RIGHT’S USE OF POSTMODERNISM THIS YEAR I was connected to all

    I WILL GUT THE ALT RIGHT’S USE OF POSTMODERNISM THIS YEAR

    I was connected to all the top libertarians before I gutted libertarianism. History had already gutted marxism. Peterson and Hicks are gutting left’s postmodernism. I’m just showing how to gut all postmodern speech left and right. And I’ll take out the use of postmodernism by the right over the next year.

    And then we will have an honest discussion about how we will conduct civil war and destroy this government, or we will have one under which we devolve the regulation of norms to the regions, and limit the federal government (once again) to the regulation of trade between states, and the defense of the continent – just as europe will as the european project fails in tandem.

    The present is only novel to those who have not mastered history, economics, and demographics. People are just another domesticated animal. We are special only in that we can use language and reason to negotiate cooperation or war with each other, rather than throw feces and shouting.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 12:52:00 UTC

  • HOW REVOLUTIONS ARE WON: BY SEIGE —“I’ve seen police of my own country, beat u

    HOW REVOLUTIONS ARE WON: BY SEIGE

    —“I’ve seen police of my own country, beat up women and children, but they cuck hard when dealing with minorities who spit on national flags and curse them. Don’t count on them, they’ve been trained their whole life to obey to the system.”– Stefan Rex

    You ask the police and military and judiciary to opt in. You prosecute those who don’t. The nation depends on the illusion of power. The economics of order dictate that the ability to maintain order is limited to the normative level of suppressible crime.

    If instead, we redirect energies from crime to territorial asset protection, then the crime will expand. If we prosecute those who fail to opt in, suppression will decline, and our success and crime will expand.

    If we are successful at suppression of transportation of goods, fuel, power, and information, the economy will collapse, and crime and rebellion will overwhelm the ability of the state to maintain order.

    If we have given demands *that are possible to meet, and solve everyone’s problems by separation* then the population will prefer separation and it’s contentments with conquest and its discontent.

    You can think like a democrat monopolist seeking permission from the state, or you can think like an economist and a general trying to collapse the frail system of incentives that makes the state possible.

    You do not storm a castle. You do not rebel against an army in a castle. You burn the fields, cut off the water, and stop all transport and trade, and people in the castle surrender or die from deprivation.

    The western way of war (See Van Creveld) is to resolve issues quickly before they lead to the accumulation of asymmetric power. But once one accumulates asymmetric power, the only solution is *SEIGE*.

    In fifth generation warfare, small numbers of men, who can hide among their oppressors, can conduct a siege just as muslim raiders conducted a siege against european, byzantine, persian, egyptian, and levantine civilizations.

    Siege wins – always.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-13 12:18:00 UTC

  • My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I ha

    My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the SCIENCE and LOGIC of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.

    Where I differ from other thinkers in psychology and social science is that I have the experience of working on artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as counter intuitive and as difficult to learn as mathematics, reading, writing, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and engineering.

    My position on the application of this science and logic is that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development. And furthermore, that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation. And that this is the scientific means of historical analysis of different cultures and civilizations.

    The application of this reasoning produces a *theory*. It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But until it is sufficiently criticized by others – no matter how futile I think that criticism will be – it remains a theory. Because it is a narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 13:20:00 UTC

  • THE FALL DE-ABRAHAMIZED The Fall The King built a great garden with high walls a

    THE FALL DE-ABRAHAMIZED

    The Fall

    The King built a great garden with high walls and named it Eden. Angry that it was not perfect without innocence, he purchased from slavers, two most beautiful children, and raised them with the birds, animals, fish, fruits in his garden named Eden. The boy he named Adam, and the girl he named Eve.

    The King raised to the boy and the girl in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the King commanded them, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

    Adam and Eve tended the garden, ate all they wanted from it, and knew nothing of the world beyond its walls save the sounds of birds, the rain and the wind.

    The king brought to the garden all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to Adam to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

    Now among the animals of the garden was an evil serpent, who was jealous of the love of the king for Adam and Eve. The serpent was more crafty than any of the other animals. He said to the woman, “Did the King really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

    The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but the King did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

    “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For The King knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as free men, knowing good and evil.”

    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

    She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

    Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the King as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the King among the trees of the garden. But the King called to the man, “Where are you?”

    He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

    And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

    The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

    Then the King said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

    The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

    So the King said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

    “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals!

    I send you to the desert where you will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.”

    To the woman Eve he said, “From my garden I cast you. Know that your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you. And with painful labor you will give birth to children.”

    To the man Adam he said, “From my garden I cast you. Through painful toil you will eat food from the land all the days of your life. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, from it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return.”

    The King gave garments of skin for Adam and his wife and to cloth them. And the King said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

    So the the king banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which they had been taken.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 19:06:00 UTC

  • CAIN AND ABEL DE-ABRAHAMIZED Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became preg

    CAIN AND ABEL DE-ABRAHAMIZED

    Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. And in their manhood gave Abel flocks, and Cain Soil, that his sons be fruitful and prosper.

    Now Abel kept his flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as a gift to Adam. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. Adam looked with favor on Abel and his gift, but on Cain and his gift he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

    Then Adam said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, you will not be accepted; greed and envy desire to have you, but you must rule over it.”

    Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

    Then Adam said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

    “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    Adam said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now I curse you drive you from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. You will not work the ground, and it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

    Cain said to Adam, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

    But Adam said to him, “Not so”; and Adam took Cain and cut his mark on Cain as he would a beast or slave. And adam said “Anyone who kills Cain will suffer my vengeance seven times over.” So Cain went out from Adam’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Where he married, built a city, and prospered.

    Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “Adam has given me another child in place of Abel, because Cain has killed him.”

    Adam gave Seth his land and his flocks, and Adam, Eve, Seth and his children prospered.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 18:47:00 UTC

  • FOR SCIENTISTS: UNDERSTANDING JORDAN PETERSON’S INNOVATIONS 1) SYNTHESIS OF LITE

    FOR SCIENTISTS: UNDERSTANDING JORDAN PETERSON’S INNOVATIONS

    1) SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE, PSYCHOLOGY, AND BIOLOGY

    Peterson has identified the relationship between the monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues> Personality > Reward systems > Brain structure. So he has converted Jung’s loose (pseudo-scientific) assumptions into a scientific description and integrated it into literary theory.

    In other words, he has found that by use of transformational (monomyth) narratives we circumvent the near impossibility of direct self-reflection, and learn, correct, and relearn by empathy with third party ‘characters’ instead – thereby using mirroring (empathy) to circumvent the challenges of self reflection.

    2) RESTORATION AND EXPRESSION OF STOICISM IS SCIENTIFIC TERMS

    He has taken it further into restoring our natural european religion of Stoicism by suggesting that we can use myth, literature, and self-authoring to accomplish the mindfulness of stoicism, and abandon the abrahamic superstitions that result in ignorance and decline, without moving into buddhism or other forms of ritual. That means only Stoicism produces a mindfulness of *innovation* (adaptation) of the self through action, rather than through disconnection.

    3) REFORMATION OF THERAPY(Error Correction), EDUCATION (Market Skills), AND RELIGION (Normative Discipline)

    The restoration of the stoic program and the use of literature would allow us to reform religion (trainning in the extension of kinship love, training in mindfulness, restoration of natural holidays and heroes), Education (teaching mindfulness as another ordinary discipline like vocabulary and grammar, reading, essay and argument (logic and rhetoric), measurement and mathematics).

    DEFLATING THE CENTRAL INNOVATION IN CHRISTIANITY

    Christianity trains people in only one thing: the extension of kinship love outside of immediate kin to ‘invest in’ (purchase) cooperation that otherwise would not be possible to acquire. But so does the simple imposition of common law, and the development of a middle class by commerce. In that sense, christianity (like judaism, and islam) is a primitive method of cooperation using charity and virtue signals rather than commercial interaction and material reward seeking to build trust in one another.

    THE INTEGRATION OF CHRISTIANITY AND WESTERN DEFLATIONARY TRUTH

    The uniqueness of the west is that we combined deflationary truth, deflationary institutions, and continuous competition ALONG WITH extension of kinship love. And it was that combination that allowed us to both unify in cooperation and remain separate in government and institutions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 16:56:00 UTC

  • I DON’T KNOW, ACTUALLY. IS THE TERM POLYMATH? OR IS IT JUST SPECIALIZING IN TRUT

    I DON’T KNOW, ACTUALLY. IS THE TERM POLYMATH? OR IS IT JUST SPECIALIZING IN TRUTH REGARDLESS OF FIELD?

    I don’t like the term polymath either. The problem is, I have had to master the theoretical content of nearly every field, even if I have not had to (nor would I in one lifetime be able to) master the application of that theoretical content. Because while it takes quite a bit of effort, it’s possible to deflate the ‘nonsense language’ in each field, into what constitutes a truth claim in this field, and how is it *not in fact true*.

    I’m clearly an expert in truthful speech across the fields – all of them. Which required understanding the criteria of decidability in each of them. So I would go with specialization in truthful speech across all fields, contributing to all fields. But I don’t claim to be a very good mathematician, chemist or physicist. just a judge of decidability in those fields.

    —“Don’t mathematicians specialise in being truthful in their fields? What do you mean when you say you are ‘specialised’ at determining truth in all these fields?”— Rik Storey

    No. And one of the top mathematicians will tell you that. They specialize in PROOFS, not truth. “We leave truth to philosophers, we create proofs”.

    Just as top scientists don’t say they create truth. They practice science. And science produces hypotheses, theories, and laws.

    Just as jurists don’t produce truths, they produce law (decisions).

    —“Precisely so then in what sense do you claim to specialise in truth in all these fields?”—Rik Storey

    FAILURES IN FIELDS

    – Mathematical failure of operationalism and the construction of platonism.

    – Physical science (Critical Preference) failure of parsimony and cost.

    – Law failure of natural law of decidability and strict construction.

    – Economic failure of full accounting and limits.

    – Money failure of full transition to multiple currencies.

    – Accounting failure of pooling and laundering (traceability).

    – Politics (many) failures of economics vs natural law, failure of

    monopoly and ascent vs market and legal dissent. Many, many.

    – Sociology failure of reciprocity and limits.

    – Psychology and failure of Acquisitionism.

    – Metaphysics and failure of action. the errors in philosophy are so fast that I could spend the rest of my life about it.

    – Aesthetics failure of tripartite valuation, measurement by triangulation, and reduction to acquisition.

    – Literature failure of morality and cognitive science.

    – Religion failure to abandon abrahamism for literature and cog sci.

    And that’s just touching the surface.

    I mean, this is why it’s taking a whole book. I have to produce a f-cking chapter on each damned field….sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 14:52:00 UTC

  • FOR SCIENTISTS: UNDERSTANDING JORDAN PETERSON’S INNOVATIONS 1) SYNTHESIS OF LITE

    FOR SCIENTISTS: UNDERSTANDING JORDAN PETERSON’S INNOVATIONS

    1) SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE, PSYCHOLOGY, AND BIOLOGY

    Peterson has identified the relationship between the monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues> Personality > Reward systems > Brain structure. So he has converted Jung’s loose (pseudo-scientific) assumptions into a scientific description and integrated it into literary theory.

    In other words, he has found that by use of transformational (monomyth) narratives we circumvent the near impossibility of direct self-reflection, and learn, correct, and relearn by empathy with third party ‘characters’ instead – thereby using mirroring (empathy) to circumvent the challenges of self reflection.

    2) RESTORATION AND EXPRESSION OF STOICISM IS SCIENTIFIC TERMS

    He has taken it further into restoring our natural european religion of Stoicism by suggesting that we can use myth, literature, and self-authoring to accomplish the mindfulness of stoicism, and abandon the abrahamic superstitions that result in ignorance and decline, without moving into buddhism or other forms of ritual. That means only Stoicism produces a mindfulness of *innovation* (adaptation) of the self through action, rather than through disconnection.

    3) REFORMATION OF THERAPY(Error Correction), EDUCATION (Market Skills), AND RELIGION (Normative Discipline)

    The restoration of the stoic program and the use of literature would allow us to reform religion (trainning in the extension of kinship love, training in mindfulness, restoration of natural holidays and heroes), Education (teaching mindfulness as another ordinary discipline like vocabulary and grammar, reading, essay and argument (logic and rhetoric), measurement and mathematics).

    DEFLATING THE CENTRAL INNOVATION IN CHRISTIANITY

    Christianity trains people in only one thing: the extension of kinship love outside of immediate kin to ‘invest in’ (purchase) cooperation that otherwise would not be possible to acquire. But so does the simple imposition of common law, and the development of a middle class by commerce. In that sense, christianity (like judaism, and islam) is a primitive method of cooperation using charity and virtue signals rather than commercial interaction and material reward seeking to build trust in one another.

    THE INTEGRATION OF CHRISTIANITY AND WESTERN DEFLATIONARY TRUTH

    The uniqueness of the west is that we combined deflationary truth, deflationary institutions, and continuous competition ALONG WITH extension of kinship love. And it was that combination that allowed us to both unify in cooperation and remain separate in government and institutions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 12:14:00 UTC

  • WHERE DO WE FIND KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH? (great important question for those fooled

    WHERE DO WE FIND KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH?

    (great important question for those fooled by rationalism)

    —“Where do you get your knowledge about truth If the senses cannot be relied on? All knowledge, including ideas (ideal), wishful (desireable, derived from feelings of pleasure and pain) are ultimately formed on the information derived from sense-organs. If you exclude what is derived from senses, than what remains to be calculated?”— Domagoj Vaci

    by Curt Doolittle

    || Senses > perceptions > experiences > memories(episodes) > products of reasoning(episodic modeling) > knowledge(survived modeling) > memories of the use of knowledge(survived actions – hypothesis) > memories of the consequences of the use of knowledge(survived consequences – theories) > memories of the class of consequences of the use of classes of knowledge(survived broadly – laws).

    Emotions reflect changes in state of that which we seek to acquire or have acquired, or have acquired and invested. Acquisition is the cause of the prey drive. The prey drive consists of stages. Each stage of the prey drive corresponds to one of our endocrinological reward(punishment) systems. The variations in our personalities are due to variation in the sensitivity and productivity of our endocrinological reward systems.

    || Acquisition > Prey Drive > Reward Systems > Variations > Personality (biases)

    We only obtain hypotheses from perception. We obtain theories from the record of our actions, and we obtain ‘laws’ from the categorical record of our actions.

    || Free association > hypothesis > theory > Law > Metaphysical Value judgements.

    So the question “where do we obtain knowledge of truth if not from our senses” is a common fallacy created out of the German (Kantian) counter-enlightenment. We obtain ideas from the mixing of our senses with our memories and instincts to acquire (avoid loss). We obtain incremental knowledge of success from the survival of our actions that test those free associations. We obtain incremental knowledge of truth from attempts to falsify those free associations by intent rather than waiting for failure.

    We only can develop hypotheses from free association, and only in certain special simple cases, can we identify confident deductions from them – what we call the “a priori” in counter-englightenment prose. But, while the average well intentioned fool uses the term “a priori” without understanding it, there is no such *CASE* as an ‘a priori’, alone, only the following CATEGORIES of a priori statements. In other words, the a priori tells us nothing other than we have identified an opportunity to learn a truth candidate at a discount.

    (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

    (b) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no

    (c) Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

    grandchildren.”

    (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

    This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

    (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

    (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

    (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

    (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

    The set of which must always go through the cycle of:

    || Free association > hypothesis > theory > law > metaphysical assumption.

    In other words, it must survive increasing markets for falsification.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 12:05:00 UTC

  • I DETERMINE BUBBLES BY THE OFFERINGS COMING TO MARKET, MARKETING PROSE, SALES PI

    I DETERMINE BUBBLES BY THE OFFERINGS COMING TO MARKET, MARKETING PROSE, SALES PITCHES, WHO IS SAYING WHAT, AND SO ON – not financial measures.

    I use asymmetries of knowledge and value. In other words, I measure by what other people are NOT measuring. (This is also what soros does.) Why? Because markets head toward disequilibrium then correct during shocks. The harder the currency the less disequilibrium before corrections. The looser the currency the more disequilibrium before corrections. The problem with the current monetary system is that we cannot insure sectors experiencing shocks without increasing the disequilibrium of the unaffected sectors. Although I know how to fix that it’s not a good thing.

    Someone just showed me a NYC tech fair. I follow most of the new product blogs and sites. I mean, the major players are total f-ck ups (microsoft, and apple). The near monopoly of advertising between fb and google is creating a regulatory certainty that will define the next generation. And amazon is doing more damage to the local economies than did the generations of department stores, then malls, then big box stores – and creating tax and monopoly problems there too.

    Meanwhile we have $2M ranch houses in SF, the catastrophic failure of large numbers of tech companies, and all tech innovation seems to be nothing but fashion redecorating of the past generation of applications combined with marketing.

    Meanhile underinvestment in infrastructure, underinvestment in improving business software, and overinvestment in tablets and handhelds continues.

    I have been predicting this crash and the long term consequences forever. I said that the crash would happen in 08, that the effects would last through 14, that we would have another correction around 17, and that we would see a generational upheaval in 2020 to 2025. I was really, really wrong on china. I still don’t freaking understand china. I just don’t know how they are getting away with it. It must be so much more hugely inefficient a system with so much excess but willingly desperate labor that I can’t model it in my head.

    So as far as I know, this is going to suck.

    My hope is that we get a trifecta of the economy, overseas warfare, attempted impeachment, or maybe zuckerberg running for president, and that this combination creates sufficient anxiety to demand a revolution.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 11:59:00 UTC