Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WELCOME TO CIVIL WAR Yes, we understand. You need lies because reality is too ha

    WELCOME TO CIVIL WAR

    Yes, we understand. You need lies because reality is too hard for you physically, emotionally, and intellectually to accept, so you desire a fantasy world.

    The difference is, that once we are no longer seeking compromise, and you have abandoned all pretense of honesty, reason, and truth, then we no longer need to avoid adding insult to your genetic injury.

    We just state the truth: you are genetically, physically, emotionally, and intellectually inferior, and a detriment to the evolution and transcendence of mankind, and if gentle meritocracy is not enough of a life-raft for you, then your extermination is preferable to your parasitism.

    I mean. That’s the response to all their arguments.

    I mean, if you’re shouting us down because the truth is too painful for you, or your obstructing us,then you are, by your own terms, using violence against us.

    And therefore, not only are you seeking to forbid cooperation and force us to submit but you are using violence against us.

    So, having exhausted all options, our only rational choice is is simple, physical violence to silence, enslave, or end you.

    Welcome to civil war.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 09:50:00 UTC

  • DEVELOPING AGENCY: THE SEARCH FOR PEAK HUMAN We probably reached peak physical h

    DEVELOPING AGENCY: THE SEARCH FOR PEAK HUMAN

    We probably reached peak physical human prior to the selection pressures of agrarianism.

    We probably reached peak domesticated human in northern europe during the late medieval period. If not by the corded ware era (more likely).

    We reached peak natural animal domestication a long time ago.

    We domesticated the last natural plants nearly two hundred years ago.

    We probably reached peak natural territorial capital by the early 20th century.

    We probably reached peak mobilization of natural human capital in the west by the 1950’s.

    We probably have not reached peak cooperative (economic) technology as such – our monetary systems are lagging. We can improve cooperation in commerce.

    We certainly have not reached peak political technology – our political systems are lagging. We can improve cooperation in the commons.

    We seem to have reached not reached peak information distribution – the central problem being that the market has not curated the inventory of human knowledge (Brought it into scientific prose) yet.

    To ‘peak’ we can largely only remove bads, rather than create goods. Meaning that all advancement will be in improving human capital itself.

    The primary means of improving human capital is reduction of the unproductive (under) classes.

    The secondary means of improving human capital is genetic modification.

    I suspect that I understand the limits of improving human information access and processing and that will

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 08:17:00 UTC

  • POSTMODERN TECHNIQUE When I say that all (((abrahamists))) are using the female

    POSTMODERN TECHNIQUE

    When I say that all (((abrahamists))) are using the female reproductive strategy, I mean that the female weapon of influence is gossip, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and rallying (undermining), and that postmodernism seeks to destroy reason as a means of decidability leaving only intuition (feelings) as decidability, therefore leaving only individuals ( equality ) as a means of decidability, therefore leaving only communism (authoritarianism) as a means of political decidability.

    And when I say that the cycle of history is between military conquest by violence, bourgeoise civilization by trade, and slave+women conquest of civilization by undermining (creating weakness) so that outsiders can merely replace their betters with a new set of betters, I mean that it is a cyclical battle between aristocratic order by truth, bourgeois wealthy by pragmatic exchange, and underclass utopianism by gossip, undermining, falsehood, and theft.

    Women and the weak are always trying to recreate the herd and men and the powerful are always trying to recreate the pack. The reason being obvious: the distribution of resources for larger numbers and dysgenic stagnation giving best opportunity for bad genes, and the concentration of resources for small numbers and eugenic evolution giving best opportunity for good genes.

    What we should take away from the french and german works of philosophy is that they resisted the enlightenment with every fiber in them, and sought to replace the structures of power: the monarchies and the church.

    But they did not want truth if it meant restoration of hierarchy – and truth will always restore hierarchy, because our talents and abilities and therefore our value to one another is hierarchical.

    And the attempt to resist that hierarchy can only be achieved through lying about it, and stealing enough that the dominance hierarchy is not visible – or better yet, that the dominance hierarchy is female:he who takes and redistributes most, rather than male: he who produces most.

    Because in the end, we measure all as gains to our reproductive strategy. And we cannot do otherwise.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 07:44:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS —“”A little knowledge is a d

    THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS

    —“”A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? I don’t know about that. I have found many “experts” today are elitist. I run into the “how dare you question my position? What is your scholarship/training/etc.” more often than not. “Who are you to impugn my scholarship?” Then again, maybe I represent the quote with my own hubris?”— John Stephens

    Well you know, you aren’t wrong – that’s just saying: “there are limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the bottom, and limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the top” – which is empirically true the more variation in general rules. We are anchored by our knowledge and its limits. For example, the set of general rules in physics, and chemistry are not heavily debated, in some part because they are contextually invariant. The set of general rules in biology and economics are heavily debated because niches demonstrate adaptivity : extraordinary variation. Such that while some general rules are discovered, the combinatorial consequences of those general rules are extremely difficult to pin down. Economics in particular. I assume when we get to sentience (artificial intelligence)that the limits to cognition will be measurable, and we will learn about the human mind through those measurements.

    I think that what I do, and what others do, is to save time and effort by throwing nonsense back in your face, simply so that you don’t have to deal with helping someone through a long journey from their assumptions to sufficient knowledge to question them. I mean. We’re all human.

    I think moreover, that – at least, since having converted full time to philosophy – my observation is that many men know their craft but not *why* their craft yields truthful propositions *relative to other crafts*. In other words, *they just don’t know.* And they don’t want to be ‘outed’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:07:00 UTC

  • THE INQUISITION: AND WE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR WORK Um. you don’t understand.

    THE INQUISITION: AND WE ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR WORK

    Um. you don’t understand. When we say we’re creating the

    answer to the Frankfurt School, that means we’re creating it’s opposite. We’re creating the Inquisition. In archaic language this would translate to The Prosecutors and Knights of the Natural Law of Sovereign Men. Although we won’t wear funny hats. Except this time it’s against all Abrahamism both modern and ancient: judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, islamism. So If your words are incompatible with natural law, you will be prosecuted. And we are passionate about our work.

    Agency and Sovereignty > Truth and Natural Law > Markets in Everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategy, production of agency.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 13:48:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTIONS TODAY ARE NOT LIKE THE 20TH CENTURY Look at how revolutions work tod

    REVOLUTIONS TODAY ARE NOT LIKE THE 20TH CENTURY

    Look at how revolutions work today. Look around the world. Do you know what they ask? They ask: Are you fit? Do you have arms? Do you know what communications, energy, water, transportation, infrastructure in 25 miles of your home is fragile? Do you know how to break it? Do you have what’s needed to break it? Do you know how to do enough of it to overwhelm services? How to deprive services of the will to leave their garages? How to retreat by multiple routes safely? Can you limit you risk by doing it alone? Do you know how long it will take you to act when ‘suggested’? Do you the names of key figures. Do you know where key figures live? Where they work? Do you know how to write your plans and notes down on paper and hide them? Have you rehearsed a handful of them? That is what revolutionaries do. They don’t need to have someone hold their hand. They just need to know the timing. Armies call this ‘the general staff’ work. That’s the most important preparation you can make. Because the next civil war will not require numbers. It will require a small number of activists to do a small number of things. Terror is a bad thing. Delegitimizing government is a good thing. There are zero hours of communication, four hours of electricity, three days of water, and one week of food in the system. A box of roofing nails on a road. A series of random fires. Chains over electrical lines. Damaged transformers. Downed poles and lines. And risk to the people who would repair these things. These are easy tactics that make our civilization vulnerable in a civil war. And that’s before someone figures out how to copy the islamists and do rolling waves of crime and cash acquisition. It takes very few men, and very few vehicles to profitably create enough chaos to undermine enough confidence to crash the economy and the world confidence in the government and the dollar, and to allow foreign nations to overwhelm our government with the seizure of opportunities. And this list does not include the unkind and unpleasant things. Just the ones that don’t make us sweat. Those things will happen too. That is what will happen if we end up in civil war.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 19:49:00 UTC

  • THE OCCULT, CONSPIRACY, FINANCIALIST, FICTIONALISTS The occult(propaganda), cons

    THE OCCULT, CONSPIRACY, FINANCIALIST, FICTIONALISTS

    The occult(propaganda), conspiracy (of common interest), and financialist(parasitism) arguments are all ‘true’ in the sense that these groups follow all these methods of self interest.

    The problem is that the occultists, the conspiracy theorists, the “kill them all” financialists, and fictionalists are either mal-educated, or mentally deficient, or both. And they are heavily indebted to their frame, and addicted to the emotional response of their frames. So they are participants in, and promoters of, the very problem they are complaining about.

    Ayelam is right. The alt right is full of postmodernists. And I sometimes I feel that a handful of us are the lone modernists out here.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 11:17:00 UTC

  • WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE???? Um. You don’t get it. 1 – The reason I

    WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE????

    Um. You don’t get it.

    1 – The reason I have done so much work is that by my own definition, ***I cannot make a truth claim without producing a full accounting*** of internal consistency and external consequences. (That’s why you write books about theories and, not papers. And why you write papers about experiments not books.)

    2 – The vast majority of what I do online is explore a single theory consisting of three questions: i) Can we extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence in the commons (the market) from products and services to speech? ii) If we do extend it, what will be the consequences? iii) How can we provide institutions that provide the institutions that satisfy market demands and do so truthfully? iv) is truth enough? The answer to those question so far, is yes, we can do it; the consequences will be profoundly beneficial on the scale of the scientific and industrial revolutions; we can provide those institutions my relatively minor changes to the constitution; and yes, truth is enough to restore the west *AND* to maintain the west’s traditional advantage: no other people seem to be able to create a truth speaking high trust society.

    3 – I can make my policy recommendations understood by common folk. I can make the general theory of the cycles of history as one of lies-vs-truth between the west/east, and center. I can give activists moral arguments. I can make my general theory understood by people with sufficient education in economics and politics. I can sometimes make very smart people able to understand how to construct arguments in propertarian and operational language. I can as yet make very few people understand the epistemology of testimonialism and why it completes the scientific method and unites science, biology, morality, philosophy, politics, and law into a single field of ‘testimony’. This distribution of ability and narrative is what we should expect. I probably am not a good person to talk with ordinary folk about technical issues. I simply can’t do the translation. I really love it on the few occasions where people understand most of the scope of work. But in a division of knowledge and labor my job, our job, is to produce a distribution of people who understand each level of sophistication. That’s all.

    4 – However, I do enjoy talking to ordinary guys about the things they are concerned with. And the truth is I wish I could ‘reach’ them better than I do. Because it is ordinary guys who have been most screwed over by the 20th century scams, and it’s they who I feel most need to be saved from the destruction of the west via our women and our underclasses. So I want to care for my brothers in arms most of all. But most of all, because I believe these ordinary guys will be the warriors that change from the current order to the restoration of western civilization. if for no other reason than they have the most to gain from our doing so.

    5) We do not need millions in the streets to produce a revolution. We need a solution to demand, and a small number of people to raise the cost of the status quo until we obtain our objectives. In that sense I care about a few intellectuals, a few leaders, a few advocates, and enough warriors to conduct revolution. The majority of the people once they understand the policy demands and how greatly they will benefit from them, will gladly burn the parasitic classes and reap the rewards of doing it for purely practical reasons. So they will not *resist* the transition. The only people who will resist it are the (immoral) academic, (immoral) political, and (immoral) financial classes, and the left that despises all meritocracy for good reason: they are dysgenic peoples who are but parasites upon the rest. So we do not need a mass movement. We need simply to eliminate the middle and working class’ desire to resist.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:45:00 UTC

  • WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS” 1) Every philosopher does and must

    WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS”

    1) Every philosopher does and must add or alter the properties of terms. Otherwise reorganization of categories, relations and values is impossible. The question is only whether we are increasing precision or decreasing precision. In our case we are increasing precision in order to prevent deception by ‘loose language’.

    2) We are removing misrepresentation from terminology by the use of deflation, series, and operational definitions. This means that many terms, when placed in series with related terms, can only ‘fit’ (avoid conflation and misrepresentation) if properties that cause conflation are attributed to one term and not another. By the combination of deflation, isolation of properties, and operational language we all but remove fungibility (use in deception) from terms. Moreover, we eliminate the ability to use deception in the most common manner it is used: the pretense of knowledge where the speaker lacks the knowledge to make the claims he does. Or where he has identified and is making use of a loose relation for the purpose of argument or deduction that does not hold under scrutiny.

    3) All pretense of knowledge and deception is caused by partial or incorrect information causing demand for substitution on the part of the audience, and thereby causing suggestion in the audience.

    4) Suggestion can be used to transfer meaning, which we can then deflate (limit) to truthful propositions. Or suggestion can be used to transfer partial meaning, which we let perform suggestion, or which we expand into falsehood. In other words, we can communicate then limit or we can communication and let the audience expand an idea to unlimited form. Or we can communicate and suggest other limits. And various permutations thereof. So we cannot communicate truthfully without supplying both via positiva (meaning) and via-negativa (limits) so that the competition between meaning and limits allows only potentially true information to survive.

    5) The most successful methods of deception are caused by increasingly *indirect* means of suggestion that cause the audience to perform substitution (fill in the blanks). Advertising (commercial), propaganda(political), and theology(religious) saturation of the environment produces suggestion by deception by the use of overloading the environment. And humans are not able even intentionally to insulate themselves from the free association caused by experiential phenomenon (information). So Advertising, Propaganda, and Theology are methods of deception through deception and overloading.

    6) The use of “-isms”. An “-ism” refers to a portfolio of categories, values, relations that provide decidability within a domain. So an ism is a ‘name’ for an algorithm providing some form of decidability. This ism can be very narrow (platonism) or very broad (marxism). The decidability offered can be true, undecidable, or false, or moral, amoral or immoral. But without referring to ‘-ism’s’ one must list the sometimes long sets of arguments (categories, values, and relations) within them. So it is ‘shorthand’ to use those terms, just like it is shorthand to use math, logic, geometry, calculus, or family, genus, species, race. And yes, it is burdensome on the reader who is ignorant of the subject but comfortable for both the author and the reader who are knowledgeable. The strange question is, why do people read other technical literature, which they must look up and understand terms, yet people who will read technical literature – analytic philosophy, making use of law, economics, science, and mathematics – and expect NOT to look up a lot of terms.

    I find most people rather stupid really. And the world has many more stupid people in it than smart people. But I still love stupid people as long as they desire to be moral. I just get frustrated when stupid but moral people think that the world of information should be built for their consumption like children’s cartoons. That’s not my job. My job is to be right. Not easy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:34:00 UTC

  • There are no gods. Jesus was a man. He had a simple message: stop fighting among

    There are no gods. Jesus was a man. He had a simple message: stop fighting amongst yourselves over trivial things and take care of each other. Instead of trigger happy intolerance of the pastoral and slave peoples who lacked property and ability, take the opposite approach which is the extension of kinship love to non kin. That’s all he says. That’s all that matters. And it’s *a purely scientific statement*.

    The ancient world had freed men from desperate dependence upon land, and allowed them to migrate to cultural capital and material capital so that their *human capital* could be put to use.

    However, this transition required that people abandon the trigger sensitivity of pastoralists living on the margins and instead, ENTER THE MARKET for simple labor, and cooperate with many others that had come from different backgrounds.

    So where the tower of babel presented the problem of language and the need for a common language, when craftsmen were pulled from around the new empire to create a new palace, the single, simple lesson of jesus was to provide a common *moral test* for people.

    This is a primitive attempt to achieve the same effect as natural law.

    The problem was not in this message. It was in EVERYTHING ELSE in christianity: which was weaponized to destroy the empire, and all of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 12:52:00 UTC