Form: Mini Essay

  • UNIVERSITY: A VERY DIFFERENT HYPOTHESIS THAT IS FAR MORE LIKELY OUTCOME I would

    UNIVERSITY: A VERY DIFFERENT HYPOTHESIS THAT IS FAR MORE LIKELY OUTCOME

    I would say that the American model of undergrad > grad > phd > prof is no longer any more necessary than are elected representative politicians and is probably on its way to being dead, and with it the upper unversity system. And just for the simple reason that access to information, to books, to research, to intellectuals, no longer requires the university system, and we are in the early stages of circumventing the university system, and drastically reducing demand for professors.

    What I expect is that the top teaching professors will produce content and teach online, earning appropriately scaled incomes, and that this early market will turn into a competition that drives down prices until those that are the best TEACHERS of the material drive out competitors.

    I suspect that just as private grade schools will exist for normative and physical defense of high investment children, or for remediation of those with behavior problems, the vast majority of students will combine working with a degree over longer periods, producing little or no debt, with the emphasis on starting the ‘degree’ process earlier and earlier – which will, as a consequence cause the necessary reformation of the junior high school, and high school experiences, which, along with the university undergraduate experience are the source of the lack of competitiveness of American students.

    If it isn’t clear what that market analysis means, it’s that universities have created a demand for an overpriced underperforming good the externality of which has allowed the monopoly that exists in the form of the state-education system, to be insulated from market demands, and to produce generations of underperformers. The consequence of which has been national underperformance, increase in the demand for better disciplined, harder working, better educated immigrants.

    The research function then will no longer be able to subsidize from the sale of non-performing indulgences, and be increasingly dependent upon research money. That research money will be provided outside of the university system, to groups that specialize in research.

    And I suspect (and hope) this will eliminate the Cult of the Humanities, and the Social Pseudo-Sciences that has succeeded in replacing the Supernaturalism of the relatively moral church punished for its sale of indulgences during the reformation, with the drastically immoral Pseudo-Science that the postmodern academy is so happy to attempt to profit from – repeating the process of reformation once again.

    The evidence is that very, very, few people who publish contribute to the discourse, and that the vast majority of ‘papers’ are valueless. And that the era of papers has largely ended, because only the book format allows sufficient illustration, application, and defense of any addition to the body of thought.

    The evidence is that the german PhD system which requires you survive prosecution by professors (judges) in a ‘trial’ is superior to the american system.

    The university’s sale of the diploma as an indulgence necessary to enter workforce-heaven will end as soon as accreditation is available online. And the second largest cost after house, and divorce, that we call ‘buying a college degree’ will be forever eliminated from our cost structures, and the original function of ‘colleges’ which was to pay professors independently for their work will return.

    In other words, the accreditation (licensing) process creates an artificial monopoly that is easily ended by electronic means. And with it, the social indoctrination that is the primary function of the university.

    So I’m not claiming that the university system aside from the science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and law disciplines, is simply immoral and pseudoscientific – but that it cannot and will not survive market competition now that their partial monopoly is no longer necessary nor affordable. And that as always, the market will do its work on the University as it did to the Church.

    Now, we can test this hypothesis easily if we require universities to carry the debt of students, and for that debt to be limited to ten years deducted as an equivalent of a payroll tax. If the universities are unwilling to do that it means that they are unwilling to warranty their products and services.

    I will close with the fact that the most likely alternative solution to the physical sciences and the most likely solution to the social sciences, and by consequence the most likely solution to moral and conscious artificial intelligence, have been produced outside of the university system by those of us unwilling to forgo years of our productive lives and serve as labor to the specialization and paradigm anchoring of the postwar university system.

    Markets always win.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 08:26:00 UTC

  • OPEN LETTER TO THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION A beautiful movement. I have not seen it d

    OPEN LETTER TO THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION

    A beautiful movement. I have not seen it done better. I wish I could ‘fit into’ it. Because I am a committed monarchist.

    But the church has abandoned europe in favor of the revenues of the simple people of warmer regions it evolved to govern. And our people have abandoned the church in favor of its secular expression and democratic government.

    I see no evidence of possibility for a restoration of the church, if for no other reason than the church is unwilling to reform. But more importantly, western man has evolved to the point where he can control every aspect of nature that the church claimed god held providence over.

    So just as the cult of jesus was a heresy against the roman empire’s religion, and against the bible of the european ancient world: The Iliad: the tragedy of Achilles, and just as one of your authors has correctly stated, the American Revolution and its cult of individualism was a heresy driven only by the Colonist’s attempt to circumvent payment to the crown for the cost of the indian wars. The crown’s folly was in not adding the colonies to the houses of commons, or creating a separate house of the colonies. The colonists did not want to separate. (other than the foolishly overcommitted puritans from whom I am ashamedly descended).

    There exists a growing movement that has not yet self identified itself, that seeks to restore the myths and traditions of the church by combining christian mythos, stoic virtues and discipline, using what we have discovered from cognitive science and in particular personality traits, in combination with literary analysis and myth, including the Monomyth, the Archetypes, the Plots(Trials), and the Virtues. And instead submission to deity few believe in as other than a set of general rules of the universe, and submissive prayer an anthropomorphic character, these groups are reviving a combination the methods of the most scientific religion of the ancient world (stoicism), and the teachings of christianity, to produce an empowering rather than submissive ‘religion’.

    This technique would allow the presentation of christianity as science rather than superstition. And my estimation is that it is the most likely if not only method of providing the reformation of the catholic church that failed under Vatican II, and was never attempted by the protestant churches other than the development of american evangelical protestantism. The catholic church doubled down on ‘living as did christ’. Evangelical protestantism doubled down on fundamentalism. But while these churches are surviving in the third world among the poor and ignorant, for europeans these churches are both dead – and worse, they are poisoned for the many crimes of the church over the centuries.

    So I do not expect to achieve anything other than making you aware of what I see as a successful option that has begun to take on momentum. And for you to consider it an option to investigate. The man working on the process is Dr. Jordan Peterson. But no one is working on reforming christianity to make it transform from a superstiiton to a science. And if any group can do this it will restore the value of the church.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 21:54:00 UTC

  • THE LOGIC OF THE SH-T TEST: CONTINUOUS COMPOSURE AND USEFULNESS –“Women shit te

    THE LOGIC OF THE SH-T TEST: CONTINUOUS COMPOSURE AND USEFULNESS

    –“Women shit test to make sure they are holding themselves in high enough company – company that can take care of her in case sh-t hits the fan, or to sort out the snakes. The genetic urge to constantly test your companion for composure can be very beneficial but it can also unravel unfit mates. As long as the man can maintain his frame of mind during a shit test he will pass, but if he can spread his composure to the woman he can “win”. The shit tests never stop and as you spread your composure to the woman through constant interaction her feminine energies will incorporate your composure and move to a higher level, I believe this is the case with a guy who “saves a girl” while not investing in himself enough ultimately being passed and outliving his usefulness. To maintain your attractiveness to your mate you must always be useful and always maintain a higher level of composure than your mate, through self discipline and self improvement of the mind and body. Shit tests can destroy you but if you understand them they can lead you to being the best man possible.”— George Carvlin

    I say this a bit differently as: our job is to make women feel safe in whatever way they need to feel safe. Unfortunately we have not been raised to make women feel safe and women have been raised to pretend they do not need to feel safe. So women are crazy and men are frustrated.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:45:00 UTC

  • CLASS LANGUAGE ARISTOCRACY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM (important) By Bill Joslin Isn’t th

    CLASS LANGUAGE ARISTOCRACY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM

    (important)

    By Bill Joslin

    Isn’t this a matter of class perspective?

    Aristrocrat – Heorism-Sovereinty-oath/jury/rule of law/markets in everything

    Upper middle class – Duty-oath/granted lands(property)/protection of lands (property rights)/participation in markets (liberty)

    Lower Classes – Obedience/protection/production/liberty by permission

    Something like that?

    Libertarians (current fashion) are lower classes demanding liberty on moral grounds, libertarians of old (Nobility) demand of liberty on religious grounds… both pleading while ignoring the source of liberty?

    In other words only after agency has been developed downward into the middle class can liberty be distributed downward through the classes – The same responsibility/freedom (poor words) relation I spoke of last week.

    West Civ cultivates agency across scale by creating and preserving conditions required for agency to develop (protection, insurance, restitution against impositions upon agency from other actors – property being the external manifestation and thus measure of agency).

    Only by demonstrating the responsibility to handle liberty (obedience/oath to sovereigns to not impose upon the property of others -rule of law) allows liberty be extended.

    In this context – left and libertarians, by denying the legitimacy or even presence of sovereignty in the equation demonstrate the inability to maintain responsible use of liberty. The result being a decay of agency across the whole (lies, inability to hold a territory, inconsistent – incoherent application of law etc)

    (Curt Doolittle — my point exactly. you can’t get liberty until you have a middle class and you don’t get a middle class until well after western civ has developed. BUT OMG I SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING WITH ACCOUNTING FOR AGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:37:00 UTC

  • The market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott. “Every man

    The market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott.

    “Every man is his own legislature”

    in other words, just as international law is governed by reciprocity today, individuals can govern one another by reciprocity in the market for the choice between violence, reciprocity, and boycott.

    They must just produce commons sufficient to defend themselves from the market of others who would institute a different order other than the sovereign.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 13:33:00 UTC

  • WHICH IS MOST POWERFUL: A GUN, A PENCIL, OR A STACK OF MONEY: It’s not a questio

    WHICH IS MOST POWERFUL: A GUN, A PENCIL, OR A STACK OF MONEY:

    It’s not a question of the power of the instrument but the talent that is required to use the instrument to achieve change at scale.

    ARMS: You can assassinate a key political figure, or start a word war, vs rob a liquor store or kill someone you are in a dispute with.

    WRITING: You can write the an inquiry into human understanding, critique of pure reason, paine’s common sense, the communist manifesto, or the works of lenin and trotsky – or you can write profusely and achieve nothing because no one reads it, because it has no *solution* value to them.

    MONEY: You can use money to destroy a country (financialism), fund a revolution (soros), and initiate warfare (buy votes to obtain political ends), or you can achieve nothing because what you are attempting to do *is not of interest to people*.

    The question is not the tool but the talent to use it.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-30 07:49:00 UTC

  • BUILDING A “TOTEM POLE” OF ARGUMENTS BY CLASS —“Eli? The dude who talks about

    BUILDING A “TOTEM POLE” OF ARGUMENTS BY CLASS

    —“Eli? The dude who talks about executing everyone that doesn’t share his beliefs?”— Emil Suric

    Remember Eli’s audience is a different audience that expresses ideas in different terms. He is talking to people who want to revolt and fight. But if you are in his audience, by comparison to others who address his audience, we are talking miles apart.

    My point in sharing is that no matter what your audience the use of propertarian methods has a profound effect on your arguments.

    I mean, I could argue ANY position using propertarian arguments. And that means that I succeeded in developing a value neutral language of ethics and politics.

    The fact that I argue for meritocratic natural law and the elimination of deception and conflict is a CHOICE.

    I mean, he is open about speaking as “a working class man’s version of doolittle’. I sort of think of us as ‘master-blaster’ with me talking up at the intellectual level and he at the emotional and masculine level.( retaliatory morality – war.) (“it’s advantageous that it’s true, because we are at war, and we want advantages in war”)

    What I would like to do is fill in the totem pole between us so to speak.

    I see, for example, Joel speaking as a lower middle and middle class version of what I do. (optimistic moral rules,) (“Yes it’s true, but we must err heavily on the side of caution.”) My hope is that joel retains this position but that I can help him express it in increasingly sophisticated language. He is *extremely* talented so I suspect he can get there.

    I see Bill taking the middle and upper middle class position and successfully arguing for it even though using fully aristocratic language (scientific) now. (pragmatic, but forgiving, moral law ) (“true is true, but we must be practical about it.”)

    I see me, Daniel, Alexander, and James Augustus arguing the fully aristocratic position. (absolute law). (“true is true , and not only must we live with it, but it will make us and mankind better for doing so.”)

    I want at some point to attract a few people who use it for purely redistributive purposes (we will find that person among the canadians or french or germans I assume).

    I mean, if you look at my *solutions* they’re pretty ‘socialist’ in the sense that I favor pretty heavy redistribution to teammates (kin especially). And kin with the same moral-ethic bias as I do, (again, as bill has eloquently stated). I mean, my subconscious goal is to eliminate conflict by driving everyone to mutually beneficial cooperation and simply reducing the rate of reproduction of the underclasses until they incrementally disappear.

    Anyway. The point is that all the classes argue a bit differently given their perception of *risk*. And that we need people to prosecute falsehood in every class by every means.

    Then we can trade between the classes.

    Rather than conduct a warfare of propaganda and lies.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 16:37:00 UTC

  • I know Montaigne said it first, but I have found it to be true: that others gene

    I know Montaigne said it first, but I have found it to be true: that others generally think ill of us for things we did not do, did not intend, or had no incentives to do, or had completely different intentions and incentives. Yet those things we do that are intentionally unethical, immoral, and evil so much more frequently go unnoticed. People criticize what they see. They too often imagine ill behind what they see. Because they project upon others their own intuitions. All the while, blind to the incentives, and the consequences they don’t see.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-27 10:40:00 UTC

  • CRITICIZING MATERIALISM: FOR GOOD OR BAD REASONS? Well, you know, criticizing ma

    CRITICIZING MATERIALISM: FOR GOOD OR BAD REASONS?

    Well, you know, criticizing materialism as a substitute for the familial (reproduction) is logical. For the social, likely. For the religious and supernatural, nonsense. In fact, there is a high correlation between social rejection and religiosity for precisely those reasons. So when I hear people want ‘traditionalism’ hear they are socially incompetent and want a way to enter the dream state in public – the ultimate selfishness – spiritual masturbation. They are generating demand for a bad. When I hear people talk about loneliness, loss of the civil society, or being unfulfilled by material goods, I hear that they long for social participation, or the safety of family and clan, then they are demonstrating demand for a ‘good’. Participatory sport, participatory debate, participatory theatre, participatory sacrifice (donation to the commons) and personal commune with the gods, with emphasis on ritual assist in social trust and bonding.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-27 07:27:00 UTC

  • THE AI QUESTION AND THE ANSWER There are three different stages of Artificial In

    THE AI QUESTION AND THE ANSWER

    There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss:

    1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence)

    SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits.

    Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases.

    vs

    2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence)

    GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally.

    Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry)

    vs

    3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence)

    CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality.

    Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)

    CONSEQUENCES OF FIRST STAGE AI

    There are an awful lot of jobs that are currently done by hand that can be done better and automated.

    Certainly accounting, ar/ap/pr will fall to SAI rapidly and first.

    Certainly circuit board design and development can be automated.

    Certainly assembly of products can be automated and has been.

    Certainly packing and shipping are already being automated.

    Certainly delivery of goods can be automated.

    Certainly food service can be automated.

    Certainly forecasting can be automated

    Certainly hiring can be automated (and firing) (My product will help with this)

    Certainly ad-buying can be automated (easily).

    Certainly on the job training for most functions can be automated (My product is built toward that end).

    Certainly research can be automated.

    Certainly stock purchasing can be automated.

    I don’t see organizing people into communities (businesses) being automated for a while.

    I don’t see strategic planning at the ceo level being automated for a while.

    I don’t see ‘outwitting competition’ as being automated for a while.

    I don’t see ‘selling people’ as being automated.

    I don’t see ‘serving’ people as being automated.

    The growth of the problem will be limited by the cost of financing such equipment versus moving production to cheaper labor than the cost of financing the equipment.

    The primary economic problem is this: you have to produce something for a lot of people in order to pay for yourself but you can only serve so many people at a time.

    There will be too few ways of getting money in people’s hands to spend.

    There will be a ridiculous oversupply of people in the end.

    I have been trying to solve this problem for a while now and I think I understand the solution.

    Most of what we will do is provide each other with entertainment, and others performing research.

    In other words, there will exist a 10% or 20% of the population with employable advantage and the rest of the people will be effectively pets.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 19:02:00 UTC