Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE CHALLENGE OF MAINTAINING A HIGH TRUST NEOTONIC GENE POOL It’s not race, per

    THE CHALLENGE OF MAINTAINING A HIGH TRUST NEOTONIC GENE POOL

    It’s not race, per se, since any race can produce excellences. It’s neotonic selection (speciation), and distributions. So the problem is that homo-sapiens-sapiens races and subraces, nations and communities vary by (a) the amount of reproductive domestication by neotonic selection of the ‘animal’ man, and (b) the success or failure at reducing the size of the underclasses (less fit, less desirable, less productive).

    Europeans and east asians were the most successful at both. We could even argue easily that the east asians have taken it too far. IQ and lack of Impulsivity are the result of neotonic selection of females by males, and selection of males with demonstrated ability to climb the dominance hierarchy by females. By the use of marriage and farming we have been able to control this process in the east and west but not in the rest.

    The success of the chinese, korean and japanese, like that of the europeans, nordics, and british, is relative isolation from the population pressures of the under domesticated peoples of the steppe and desert. Worse, it is far harder to cleanse a gene pool than we had imagined. So pollution of high trust, highly neotenic, high-iq gene pools is extremely costly and nearly impossible to reverse without deliberate eugenic programs.

    And that is still at large scale. We still do not know the subtle differences between groups. Whites and east asians are ‘special’. At least among the middle and lower asians and whites, cross breeding apparently produces benefits for both.

    Bte even between advanced subraces, whites differ from east asians in inverting our specializations in verbal and spatial. And It appears that we can out-breed the bad behavior out of the Ashkenazi, but it is almost impossible to lose the feminine traits, even if it is possible to retain the extra verbal abilities.

    So I do not think markets solve the problem at scale and in cities like markets solve the problem in small agrarian communities, because it is easy to observe subtle differences between people who are similar and to produce excellences, and it is harder to produce excellences when differences are not subtle. Because are limited in our discretionary ability. Men are less discriminate and women discriminate by status. So it appears that the best reproductive strategy is upward redistribution of reproduction, and culling of the bottom through through sterilization or one-child policy, near-breeding, and miscegenation, all of which will lead to ‘higher experimentation’ which is the advantage of all market innovation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 07:25:00 UTC

  • Well, there are teachers and there are judges, there are scientists and there ar

    Well, there are teachers and there are judges, there are scientists and there are prosecutors. And my view is that it is the competition between the via positiva (peterson) and the via negativa (law) that leaves truth remaining. Because we do not know the truth, we can never know it. We can only know what is false and not yet false. As such, it is up to some to imagine and others to falsify. And for everyone in the market for knowledge to participate in the game. This is contrary to our intuitions because we want the cheap route to truth. But there is no other way to calculate it than by trial and error. And therefore no way to improve our pursuit of it other than to prohibit falsehoods. I don’t know any substantial thinkers that are accessible. It is up to followers and advocates to make the inaccessible accessible.

    In my opinion people will understand the constitution and what they will obtain in exchange for the cost of it. They will understand the value of truth even at the expense of the burden of it. But I doubt many people will understand the rest, or need to, other than the judges who use it to administer the law, and those legislators and lawyers who which to construct contracts of the commons that we currently call ‘legislation and regulation’.

    All along our mission has been the same: I am not a populist. I am providing the answer to Abraham, Augustine, Kant, Marx, Derrida and Rorty. Continuing the work of Aristotle, The Stoics, Roman Law, Machiavelli, Bacon, Smith, Hume, Darwin, Menger, Poincare, Weber, Pareto, Popper and Hayek.

    It is up to men of good conscience to be the distributors. I’m just the manufacturer.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 19:41:00 UTC

  • “CURT: ARE YOU A STOIC?”— My personal philosophy is not stoic, but martial. So

    —“CURT: ARE YOU A STOIC?”—

    My personal philosophy is not stoic, but martial. So I use heroism, duty and loyalty. I achieve mindfulness through working toward goals. I achieve security by trying to make or join an ‘army’.

    We all need philosophies that reflect our abilities. Not everyone finds joy in constant competition and the high cost of achievement and frequent failure. I find my philosophy difficult if not painful, but it is in that difficulty I find my power, conviction, and immunity from criticism. I do not consider it ‘suffering’ in the Nietzschean sense but Stress that makes you stronger in the sense Taleb means “anti-fragile”.

    But stoicism is a common person’s way of achieving the same thing. Stoicism is a self-directed philosophy of continuous improvement within the world, and aristocracy is a philosophy of continuous achievement through transformation of the world. However, in both models, you cannot be criticized, guilted, shamed, ridiculed by others. Both Martialism and Stoicism make you immune.

    To a lesser degree The Four Agreements Quotes by Miguel Ruiz are a far less sophisticated version that I have found overly sensitive women benefit from.

    And the meditation in buddhism is a less rationalistic way of achieving the same ends. I dont like it because it’s not action oriented.

    What really I don’t like is the prayer-and-rutual way of achieving it because you’ve actually abandoned reality at that point.

    But what you can see from that list is a hierarchy from the most empowered to the least empowered. And from what I can see buddhism is about as far as people should go in withdrawing from the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 11:19:00 UTC

  • THE UTILITY OF FAITH AND ITS REPLACEMENT BY STOICISM –“I cannot even begin to i

    THE UTILITY OF FAITH AND ITS REPLACEMENT BY STOICISM

    –“I cannot even begin to imagine what it would be like to live on this planet and not have faith.. Faith to me is my belief in something I can’t see, hear or touch.. Its my ” gray ” area and it gives my life meaning and purpose…”— Anon

    I think I could restate that as, “I feel a deep need for a narrative against which to measure my status, and to judge my self worth in life, because outside of the hunter-gatherer tribe of pre-history, where we had directly knowledge of one another, and direct understanding of our status and self worth, that in all other eras – modernity, medieval, and ancient – my judgement of my status and self worth is beyond my ability to intuit, guess, reason, or calculate.”

    I view this as a feminine or beta-male understanding of the world. But it is the most common understanding of the world that I know of.

    The question is, whether confident male, less confident male, or cautious female, we can learn to use the stories of history, reason, and in fact, science, to achieve the same.

    In fact, now that we understand stoicism scientifically, there appears to be no other ‘religion’ that compares to it.

    Where stoicism seeks to make you immune to ridicule, guilt and shame; and to hone your positive virtues, thereby assisting you in changing the world. Faith seeks to make you fear guilt, and punishment, if you offend the world.

    Hence why countries with much faith stagnate in poverty and those with reason leave the rest behind. (china, the west)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 08:17:00 UTC

  • THE RESTORATION OF THE DUEL: MORE HONEST AND POLITE SOCIETY I have lived in Ukra

    THE RESTORATION OF THE DUEL: MORE HONEST AND POLITE SOCIETY

    I have lived in Ukraine and spent time in russia, where a punch in the face is quick, expected, not uncommon, respected, and use of it keeps men fit. And it is a much more civil society. It is one of the principle reasons I prefer their society. For all our rule of law, without punching in the face, it is just a license for degeneracy.

    I remember when we still had a lot of punching in the face. I did quite a bit of it and received quite a bit of it. Because it was part of becoming a man: be careful with your word and deed because other men will not tolerate you. And I was small. So I get good at the ground game.

    Lessons of history are this:

    – An armed society is a safe society.

    – A punch-in-the-face society is a polite society.

    – A dueling society is an honest society.

    The duel works well because it (a) imposes constant caution in one’s words, allows for (b) immediate fights (rapid suppression), (c) immediate apologies (rapid de-escalation), (d) immediate silence, but demand for court trial instead. (e) satisfaction in a court trial. (f) far lower cost of settlement of differences and less malincentive to try to get away with impolite or dishonest words and deeds simply because the opposing party can’t resist you.

    The failure to innovate with ‘judicial dueling’ was that (a) pistols equalized the difference between swordsman or size (good), (b) but they were more deadly, where in swordfighting or knife-fighting, ‘one could collect an honorable scar’, and then surrender and apologize. (c) the combination of practice of substitutes, and the increase in size of the middle class with less ‘cultured’ (intelligent) histories and access to better weapons, was what ended it, not the practice of duelling itself. Everyone had always criticized it. But for sovereign men there is no substitute.

    This is particularly useful if not necessary for controlling the gossip, ridicule, shaming, and rallying by betas and women. Since women have no possible chance unless very highly trained, men must warranty them, and therefore take responsibility for teaching them discipline.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 09:16:00 UTC

  • WORLD HISTORY: THE UNDERCLASS SUPERSTITIOUS SOUTH AGAINST THE UPPER CLASS SCIENT

    WORLD HISTORY: THE UNDERCLASS SUPERSTITIOUS SOUTH AGAINST THE UPPER CLASS SCIENTIFIC NORTH

    While I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.

    If you have a judiciary that is incentivized to practice the Natural Law of Reciprocity and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.

    Abrahamism was invented to resist the aristocracy (judaism), to undermine the aristocracy (christianity), and to attack the aristocracy (islam). It is the weaponization of lying by the underclasses using Falsehood, Fiction, and Command, against the Aristocracy’s invention of Truth, Science, and Law.

    It is just the northern more domesticated upper classes against the southern less domesticated underclasses. Nothing more.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:35:00 UTC

  • AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY (we are all scientists now)

    AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY

    (we are all scientists now)

    In retrospect, the first wave of the enlightenment failed by not articulating transcendence but merely ‘good’. Darwin, Spencer and Nietzsche provided existential transcendence: evolution. Maxwell and Poincare (and later Einstein) provided evidence of our possibility of physical transcendence. The social scientists (Menger, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim) and the legalists (Jefferson, Hayek) came very close to providing the rule of ethical, social and political transcendence: Reciprocity. And despite Popper’s stumbling upon falsification and Mises’, Brouwer/Poincare/Hilbert, Bridgman, and Turing stumbling upon Operationalism in all its forms, in all their fields, I think it was the failed pursuit of logic as a science in its own as a defense of philosophy against science that begins with Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead that opened the door for the attack on western civilization through the masses, using Abrahamism (deception using suggestion through narrative conflation and overloading), just as Abrahamic Marxism had been used immediately prior, and just as Abrahamic religion had been used as a means of uniting the dysgenic underclasses through deception against the eugenic aristocracy and their use of Deflationary Truth in the ancient world.

    Their (typical) victorian vanity, as if philosophy was not the pursuit of law but a puzzle from a detective novel with which one could display one’s wit, produced a catastrophic failure for our civilization. Linguistic philosophy was a failed program largely because there is nothing in it that cannot be produced in mathematics alone. Mathematics, even if practiced deductively, is always reducible to operations, with the single exception of the law of the excluded middle – an exception which is only necessary for scale independence. And for language to function meaningfully requires action, sequence, and time – leaving linguistic philosophy the only non-operational and therefore ideal (if not magical) discipline.

    So the operational revolution that was needed in both linguistic philosophy, law, and economics, was produced in computer science under Turing. Unfortunately, this failure of the philosophers not only made room for, but assisted in the replacement of Marxist pseudoscience with Postmodern pseudo-rationalism in the 60’s – itself the most novel innovation in the art of lying since the invention of Abrahamism.

    So, my generation, raised with computer science, computability, algorithmic operations, object oriented analysis, the representation of existential reality using relational database design (vs set ideal set theory of language as a false bridge between mathematics and algorithms), has developed an intuitive antagonistic reaction to both linguistic idealism, postmodern pseudo-rationalism, marxist (boazian, freudian, cantorian) pseudoscience. Hence the libertarianism of the technology sector – at least until recent massive asian immigration.

    So for this reason, philosophy is being reformed by people like myself, who have been raised in the discipline of computability and algorithms, well outside of philosophy departments, and who solved the problem that 20th century philosophy failed to: the deflation of the logic of language into only mathematics (sets), and only algorithms(language). And by doing so, all the disciplines: the logic of identity, the logic of mathematics, the logic of sets, the logic of operations, the logic of rational choice, and the logic of reciprocity, each correspond to a single dimension of existential and actionable reality. Thereby removing all mystery behind the logics.

    Next, by overthrowing the ancient conflation of moral and legal justification, including Kant’s apriorism (all via-positiva), and replacing it with science’s criticism (all via-negativa), we are able to unite law, morality, philosophy, and science into a single discipline: the discipline of providing warranty of due diligence by tests of consistency in each dimension of actionable reality applicable to the testimony (speech) we publish (speak in the commons).

    Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ideal – is gone. Plato is dead. Abraham is dead. Buddha limps along. Confucius survives. And Aristotle thrives.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:09:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN REVOLUTION IS AS HUMILIATING AS THE DARWINIAN When the general phil

    PROPERTARIAN REVOLUTION IS AS HUMILIATING AS THE DARWINIAN

    When the general philosophical, social scientific, and legal communities figure out that I’ve ended the debate on the ‘nature’ of man. That our nature is entirely acquisitive, and tediously mechanical. And that consciousness is not required at all for that acquisition. And the degree to which our conscious minds exist is almost entirely for the purpose of negotiation with other humans. And that all our storytelling is for the purpose of negotiation. And that all communication produces just another competitive market. And that through this market we collectively ‘calculate’ our evolutionary path without ‘consciousness’. And that because we are capable of deceit, and deceit is a discount, then this market contains true and eugenic as well as false and dysgenic marketing and advertising information. And that all our subsequent markets for association, reproduction, production, and polities are but an extension of this single system of negotiation between genders and ages and abilities – in that order. And that we can quite easily reduce our speech to description and truth, or promotion and suggestion, or advocacy and deceit. And moreover that by use of ordinary law we can limit all political speech in the market for commons and polities, just as we limit all commercial speech in the market for reproduction and production. And that we can do so relatively easily. Then it will make the humility of the Copernican, Darwinian, and Einsteinian revolutions pale by comparison. But thankfully, it will have as great an effect on increasing the velocity of our cooperation by the reduction of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit as did the development of empiricism. Because as humiliating as it is to realize our consciousness – which we experience as a conflation of sensations, memories, and emotions – is entirely unnecessary. It’s largely a cost we bear in order to create and identify pretenses and falsehoods as a means of cheating our way up the evolutionary ladder.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 07:13:00 UTC

  • Wise and Smart a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of al

    Wise and Smart

    a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of all other disciplines. And while they may speak in nonsense now and then, this art remains the most demonstrated because failure is so visible.

    a few philosophers appear to be wiser than the wisest of all other disciplines, but most are mere authors of fantasy literature and word puzzles, and their discipline is largely nonsense. And failure is almost universal.

    a few jurists appear to be both smart and wise, but their record is not very good. Justice is a cult as much as a craft – and we must return it to an empirical science.

    a few few physical scientists appear to be smarter than all that remain, but their discipline is largely a craft.

    a few engineers appear to be both smart and wise, but wiser than most disciplines. And while they may speak pragmatically and skeptically at times, it is because failure is both visible and costly.

    I won’t talk about economists. And we will just laugh at social scientists.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 11:32:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS In simplest terms I translated hoppe’s “kantian ju

    PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS

    In simplest terms I translated hoppe’s “kantian justificationism” into anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of praxeology that is the innovation.

    The primary difference is that i show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract.

    Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition and this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy except with purely empirical natural law.

    In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 22:01:00 UTC