Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • PERFECT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS POSSIBLE (worth repeating) Rule-via-negativa, and

    PERFECT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS POSSIBLE

    (worth repeating)

    Rule-via-negativa, and Govern-via-positiva are two different things because they presume different knowledge – one theoretical(political) and one empirical(judicial).

    And the competition between (a)Monarchy-army-judiciary and (b) State-parliament-commerce and (c) Church-academy-family-militia, is simply the best model possible since it contains provides a market between the major markets for cooperation: ensuring the dominance of none.

    And this requires rotation of those who govern (the parliament) by via positiva in the practical time horizon. But does not require the rotation of those who judge via negativa (king, military, judiciary) since we wish the longest time horizon from them: the true; nor rotation of those who teach (church, academy, family) who we only wish to rotate by generation or less given the skills in demand for the current generation.

    And that the opportunity technical modernity presents us with, is direct democracy at the local level, and the replacement of the federal government with the governors, thereby eliminating the house and senate altogether, and devolving all matters other than military, disputes and insurance to the states.

    There is certain value in a trade union. There is certain value in a military union. There is little if no value in normative union.

    The origin of conflicts occurs when we cannot create norms, commons, and institutions that serve regional/state, local/city-town, and neighborhood/association-disassociation needs. Or when those with greater numbers impose upon us.

    We cannot blame men of history for making governments given the practical problem of communication in those eras – a problem which no longer exists in our era. We can only blame the men of our era for the industrialization of lying by which they sought to import vast underclasses, deprive us of our history, deprive us of education in grammar, logic, rhetoric, and testimony, and saturate us in pseudosciences just as they defrauded our people of sovereignty over nature in the ancient world through judaism, christianity, and islam.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 10:02:00 UTC

  • THE EASE OF A CONTEMPORARY REVOLUTION You don’t need much. A couple of like mind

    THE EASE OF A CONTEMPORARY REVOLUTION

    You don’t need much. A couple of like minded hellions. A pickup truck is best because it can go anywhere. Some heavy chains. An axe or sledge hammer. Cold chisel, and crow bar. A bolt cutter. A knife, a sidearm, and a rifle. It’s not like we’re going camping. It’s not like we’re in Afghanistan. The entire country is flooded with weapons, tools, food, and money. By the simple act of supplying our numbers. A few hundred or a few thousand men in a few distributed groups, with all of the above, that stays mobile, and makes relatively unpredictable in target choices, achieves through self sufficiency what others attempt to achieve by intent. Command and control is trivial today. The era of marching in the streets is over. The era of rebellion is over. Because with economic velocity comes civilizational fragility. The squirrel cage of your people’s suicide must keep spinning at all times or the whole edifice will crash. The real problem is whether you yourself are a first mover when called upon, or whether you wait for others to do the first wave and then free ride on their achievements. In other words, the question is whether you are a warrior or a cheerleader.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 07:48:00 UTC

  • GOOD FOR MANKIND? What’s good for mankind? What’s good for mankind? Just the opp

    GOOD FOR MANKIND?

    What’s good for mankind? What’s good for mankind? Just the opposite of what we do for the commercial short term good: exterminate everyone in every civlization under 106. That’s what’s good for mankind. And it isn’t even open to possible criticism. Because it’s very hard to imagine any meaningful problems remain if we do that. We can do mankind even better, and take it up to 112 or 115, at which point the young and old are fully employable in productive capacity from birth to death. Or up to 125 where mysticism is no longer in demand. You know we will be able to engineer super-humans fairly soon. But it doesn’t help if a minority of super humans (>135) are held down by a plurality of ordinary humans, (>90) and a dearth of subhumans (<90). Now. I’m not recommending that we do what’s objectively good for mankind. I’m simply saying live and let live. But that means, those of us who WANT to live without the burdens of the dead weight of sub-humans and near-humans, have a choice of separating and living and let live – or we have a choice of exterminating, letting us live and others not. Or we have a choice of being overwhelmed by the subhumans. … Now, I”m perfectly happy being accused of casting people as subhuman as long as people are happy casting people as equal. When all the evidence is that the opposite is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 15:42:00 UTC

  • GENDERS: HOW ACCURATE IS THE r/K-SELECTION ANALOGY? —“some people are saying r

    GENDERS: HOW ACCURATE IS THE r/K-SELECTION ANALOGY?

    —“some people are saying r/K selection doesn’t apply to humans because we are just on a spectrum of K.”— A Friend

    (I am going to … suppress my urge to point out just how stupid it is to assume reproductive strategies are binary rather than graduated. … I want to smack people who run around confusing an analogy, describing theoretic observations, with an axiomatic statement. sigh…. Now, on to an explanation. )

    I think all of us know that r/K isn’t a binary system. But the fact that the female intuition and the underclass strategy mirrors r-selection (numbers) and the male intuition and upper class strategies mirror k-selection is a useful point for illustrating the different moral and cognitive biases of male and females that we see expressed in all walks of life, including voting patterns.

    I mean, I take it for granted everyone knows that when you select for neoteny you get decreasing dimorphism, and less exaggerated differences between the male and the female. Largely by domesticating the male (aggression) in both genders.

    WE ARE ALL A BLEND OF TRAITS.

    All five (six) major human personality factors(traits) (including intelligence) are marginally indifferent between the genders, but the expressions of these major personality traits in the corresponding ten(twelve) sub-traits differs greatly between the genders in stereotypical ways – just what you would expect.

    So we are all either more masculine or more feminine – which is observable in facial features and body types. (feminine/gracile, masculine/massive). And the greater the level of domestication (neotonic selection) the more likely we will create gender issues and start seeing ill effects in both genders. Hence the necessity for replacing genetic influence with developmental influence (training) so that we produce less ‘conflict’. (Hence why jewish men all seem ‘gay’ and we think (correctly) that those with more heavy features (bigger jaws, bigger noses, bigger brows, darker and more even hair and eye coloring, curlier hair) are more primitive. (‘Cause they are.) I mean. i say this as a guy with an ‘atlantic’ barrel chest, very wavy hair, lots of body hair, despite my rather gracile features, temperament, blue eyes and light brown hair.

    TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

    Now, you can have too much of a good thing. The east asians have taken it too far (less so the japanese). So, lIke I say frequently; I am pretty sure that we passed peak human. The point at which no further neoteny is valuable. And instead, the problem is culling the lower classes. And I would suggest that the aryans were pretty much ‘peak human’ at their time, and the Dutch prior to the 19th century were pretty much modern peak human. And that we have mostly seen decline since then, leaving the white russians and the ukrainians and the poles and the north germans peak human. IMHO the Finns are not far off the mark today just not as advanced as the Dutch were (or the norman aristocracy). (Much to the chagrin of the rest of the world, turns out that the tall, gracile, blonde, big round head, thing is right. Genetically superior, with an even distribution of verbal and spatial intelligence. )

    REVERSAL

    Hopefully, it seems that we might have been saved by science this time, despite losing 100 YEARS!!!! to marxist, feminist, postmodernist deceit, pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism.

    if so, we can prevent the second dark age caused by abrahamism: the art of lying through massive repetition.

    You wonder why prayer and chanting prayer works? Same reason abrahamic lying works.

    Repetition.

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

  • BAD BEHAVIOR: IS IT RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SINGLE MOTHERHOOD, WHAT? (good stuff)

    BAD BEHAVIOR: IS IT RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SINGLE MOTHERHOOD, WHAT?

    (good stuff)

    —“Question: What’s the causal link between single parenthood and child dysfunction/criminality? Certainly in America the criminality has risen when single parenthood did also. Now, the right generally seems to argue it’s because of the necessity of the family, the left blames it on racism, and the HBD/Biodiversity folk attributes it to purely genetics. Nobody can give a straight answer and they all contradict each other. What’s your neutral take on it? It’s driving me a little mad”— A Friend

    “All happy families are the same. All unhappy families are different. All happy people are the same. All unhappy people are different. All domesticatable animals are the same. All undomesticatable animals are different.”

    A lot of things ‘have to go right’ to make a good person, and any of tem that go wrong makes a less good person. There are a LOT OF THINGS that can go wrong.

    The more FREEDOM (social agency) you have in a society, the more dependence upon your abilities (genes), training (socialization and norms), and education (marketable skills).

    So what you see in the world is that IQ very much reflects what you can do in a society. Because the society must accommodate the majority. So the dumber the majority the less freedom. The smarter the majority the more freedom. This is why westerners work by science, technology, rule of law and the one principle of the golden/silver rule, and why islamists for example simply are trained by the use of religion and repetition like small children or even domesticated animals. that difference is one standard deviation (one intellectual-species deviation) in lower average intelligence. The problem is that unlike the Africans who are more pro-social than we are (for obvious reasons – they kill each other pretty often otherwise), the islamic religion advocates aggression.

    Under-domestication of underclasses, poor quality personality (iq/industriousness), low investment parenting, lack of socialization that provides what low investment parenting does not (getting your ass kicked if you’re an asshole) and the difference in the size of the underclasses between the races so that we actually DO discriminate against one another (correctly) unless we act and dress Conformatively.

    So the answer to what goes wrong with single motherhood? ALL OF THE ABOVE. A single mother, working, living alone, with low IQ cannot distribute the tasks of feeding, *training*, educating, a child, unless his genetics and peers are so favorable that he can be insulated from competition and hardship. In other words, ALL CHILDREN ARE INFANTILIZED by our current educational system because of de-socialization of the right kind (survival) and socialization of the wrong kind (the industrial school system that lacks social competition). And that’s just the beginning of the problem.

    The single-parent problem is only a problem because we have just enough money to live in our own apartments with a mother and child without (a) depending upon one another for survival and therefore socializing properly, or (b) providing in-family socialization and discipline, and (c) providing sufficient social skills and productive skills to find work in a modern economy.

    Markets in everything matter. The market for socialization in a distribution of ages is more important than accelerating the rate of reading mathematics and sciences. There is no evidence that it makes any difference whatsoever.

    Sports, socialization, big extended families for everyone below the professional +120 class.

    I have run out of interest in this topic for the moment but it warrants about double this length.

    We have to abandon ‘all kids are equal’ and ‘all people are equal’ and realize that we have mixes of good and bad traits and saturation in the markets for survival familial/intergenerational, social/inter-class+gender, and economic/inter-skill requires training. And to make a person achieve that in modernity requires training in a particular skill we have abandoned: mindfulness.

    My problem with abrahamic religion is that it seeks to produce mindfulness through deceit. My preference for stoicism, even over buddhism, is that it is both literary and scientific, and requires no falsehood even if myths, literature, and histories are all exaggerations for the purpose of illustrating what might otherwise be invisible in a sea of tedious normalcy.

    The difference is that it is CHEAP to lie (abrahamic religion) and perform nonsense rituals, and it is EXPENSIVE to tell the truth (stoic virtue disciplines).

    And it is possible that some percentage of people (although I doubt it) are below the intelligence spectrum for Stoicism, and that we must achieve through repetitive imitative training (by doing) what stoicism asks us to achieve by repetitive discipline (by doing) ourselves.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 12:03:00 UTC

  • SO GENETICS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS MATTER? The difference between regional groups

    SO GENETICS AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS MATTER?

    The difference between regional groups, even territories in europe, is produced by the duration under (a) agrarianism, and (b) manorialism in particular, and (c) the form of crops. These three factors determine the current i) iq/personality distributions of various ethnic subgroups, ii) the size of the underclass because of that difference in distributions, iii) the family type used by that group, iv) the moral bias of that group v) the voting patterns of that group.

    In other words, the greatest improvement in the standard of living that you can provide for your people, is a reduction in the rate of reproduction of those in the lower and underclasses. Period. Nothing else comes close. It determines everything from norms to trust, to institutions that are possible, to the size of companies that you can form, and the ability to form sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.

    In other words, the reason the east and west were so successful is that (a) homogenous kin – the least diverse people on earth, (b) the use of manorialism to starve out the underclasses or reduce their numbers, and (c) aggressive culling of the underclass in the west by hanging up to 1% of the population per year after 1000ad, and by very aggressive use of the axe (head chopping) in east asia for thousands of years (the symbol of authority in china was the axe).

    The chinese are the oldest civilization and have succeeded in neotonic selection more so than any people on earth – to the point where it has become problematic. Europeans slightly less so, and from a later branch of homo sapiens sapiens. The rest of the world has NOT done this. And has neither the cold winters or agrarianism long enough to reduce the underclasses, and give opportunity for neotonic selection.

    We can easily demonstrate this by the testosterone levels and endocrine differences between the populations. at present we can demonstrate it in the ten subtypes of personality traits below the big five personality traits, but the universal test of neoteny is IQ, which is a fairly accurate predictor of the reduction and intensity of sexual maturity produced by neotonic selection.

    This is the most parsimonious explanation of the variation in racial (latitudinal), sub racial (generation), and tribal and class difference in the world. It means, that just as Belyaev’s Foxes, we can speciate extremely quickly, within a few generations if we select only for neotonic (calmness). Which turns out is producible by as simple a thing as reducing testosterone. Possibly even accounting for eye and hair color variation – although that is still an open question.

    So,

    (a) left, socialist, communist, equalitarian produces r-selection and r-selection moral intuitions (what we call beta or feminine or child-driven) and (b) right, aristocratic, meritocratic, egalitarian, k-selection (alpha or male, or tribe-driven) evolutionary strategies are all we are ever arguing about.

    All our prattle is just negotiation on behalf of our genes.

    So, just as the copernican revolution was profoundly humiliating the current revolution in biology and social sciences is profoundly humiliating.

    The world is a very simple thing: reduce underclasses and then the middle to upper classes will work together just fine. But because below about 105, people start becoming a burden, the primary problem we face, and the world faces, is not global warming, or pollution, but finding some way to morally cull populations under 105 (current measure) by a one-child policy for long enough that we equilibrate the vast underclasses with the advanced civilizations. Otehrwise the problem of india is going to be the world;s problem -everywhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 16:00:00 UTC

  • (See. I TOLD you that if I started talking about currencies and interest I would

    (See. I TOLD you that if I started talking about currencies and interest I would lose the month of July…. sigh.)

    Anyway. I have spent a long time studying disinformation caused by fiat money, common shares, debt instruments, temporal universal redistribution as a replacement for intertemporal kinship redistribution through saving and lending.

    So instead of trying to work with (a) what you understand, (b) what you think is useful, and (c) what you think is ‘good’, why don’t we follow Testimonialism and as this question:

    “What is RECIPROCAL(Moral), what is CALCULABLE (auditable), and what is TRUE(not false)?”

    ok.

    Consumer credit capacity is calculable by actuarial tables. Most consumer debt failure is due to intentional hazard creation by credit issuers.

    I want to stop this. I know what happens to the ordinary people under this bullshit of offering credit and terms to people who can’t control it, then subjecting them to penalty and overcharge fees, and sending them to credit agencies. And I’ve spent too much time with the canadian and british and german models as well.

    Americans are preyed upon, and most will live in old age poverty. And this going to end. Not through some fucking redistribution scheme (new welfare) but through forced saving (singaporean model), elimination of consumer interest on consumption, ending entrapment and punishment contracts (using the european model) – particularly cable and cell phones, restoration of intergenerational support, elimination of fees, consolidation of regulations, and direct distribution of liquidity to consumers.

    In other words, no more hazard creation then punishment fees. I am tired of watching ordinary people be the victims of a system that works continually to enslave them and to reduce them to poverty in their old age, destroy their families, destroy their communities, and commit genocide against them.

    For those that have asked, it is always possible to add a redistribution to your retirement account or to spend it, or to add it to your savings/retirement account and invest other money.

    If you want to make investments, borrow from bank. If you want to consume, that is just a matter of borrowing aginst future taxes and income to consume now, and drive the engine of the economy, and pay later.

    What will people REALLY DO? They will live at the limit of their borrowing capacity just as they do now, and liquidity redistributions in times of correction and shock will be used to pay down their debt – completely out of their hands. Which they will then maximize again.

    That I know of, only a few of us recommended paying down mortgages to correct 2008/9. What would have been the consequences of paying down consumer (mortgage) debt from the treasury rather than flooding the economy with $X Trillion dollars? What would have happened to the world economy? To jobs, to home prices?

    fuk.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 15:29:00 UTC

  • THAT THING WE CALL CONSCIOUSNESS (important) The conscious mind (system 2: direc

    THAT THING WE CALL CONSCIOUSNESS

    (important)

    The conscious mind (system 2: directed search[reasoning] ) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, for which we obtain rewards and punishments (emotions), which are biased by our reproductive strategy(gender distributions), which is biased by our genes(variations we call personality).

    Consciousness is the consequence of layers of very short term memory interacting with the results produced by continuous iterative searches of longer term memory, producing a continuous short term memory of change in state on the order of half of a second (sampling rate) to three seconds (persistence[echo]).

    At least in theory, it appears that increases in brain volume (and cortical layers) could continue to expand but we are limited by the ability of females to carry and birth us while still preserving the ability to run, and limited by the rate of information transfer. Ergo we could evolve far larger brains at the cost of higher energy consumption (brains are expensive organs).

    While social populations distribute SENSORY labor, instead of getting larger and larger brains evolution *suggests* that we developed language and thereby distributed COGNITIVE labor allowing for smaller less expensive brains.

    Genders specialize in certain biases, and it is through cooperation and non cooperation (that is far more valuable in productivity than non-cooperation) we ‘calculate’ the evolutionary (survival) value of our biased perceptions and ‘program’ one another to perform for (mostly) common good.

    So we divide perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, in a network which we call ‘social order’ of different scales: friends, families, clans, tribes, nations.

    And we develop formal institutions and methods of recording and measurement to assist us.

    But in the end, we act on behalf of our genes. I often reduce us to acquisition-machines. All the ’emotions’ and ‘phenomenon’ are just consequences (byproducts) of the necessity to train a memory to acquire using a limited number of chemical rewards and punishments, in a network of individuals using similar information.

    It’s actually all rather simple. The only complicated bit is that amazing thing we call the cortex, and its seven layers of cells that combine stimuli into categories which due to the necessity of planning actions, and then necessity of serializing the extraordinary volume of information we process into a sequence of symbols for the purpose of communication.

    So between parallelization (searching) on one hand, and planning, and having to communicate on the other hand we produce ‘order’ from a continuous stream of memory of changes in state, into continuous streams of plans and language.

    It’s quite elegant really.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 05:42:00 UTC

  • The reason I found libertarianism interesting was commensurability. That’s all.

    The reason I found libertarianism interesting was commensurability. That’s all. When I first heard Hoppe I understood that he combined commensurability with strict construction. I knew something was wrong (and it was – and it took me a very long time to figure out what it was). But I knew that he had in front of him the answer to commensurability. (Even if I would not phrase it correctly at the time.) And that meant the possibility that law, property, and economics could produce a social science.

    I call myself a conservative libertarian today out of convenience. But what I mean is a Sovereign. The difference is that I’m not asking permission. I’m taking it. I don’t need incentive to be fair. I need incentive not to kill or enslave and take what I want. And fairness is the only reason not to kill or enslave and take what I want.

    Sovereignty either exists in fact or it doesn’t. Liberty only exists by permission – so technically it’s impossible. Freedom is a nice word for a serf that isn’t bound to the land or a craft. There is only one source of what we mean when we say ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’, and that is Sovereignty. And there is only one possible method of producing Sovereignty; a militia of sufficient numbers that an alternative order is impossible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 13:19:00 UTC

  • MATH IS DEAD SIMPLE. (Even if applying it gets increasingly difficult) Math is s

    MATH IS DEAD SIMPLE. (Even if applying it gets increasingly difficult)

    Math is stated as a form of idealism (mathematical platonism, specifically), and that’s the problem.

    Mathematics consists (scientifically) of the use of measurement, by using positional naming, serving as scale independent constant relations, to describe constant relations in the universe, and to deduce constant relations from those constant relations, or fragments of constant relations.

    I mean. Math could not be more simple. It’s trivial. That’s why its so powerful. We can use one of anything to describe any constant relation.

    Where math has a problem is inconstant relations (economics and law).

    Even there, we can identify some constant relations through the commensurability provided by property and money.

    Property and money themselves being empirical measures of the time saved through acts of voluntary cooperation.

    Math is really simple. Constant relations of position names provide scale independence.

    Unlike reality, we can construct numbers (positional names) in an infinite number of ‘dimensions’. So that not only can we represent countings, but one dimensional (lengths) two dimensional (geometric) three dimensional (spatial), four dimensional (change) – but we can also represent all sorts of pure relations ( ‘types, or classes’). For example, spreadsheets that reference each other’s pages form additional dimensions. But there is no limit to pure relations we can represent with positional names (topologies).

    Math is trivial. Just like binary number systems are trivial.

    Thats why they’re so powerful.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 20:50:00 UTC