Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY (very important ideas in here for serious p

    THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

    (very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    If we define ‘science’ as ‘the invention of instruments by which we produce measurements, with which to reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable, such that it is accessible to reason’ and that ‘the scientific method’ is the process by which we do that, then ‘science’ succeeds in applied science, (chemistry, biology, engineering, programming, mathematics) and is stalled in physics, and has been an utter failure in the social pseudo-sciences, and was an utter failure in ( the pseudoscience of ) psychology – although, in the past two decades, thanks to advances in imaging, have attempted to rectify psychology to some degree.

    So the problem is better stated as “science does well in the use of instruments’ and not so well in the use of reason.

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    Worse, the continental tradition continues to practice Abrahamic (religious) invention of conflating both point of view (experience, intention, action, observation) as well as the utility (true, good, preferable, useful, and possible), and even worse, the existential dimensions (real, hyperbolic, ideal-platonic, and supernatural-impossible). So the entire continental program is engaged in secular theology and nothing more.

    Worse, despite the (wasted century) culminating in Frege/Kripke, and the knowledge that set operations cannot result in meaningful truth propositions and that ‘all logic is but a test of tautology’ the discipline of philosophy still relies on language and set membership rather than operations and existential possibility (and if necessary, external correspondence).

    Worse, philosophy continues (to talk nonsense) to practice the long tradition of ignoring costs, or full accounting. And while, via negativa, this made sense in the ancient world, where all virtues require little more than refraining from imposing costs upon others – in the modern world, where we can use the vote as a proxy for violence by which to impose costs upon others, this is far less “honest and truthful” a tactic -and instead, is a means of self, and other-deception.

    If your discipline cannot fully account for all dimensions of reality in its propositions ABOUT reality. Particularly in the Possible, GOOD and the TRUE, then the entire purpose of the discipline is nothing more than evading reality (religion) and a means by which to produce falsehoods for the purpose of justifying parasitism on the left, and predation on the right.

    I am one of the harshest anti-philosophy philosophers, precisely because I do not practice ‘cherry picking’ of what I account for, nor do I tolerate conflations in any of the common dimensions.

    The excuse that philosophy is philosophizing is about as honest as religion’s claims – including the entirely falsifiable claim that philosophy ‘does good’.

    Either philosophy is the means by which we develop methods of decidability in possibility, utility, preference, good, and true, where the ‘true’ is that which is decidable independent of goodness, preference, utility, and possibility, or it is, like religion, a method by which – at best – dilettantes produce witticisms with which to deceive honest and moral people, and – at worst – the means by which the crimes of marketers, frauds, priests, academics, politicians, prey upon others for fun and profit.

    So, I don’t see much serious philosophy going on in this world outside of a few individuals who work in the sciences. What I see instead, is a vast number of dilettantes virtue signalling their cunning, while advocating their preferred version of self-rewarding immorality over that preferred vision of self-rewarding immorality of others.

    And that’s probably the most accurate description of philosophy today you will find.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:34:00 UTC

  • THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS —“All of logic and reason

    THE UNIVERSE OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION IN SIMPLE TERMS

    —“All of logic and reason is inherently unfalsifiable. You can take any purely physical theory and I can tell you how just changing one of the primary assumptions of it would give exactly the same results but say something totally different about how reality works.” – What do you say to this statement?”— A Friend

    Reasonable arguments are falsifiable, that’s what logic assists us in achieving.

    Logical argument is falsifiable, that’s what empirical arguments are for. That’s what Kripke, Frege, and Godel help us understand.

    Reasoned, Logical and empirical arguments are falsifiable, that’s what operational arguments are for.

    Reasoned, logical, empirical,and operational arguments are falsifiable, that’s what full accounting is for.

    Reasoned, logical, empirical, operational, and fully accounted arguments are falsifiable. That’s what reciprocity is for.

    It is extremely difficult to make a false statement that is reasoned, logical, empirical, operationally, fully accounted, and reciprocal, since to do so requires we reduce all such statements to a series of subjectively decidable statements.

    The fact that we do NOT state these things by our evolutionary nature, is simply a matter of brevity, life’s tolerance for error, and the division of perception, cognition, and knowledge in combination with communication that allows us each to operate with fragmentary and largely false information and still survive.

    The fact that we can understand all this and therefore speak truthfully, means that we can reduce the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit both individually and interpersonally, and therefore increase our successes primarily by decreasing our failures.

    The fact that we rely on our falsehoods, is a matter of the cost of retraining ourselves. And this is the principle problem we face. We all want everyone else to pay the cost of retraining, but not us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 16:02:00 UTC

  • THE ALT-RIGHT PRIMER (I had to create a new post) THE ALT-RIGHT, NEW RIGHT, THE

    THE ALT-RIGHT PRIMER

    (I had to create a new post)

    THE ALT-RIGHT, NEW RIGHT, THE “RESIGNED” RIGHT.

    CLASS STRUCTURE;

    The evolving new right consists of a series of class related discourses among which are the academics (genetics, law, intellectual history, history), the conservative libertarians (economics), the middle class ‘alt-light’, the working class ‘alt-right’, and the underclass “national-socialist-wanna-be’s”. The new right is not a class but cross class movement, that makes arguments and media for consumption for each class.

    STRATEGY:

    The new right has adopted the left’s use of ridicule, rallying, shaming, and identity politics, but not the left’s use of (a) pseudoscience: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor/Keynes, (b) or the postmodern use of ‘reality by chanting’ of outright falsehoods: IQ, equality of genetics (class and race), diversity, underclass reproduction; And they have combined this with hyperbolic reciprocity: Masculinity, Cultural Superiority, Racial Superiority, Separatism, and exclusivity of the family instead of the individual as the object of policy.

    All of these tactics make use of techniques invented by the left (socialism: feminine reproductive strategy) as a means of rallying political control against western civilizations use of meritocracy (aristocracy: masculine reproductive strategy.)

    So what you see, is the use of ridicule, and threat, in the form of hyperbolic reciprocity (doing the same but more exaggeratedly ) just as, say, Marxist radicalized the underclasses, and Alinsky radicalized the lower, working, and lower middle class. And just as the Marxists, socialists, and postmodernists promoted a means for women and males who could not otherwise climb the dominance hierarchy through merit, a method of using chanting, propaganda, pseudoscience, and pseudo-rationalism, and outright lying in order to obtain the political power necessary to overthrow the west’s Aristocratic civilization. (just as jews had, christians had, and muslims had done before the left.)

    The hole in the right’s argument has always been it’s reliance upon christianity. And the right is abandoning christianity and the christian ethics and returning to aristocratic ethics, and thereby removing the left’s ability to criticize the right by suggestion that the left’s selective use of pseudoscience and empirical science was superior to the right’s use of history, science, pseudoscience and religion.

    This is why the right will succeed: they are rapidly abandoning Abrahamism (the art of collective lying) and the christian ethic (tolerance) and returning to their martial aristocratic ethic (zero tolerance, truth, property, family), faster than any social change has occurred in western history -ever.

    The west has always been led by a small minority of men willing to use aristocratic ethics and zero tolerance to domesticate and reduce the size of the underclasses by the use of sovereignty over life, body, action, kin, and property: reciprocity, the common law of reciprocity, the superiority of the sovereignty common law of reciprocity over all all discretionary rule, and the consequential development of ‘markets in everything’ meaning: association, cooperation, marriage, production of goods, services, and information , production of commons (houses of commons), and the production of polities (many small independent kin-states.

    THE FAILED CENTURY:

    The world wars and the defeat of the last aristocratic families led to the possibility of defeating Maxwell, Darwin, Pareto, Durkheim, Weber, Spencer, and Nietzsche’s restoration of the west, and the evolution of the second ‘re-crhistianization’ and therefore re-conquest of the west in the forms of marx’s restatement of christianity in pseudoscientific secular prose, and the introduction of psychological shaming by Freud, and the introduction of cultural shaming by the frankfurt school, the Right, lacking an articulated set of arguments for their aristocratic civilization other than the combination of the common law, natural law, the works of the enlightenment, doubled-down on their previous methods leaving open the door for the sale of pseudoscience to the newly economically mobile middle, lower and underclasses, by public intellectuals, the academy, and the state.

    During the early half of the century, western philosophers and scientists tried to counter the left’s pseudoscience and propaganda, but were unsuccessful in completing what in retrospect was the Operationalist Revolution that would have completed the enlightenment. This failure, and the state’s use of fiat currency, and national debt, plus the circumstances of the depression, the wars, and the need for postwar recovery, were insufficient to counter the vast change in movement of the people from the farm and urban peasantry to the factory and home ownership, and a first generation’s access to higher education.

    But throughout the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, the western aristocracy remained hopeful that the newly enfranchised would ‘grow up’. This never happened. And by the late seventies, when both Johnson’s great society program’s attempt to import russian relocation methods had failed, and the oil crisis had ended, conservatives understood that they had to create ‘think tanks’ to counter left’s pseudoscience, and that either the left would bankrupt the private sector and leave no choice but socialism, or the right could bankrupt the state and leave no choice but the private sector.

    Unfortunately, at the time, the right did not understand that the left’s success at importing underclasses was to be so successful as to accomplish with underclass immigration to the six major immigrant cities, what could not be accomplished through advocacy of their ideas. Rather than abandon their ideas as having been successful at enfranchisement into rule of law, the left sought to destroy western aristocratic civilization, rule of law by reciprocity, markets, and then the white race in general. Nor did the right understand how successful the left’s attack on the family as the central institution of aristocratic civilization, and to replace the family with the state, and the social consequences and poverty that would result from it, reversing the success at previous integration of immigrants into rule of law by reciprocity, meritocracy, the absolute nuclear family, and the intergenerationally independent household, and the community of small businesses.

    ABANDONMENT OF TRADITIONAL LIMITS

    So the new right has abandoned its traditional limits so central to aristocratic civilization:

    a) HONOR: The duel was practiced for all our history until the liberation of women the home by the industrial revolution. And honor was practiced because the west relied so heavily on the militia and military codes of conduct. Using ridicule or insult could be met with death. And until the 1970’s it was possible to find one’s self in a fistfight, if not a fight for one’s life if one spoke disrespectfully. However the left was successful at ‘decriminalizing dishonourable speech’ including the near removal of libel and slander. So as a consequence the working, middle, classes are actively making use of the same underclass strategies developed and mastered by the left. The difference is that it is not possible to control the internet as the left controlled centralized media, and as the monarchies controlled the press and speech. So just as the left mastered the industrialization of propaganda under mass media, the right is mastering the mass production of propaganda by individual actors over the internet by the same means. Just as the islamists have been doing. Just as the marxists did with telegraphs, telephones,world postal services, mimeographs, loudspeakers, radio, television, and the academy.

    It is no longer dishonorable to use ridicule, shaming and rallying, which were previously considered ‘unmanly’ and ‘Women’s Talk’.

    b) TOLERANCE AND c) NON-AGGRESSION:

    While christianity, like the other abrahamic religions of judaism from which it is an heretical offshoot, and like islam, which is an heretical offshoot of christianity, relies upon the central tenet of extending kinship love to non kin – effectively ‘hyper tolerance’ so that primitive people’s can exhaust tit-for-tat tests and develop into people with whom we do not conflict over petty matters, and with whom,we can hopefully develop association, cooperation, customers, and mates across otherwise high friction clans, tribes, and nations.

    This exaggeration of the optimum game theory strategy can be abused once the scale of cooperation becomes large enough (non kin) such that the investment in future cooperation can be exploited continuously as a form of parasitism.

    So what is occurring is that the new right has abandoned christianity’s high tolerance in games of tit for tat, and has returned to nationalism as the limit of political tolerance, and returned to ZERO TOLERANCE within that political order, and to AGGRESSION outside of that political order.

    This abandonment of ‘hopeful altruism’ even to their own kin, and especially to their ‘undesirable’ (read ‘undesirable liberal’) women, has, rapidly caused the end of christian influence and the restoration of aristocratic martial ethics – although the expression of it as such is evidently different for each class in the hierarchy.

    c) VIOLENCE

    At present the right is (a) expecting, planning a civil war during which they expect any one of a range of solutions, the majority of which will be met by the localization of normative (cultural) law and the limit of the federal government to its original charters of conflicts over interstate trade (narrowly defined) and conflicts beyond the borders (war). (b) developing an identity or set of identities in response to identity warfare conducted by the left in their search for power. (c) increasing their numbers; developing alliances; creating portfolios of arguments, and in general, spreading the word that this movement will be successful. The reason being that the Government, the economy, and the society has never been as fragile as this, even prior to the civil war. And that as we have learned from the muslims a very small number of men can bring down an entire country in just two weeks by nothing other than impeding the transport of goods, information, power, and water. And that demonstrations in the streets in the model of the french revolution are now immaterial. The usa is larger, but it can easily be brought down by overtaxing its internal and external institutions. Not the least of which is becuase the country has so many enemies both within and without, that all that needs to happen is for one to start (we thought black lives matter would do it. We thought Antifa might do it. ) But once one starts the others will. And while it is possible to kill one idea, it is impossible to kill that many factions.

    CLOSING

    All political revolutions seem impossible in prospect but obvious in retrospect. All social revolutions seem impossible in prospect but obvious in retrospect. All entrepreneurial revolutions seem impossible in prospect, but obvious in retrospect. All technological revolutions seem impossible in prospect but obvious in retrospect.

    Every dark age has been preceded by a migration of inferior peoples due to their adoption of some of the technologies of superior peoples. The only means of preventing dark ages, is to domesticate and rule inferior people, rather than being invaded and destroyed by them.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 07:38:00 UTC

  • WHY JEWS DO WELL IN AMERICA: HIGH TRUST GENERAL POPULATION —“Israel is a low t

    WHY JEWS DO WELL IN AMERICA: HIGH TRUST GENERAL POPULATION

    —“Israel is a low trust society. I caught a lot of flack for this in the comments, but I stand by this statement. There is an enormous literature tracing the effects of trust and cooperation on firm size and GDP. In general, where social trust and cooperation is low — corruption is higher, and firms tend to be small-scale organizations built on kinship links. Managers must actively monitor their employees, rather than being able to scale up.

    Somewhat surprisingly, Israel stands out as a country with high IQ but low levels of trust. Some 56% of Israelis report that you cannot trust others, which is a figure comparable to other low-trust societies like South Korea or Italy.

    One manifestation of this is that there are very few large Israeli firms. Teva, a generic drugs manufacturer, is a notable exception. By contrast, high-trust Switzerland is home to several national superstars like UBS, Novartis, TAG Hauser, etc. Israel’s economy is dominated by small-scale firms, many of which are founded by people who formed close bonds in the IDF. Even in America, there are host of large Jewish-founded firms, like Google.

    Of course, a lack of large, productive multinationals may play a role in explaining Israel’s relatively poor economic performance. Firms with scale and branding are able to tap into the tail ends of a “smiley curve” economy by focusing on the value-added activities of branding, design, and distribution. Smaller firms operating in heavily competitive industries, by contrast, earn few economic rents.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 18:17:00 UTC

  • COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY: ACTUALLY ITS EASY (from elsewhere) ALL HUMAN PHENOMENON

    COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY: ACTUALLY ITS EASY

    (from elsewhere)

    ALL HUMAN PHENOMENON IS COMMENSURABLE, and ALL HUMAN DIFFERENCES ARE DECIDABLE.

    METHODOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL

    Chinese: create ‘woo’ with humbling riddles about the world.(inaction) Westerners: create ‘woo’ with power over the world (action)

    –“Daoism and Confucianism, at least after a certain stage in the development of these schools, exemplify the way that a set of interests intertwine with beliefs about the world. Both schools exemplify in different ways a conception of understanding the world that is inseparable from the interest in coming into “attunement” with it, to use a felicitous word from Charles Taylor (1982). To become attuned to the world is to see its goodness and to know one’s place in the order of the world. “—

    The west: transform the world for the better for having lived in it (evolve). The east: live in harmony with it (stagnate). Or worse, islam there is no new knowledge (devolve).

    Extremely poor civilizations adopt a mono-philosophy. The east and west adopted class philosophies. The west even developed methods and languages for those philosophies. We tolerate nearly infinite challenges to the dominance hierarchy and lionize creativity that increases group competition.

    IMO: the present problem remains monopoly: that people are not only unequal but vastly unequal. People are not only not equal in worth to one another, but a large number force others to pay a painful cost for their existence. Not only are capitalism and socialism both failures, but so is the median: social democracy. Why? Because just as we need different philosophies we need different economies. And so far, we have tried ‘all aristocracy’ in the west and failed, ‘all middle class’ in europe and failed, ‘all family in china and failed’, all commoners under the communists, and failed. When the more obvious solution is military (slavery), ‘WPA’, (serfdom/labor), guilds(unions/craftsmen), managers(small business/inventors), professionals(calculators/investors), and jurists (deciders).

    So far, the attempt to create monopolies instead of the church, state, burgher, laborer, serf/slave/prisoner system has been a temporary luxury good made possible by a rare technological leap primarily the result of the harnessing of fossil fuels.

    EPISTEMIC

    chinese language is quite primitive, relying on high context, and low precision. their wisdom literature is likewise, high context, low precision. they insert ‘woo’ into their wisdom literature through contradiction. the monotheists inserts ‘woo’ through supernaturalism. The west inserts ‘woo’ through extension of perception – power over nature. Explanatory power.

    The difference in our virtues is limited. however the difference in truthfulness, disruption of the dominance hierarchy, and dominating the universe couldn’t be any more opposite. In other words, ‘all high trust cultures are the same, all other cultures are different. All happy families are the same, all dysfunctional families are different. All domesticable animals are the same, all un-domesticable animals are different. All intelligent people are similar, all unintelligent people are different. All desirable people are the same, all undesirable people are different. The reason being that any number of criteria must coincide to produce excellence, but if any one fails, not so. The chinese insularism was smart in retrospect. the western threat to the dominance hierarchy was smart in retrospect. had each of us chosen that one property from the other we would both have been safer. the west from conquest, the east from stagnation.

    IS COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY HARD?

    Not at all. You just have to stop denying (a) costs, (b) darwinian consequences over time (c) vast inequality of people, and (d) the fact that every person at the bottom is six times as costly as your most productive person. (e) we cannot create social economic and political orders for people we wish we had, but those for whom we do have.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 13:03:00 UTC

  • APPARENTLY I NEED TO DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF POSSIBLE PLOTS IN FICTION WRITING –

    APPARENTLY I NEED TO DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF POSSIBLE PLOTS IN FICTION WRITING – AND THE NARRATIVE AS PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.

    So, I guess I just took it for granted that you can’t get out of university without knowing that there is only one type of story (Transcendence) and only so many plots (>6,<30), only so many character types (>6,<12), so many archetypes/heroes (~12), so many virtues (>4, <20), so many emotions (~8), so many senses (5 or 6), so many gender strategies (female, young male, mature male), and only one on purpose (acquisition).

    I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the Thesaurus is organized by sense perception (grammar) and that human language consists of a very small set of analogies to experience and is very simple – it’s just possible to load and frame with increasing ‘color’.,

    I suppose it’s obvious that the use of increasingly loaded language causes more associations between more senses and more memories and invokes greater free association (ideas) that we call thinking, imagination, or waking dream, or dream state depending upon the amount of focus we exercise over it.

    This is pretty well worn territory.

    On the other hand…

    I didn’t assume it was obvious that what we could acquire – Property In Toto – was understood by anyone.

    I didn’t assume it was obvious that this set of variables constitutes (literally) a complete programming language for the human mind.

    I myself didn’t understand then, that all language consists of the communication of ‘measurements’ which do not differ substantially between humans other than perhaps in intelligence and experience. And consequently that ‘man’s abilities constitute a consistent set of weights and measures, and that all language consists of the trading of measurements that are testable by our senses.

    I didn’t assume people understood that there is only one method of communication: suggestion using partial information (measurements). And that the method of suggestion can be used to convey honesty or deception. Or that the only way to convert honesty to truth is through subsequent establishment of limits by examples of falsification.

    I didn’t assume people understood that the difference between ‘good’ myth and literature, and ‘evil’ myth and literature was the use of suggestion in combination with idealism or supernaturalism, or omniscience, or omnipotence to claim knowledge of causality they did not possess (idealism), and claims to authority they did not possess (supernaturalism, omniscience, and omnipotence.)

    I have come to understand that there are sources of knowledge and sources of ignorance, and some ‘theories’ or ‘ideas’ actually create ignorance, and very few theories or ideas convey knowledge.

    I have come to understand that the training of a people for higher and higher trust and greater and greater agency is only so good as the elimination of people of low trust and low agency from the population.

    Like a lighter and lighter wheel, spinning faster and faster, trust creates increasing and increasing fragility without equal increases in intolerance for error (evil).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 11:33:00 UTC

  • HOW TO SEPARATE NONSENSE TALK FROM ADULT TALK Puerto Rico’s debt is 70b. That’s

    HOW TO SEPARATE NONSENSE TALK FROM ADULT TALK

    Puerto Rico’s debt is 70b. That’s more than NYS current debt of 63b. And california’s … unimaginable 1.2-1.5T debt.

    NY will become insolvent with five years – the next cycle will force it. California is already deterministically bankrupt, but has enough cash flow to survive.

    The western world went bankrupt somewhere in about 1992 when the experiment with keynesian fiat debt was exhausted. We just had the post-cold-war windfall, followed by the tech windfall, followed by redirecting trillions in to consumer credit – principally because the west has lost its economic and institutional advantages, and is surviving entirely by selling off assets (including culture and norms and institutions) to immigrants. (really).

    You know why theologians don’t inclue costs in their philosophy?

    You know why the greeks didn’t include costs in philosophy?

    You know why the academy doesn’t include costs in philosophy?

    You know what separates nonsense philosophy from not-nonsense philosophy? COSTS.

    You know how to separate a child from an adult? Calculation of Costs.

    You know how to determine evolutionary possibility? Costs.

    I don’t know how to ‘cherry pick’ in philosophy.

    I never learned how to lie.

    I leave that for the priesthood, public intellectuals, and the politicians.

    ( lol )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 14:35:00 UTC

  • THE ALT RIGHT (OR NEW RIGHT) BY CAUSE RATHER THAN LANGUAGE The alt right (or new

    THE ALT RIGHT (OR NEW RIGHT) BY CAUSE RATHER THAN LANGUAGE

    The alt right (or new right) has given up hope of reconciliation and returned to separatism.

    The Hopeful Right of the 18th, 19th, and 20th, centuries have been proven wrong by the evidence. And we have transitions to the Unhopeful Right. And finally, the Resigned Right.

    Why? Because it is not possible to create the enlightenment fantasy of Aristocracy of Everyone.

    Man was not oppressed by the aristocracy. Man was domesticated from beast, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen, and if possible he might, if he possessed sufficient agency, earn his sovereignty among other sovereign men.

    But since man was not oppressed, and man was merely domesticated – like every other plant and animal – many men (and many more women) are not domesticated sufficiently, so that they lack the agency, to join the aristocracy, of sovereign men.

    The problem the anglo middle class man created, was his siezure of the power of the state from the aristocracy under the pretense of oppression rather than the evidence of domestication.

    Through colonialism and then marxist-postmodernism, this error has spread round the world.

    And faced with the evidence, the aristocracy of everyone – the ‘egalitarianism’ – has failed, and the right is abandoning it, and deflating christianity, and returning to the ethics of aristocracy.

    So the redaction of christian universalist ethics of the enlightenment has occurred across all classes, and we are seeing the reactions of different classes from the Nat-Soc labor class, to the alt-right working class, to the nationalist middle class, to the civilizational upper middle class, to the academic class (people like Me, Duchesne, MacDonald, and even to a lesser degree Peterson) all demonstrating our class-communication methods but all of us saying precisely the same thing.

    That the christian universalist era is over, and the myth of the aristocracy of everyone is over. And the myth of the oppressed is over.

    It’s just aristocracy of those of us with agency, and the rest of the barbarian animals that have yet to be domesticated.

    We must only choose whether to fence off the animals, or pay the high cost of domesticating them against their will

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 13:50:00 UTC

  • PETERSON, HAIDT, AND DOOLITTLE (AND TALEB) AND THE NEED FOR RELIGION AS CONTINUO

    PETERSON, HAIDT, AND DOOLITTLE (AND TALEB) AND THE NEED FOR RELIGION AS CONTINUOUS THERAPY DUE TO OUR LOSS OF STOICISM

    (profound) (read this)

    I’d venture that Peterson’s current with psychology and if you were to read both his work (therapy) and Haidt’s work (morality), haidt does not retreat into the literary (religion). And so you sort of get the same message against postmodernism from both Haidt(Morality) and Peterson(Psychology), and me (Decidability). The difference is between personal, political, and legal.

    Now I agree that appealing to myth and literature is a way of CREATING A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS EXPERIENCES SO THAT HE CAN ASSESS THEM.

    Theraputically, that is what myth and literature allow you to do: look at yourself(feelings) and ‘norms’ (via ancient myths still living) in a depersonalized way.

    And having depersonalized YOURSELF and depersonalized SOCIETY AND OTHERS your rational (human) mind can be used to defeat (reprogram) the animal and reptilian mind.

    I mean. But that’s operationally what is going on.

    It’s what talk therapy tries to do through one-on-one safety.

    It’s what exposure therapy tries to do through social (mentor) safety.

    It’s what literary analysis tries to do through social (religious) therapy.

    It’s exactly what anti-depressants allow you to do.

    That’s exactly what hallucinogens allow you to do.

    I mean, all of it it. All of religion is just THERAPY. It’s therapy that’s only necessary because of ignorance, poor teaching, and our lack of continuous reinforcement from the family and tribe in a vast, alienating, impossible-to-calculate division of perception, knowledge, and labor, using an information system increasingly dependent upon nothing except REJECTION and PRICES.

    The problem is achieving enough detachment that you can reprogram (assign new weights) to memories and relations without at the same time reinforcing the weights of existing traumas.

    I mean. It’s not even scientifically difficult.

    What’s difficult is the near universal ignorance among us that this is what we’re doing, why we’re doing it by the different means, and why it works, and why its necessary:

    WE LACK SUFFICIENT TRAINING (STOICISM) SO THAT WE REQUIRE CONTINUOUS THERAPY TO COMPENSATE.

    (this should be one of the most profound things you’ve read in your life)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:55:00 UTC

  • ON THE PRETENSE OF MORALITY AS COVER FOR PARASITISM Social orders consist of a v

    ON THE PRETENSE OF MORALITY AS COVER FOR PARASITISM

    Social orders consist of a variety of institutions. I am going through the sum total of human thought AND human institutions, and attempting to discover the methods of eliminating deceit from the commons.

    Now, it SOUNDS to me like Brian cannot grasp the difference between telling people SOMTHING TO DO and think, versus telling people what they CANNOT speak, display and act upon in the commons because it spreads falsehood.

    Now, I already know why Brian is doing that kind of counter-signaling, and I expect all people to counter-signal when they are attached to a preferred falsehood, just as a corrupt politician, a corrupt public intellectual, a corrupt academic, a corrupt businessman, or any other corrupt person justifies his parasitism upon other people through use of deception.

    So the fact that people want to preserve their falsehoods, whether to preserve a false self image, or to preserve the ability to obtain false signals by virtue signaling others, or to preserve allies, or to preserve intellectual malinvestments, or to preserve allies political and cultural, or to preserve rents, is somewhat immaterial

    If you are engaging in falsehood as a means of obtaining something via the commons then it is just another form of fraud.

    If you think that you can construct a set of virtues (values, positives) that are non-parasitic and advance some reproductive strategy that is good. If you can construct a set of virtues (values, positives) that advance a different reproductive strategy (signal strategy), that is also non-parasitic, that’s also good. And literary structure under the transcendent monomyth, the archetypes, the pagan virtue portfolios, allows all of that to occur – that’s just the logic and science of literature.

    but there is no more reason to tolerate the ‘sales’ of parasitic and false marketing of parasitic and false values, than there is any other form of conspiracy to do harm either public or private.

    And I don’t think there exists a criticism that’s survivable, unless you say that ‘i don’t care, I want to preserve a means of fraud and parasitism upon the achievements and potential of those who refrain from parasitism and fraud.”

    I understand why folks would resist, but you know, truth is what it is: things are true and moral or they are untrue and immoral.

    it’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 21:53:00 UTC