Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST? I was too optimistic. Enthralled

    IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST?

    I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense.

    People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick.

    And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism.

    People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience.

    We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts.

    It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem.

    Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents.

    So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative?

    Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat).

    Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth?

    If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam)

    If it will save your civilization?

    if it will save mankind?

    I think so.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-24 08:41:00 UTC

  • Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women. Me, Keith Pres

    Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women.

    Me, Keith Preston, Sean Gabb

    Of course this conversation degenerates quickly to ‘arguing what I understand rather than arguing the subject matter’.

    I give my usual:

    Enfranchisement is good, assuming that those with different interests have different houses, and that houses reflect demonstrated ability to contribute – not some artificial ‘right’ – so that the houses constitute a market between the classes.

    I can’t summarize via this point:

    That assuming the family continues to fall apart, and assuming that women retain the franchise, that the trend of single women and single mothers will increase, and that this group will increasingly vote asymmetrically, forming, for all intents and purposes a block, which will continue to determine the direction of policy over that of men, and that policy will continue leftward.

    I can’t make these points:

    – It makes use of information across the classes. This is a good thing.

    – Enfranchisement increases political discourse – and that is not a good thing. Because it is largely a pursuit of power over others. And for every positive attempt at seizure of power we must produce a negative attempt to prevent seizure of power. Whereas under the monarchies all effort must be achieved through market (non-state) means. So, Enfranchisement creates opportunity for political status and power by immoral means, distracting people from opportunity and status by moral means.

    – Enfranchisement destroys civic society – the private production of commons.

    KEITH PRESTON chimes in. Keith is well read. (very) Argues what he understands. Relied upon wisdom literature, rather than empirical data. I agree with it because it corresponds with the data. Smart guy.

    SEAN GABB (UK) Argues what he understands, by shifting the question from what were the consequences of women voting, to what would happen if we took away their vote.

    Sean brings up these points:

    – We would get lying politicians anyway. True. Irrelevant, because we would get lying politicians who sought to bring different issues to play.

    – No one is going to change whether women have the vote. True. Irrelevant, that is not what we were asked to discuss. If we were asked to discuss how we remove women from the vote I wouldn’t participate in the conversation.

    – We are seeing a rightward move anyway. True. Irrelevant, (a) since this shift is due to the return of islamism from its 100 year old defeat (after 1400 years of defeating the west consistently). And the question is, had we chosen a different method of enfranchisement, it’s not clear we would be in this position in the first place; and (b) men voting (at least in america) this circumstance would never have occurred. Which is a purely empirical question. (c) I acknowledge that british men are feminized more so than american men and that the data on british elections shows that. It does not show that in america.

    – You americans got a ‘trump’. and he’s not legitimate. (bizarre) False. Irrelevant. Legitimacy is a moral claim, not a scientific one. As we say, the purpose of political power is power. Once one has power and can act upon it, moral opinion has no bearing. only the institutional imitations on that power do.

    – Women voting or not wouldn’t have changed much. (bizarre) False. Because the accumulated presentation of candidates for office, selection of candidates for office, policies that were put forward, over the past 100 years, in the states, would have dramatically shifted many of our elections, since the past century has largely consisted of policies under which parties auction off privileges (rents). I mean, the entire socio, economic, and political, and consequently, worldwide power shifts that have occurred by the enfranchisement of women in the USA are profound, and most of the propaganda (puritan anglos, and jews in general) has been a catastrophe for western civilization. Education, the academy, family, policy, propaganda … all these changes occur because of women enfranchised. How do you price that? You don’t ‘wave it away’ by saying islamic invasion disproves it….

    While Sean is talking I search JSTOR, Pew and SSRN for gender differences in voting patterns. Find the material I’m looking for. But I realize this is a waste of my time. We are not having an adult discussion of empirical evidence, incentives, and institutional means. We are not trash talking for the sake of humor. We are instead talking nonsense.

    This is why I am increasingly reluctant to have unstructured conversations. You wanna ‘talk stupid shit’ then you’re welcome to. But I don’t have an interest in correcting people who say stupid things any more than I have to already, in the context of my work.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 08:34:00 UTC

  • IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU TELL THE EMPIRICAL TRUTH ABOUT MAN. (possibly shocking

    IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU TELL THE EMPIRICAL TRUTH ABOUT MAN.

    (possibly shocking)

    If you have negative rights (rule of law) that does not mean you have demonstrated capacity for positive rights (the right to influence others). Only that you are not a harm to others.

    .

    The payment of negative rights by doing nothing BAD buys you access to the market and juridical defense in the courts: freedom.

    What do you do to demonstrate ADEQUACY that you are equally capable of access to physical property and the security and preservation f the commons? (LIBERTY)

    What do you demonstrate that in itself demonstrates that you are capable of doing something GOOD by the non-harmful use of positive rights? (voting) (SOVEREIGNTY)

    Pay your way to freedom and juridical defense: non-imposition of costs.

    Pay your way to liberty and property ownership: service in defense, emergency, and the preservation of the peace (every man a sheriff).

    Pay your way to Sovereignty and the decisions about the polity: service, family, property(territory), industry (the employment of others.)

    Pay your way into Aristocracy: the intergenerational preservation of all of the above.

    child or beast(pre-human) > slave(youth) > serf(soldier) > freeman(citizen) > liberty(responsibility) > sovereignty(choice) > aristocracy(rule).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 19:42:00 UTC

  • Women are the Problem. Domestically and Internationally

      Understand. There is only one international problem: the size of the underclass population – under say, 100. That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100. Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote? So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve. Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

  • Women are the Problem. Domestically and Internationally

      Understand. There is only one international problem: the size of the underclass population – under say, 100. That’s it. We will some day soon have to face the fact that it’s populations under 115 that are the problem for humanity and for the planet – and that all the talk-talk-talk in history is created by people above 115, who simply can’t grasp the world of the people under 100. Understand. There is only one problem. Women voters. That’s the only problem we have. It’s the only problem we have ever had. The question is not ‘what do we do’ but ‘how do we do it’. If women can destroy the civilization by vote, then what means do we use to prevent their abilty to destroy the civilization by vote? So there is only one domestic problem: female voters. And one international problem: female reproduction under the the minimum. Both of these problems are solvable. They just aren’t pleasant to solve. Seriously. The problem isn’t complicated at all.

  • The Market for Reciprocity

    Apr 16, 2017 1:44pm THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?

  • The Market for Reciprocity

    Apr 16, 2017 1:44pm THE MARKET FOR RECIPROCITY? Yes we can create a market for truthful (non false, non-parasitic) political speech. In fact, it was the state that ended our market for truthful speech. Why? … Isn’t science an ongoing discovery process? doesn’t it function as a market for information, with career ending punishments for violators? Don’t we protect against fraud and deceit in the market for goods and services – and provide special protections that PROHIBIT us from defending the market for information against fraud and deceit? Didn’t we, for millennia, protect against libel(written) and slander(spoken), and don’t we grant special privileges that prevent us from using the course to protect ourselves from libel and slander – especially in large scale media? In other words, doesn’t the state PROHIBIT us from self defense against falsehoods? Why is it that we cannot in private advocate for conspiracy (theft), yet in public can advocate for conspiracy (theft) as long as the majority of conspirators approve of the theft? Why is it that we used to be able to protect the environment,and the commons via the judiciary, but the state removed our juridical defense? Why is it that the state removed our juridical defense against members of the bureaucracy, the government, the academy, and the media? Are you going to try to advocate that reciprocity (natural law) is not, in cooperation, the equivalence of truth (decidability)? Or are you saying specifically that people should be able to violate reciprocity and violate truth in order to use large numbers to impose thefts using the violence of the government, in order to obtain by non-reciprocity and deceit, that which they might obtain by voluntary exchange, thereby depriving those who have one thing from obtaining another thing in exchange? Just because you can’t figure out how to create law of information regarding political speech (forcible coercion) such that it holds to the same standards as market speech (goods, services, and information) doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact. it was done for millennia. The question is why did the state take it away, and why can we not restore it?

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • The Total Cost of Revolution? It’s the difference between the Cost of Not Revolting.

    You are a prisoner of your frames. If you don’t start any political question with violence and predation and construct from the bottom up, you are engaging in one of many forms of wishful thinking and deceit. Curt Doolittle updated his status. The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your culture, civilization, and race is infinite. Instead, we don’t work with total costs, but, as we do in business, ‘burn rates’. Why? Because a ‘going concern’ (a state, a business) can choose between one profitable activity and another, and calculate the total difference, in a portfolio of possible actions. They are worried that, as a going concern, they might ‘overextend’ without pricing the options. What do we do when the choice is between ending our ‘going concern’ (extermination) and survival? So then, the question of budget for a going concern is irrelevant -the cost is infinite, and therefore the price may or may not be. The question instead, is, whether we can produce a strategy using tactics at an available burn rate. And wether we can continue to pay that burn rate longer than the state can And the answer is to break the peace of westphalia domestically as well as internationally. The peace was developed precisely to prevent the success of what we call 4GW. Where there is no difference between soldiery and civilianry: a return to the milita, given the infinitely decreased costs of weapons over the milennia. (which I suppose I could address if it’s not obvous.) The enemy wears a genetic uniform. They cannot hide except among their own. And if their own shelter them, they are conspiring to assist them. Kill them all until they stop coming or are gone. In the conduct of war, there are no governments any longer. There are no armies any longer. These are mental artifacts of an archaic frame – and the source of our failure as a civilization. in fact, siege has been the most common form of warfare in history after raiding. It is ‘battles’ that are an uncommon and ritualistic form of war. Because a burned crop may starve people out. A city might live on grain for a year or two. A modern economy, with high population density, can be used to kill 90% or more of a population within six months if we simply take out the power grid. There is no difference between agrarian sunshine and industrial electricity. And it is the ritualistic warfare of the west, under the artificial peace of westphalia, and our christian fascination with ‘human rights’ that is our weakness. We have this weakness because we ceased governing war empirically, and governed war by moral intuition, rationalism and faith. We stopped being empirical people. To lay a siege you consider not total costs but burn rate. To conduct a siege one can use combined arms from a distance, raiding frequently and retreating from near. Or raiding, constantly and retreating from within. The cost of a siege is determined by distance. Siege from within is cheap. What’s the difference? Soldiers are under orders, organized, at a distance must be paid and maintained, and cannot depart without risk to life and limb. Raiders from near distance must go and retreat carefully, for they are exposed during the entire time of their mission. But they need some sort of profit incentive to pay for it. Raiders from within need only motive and opportunity and the confidence that over time they will succeed. It is the cheapest form of warfare, and that which is most impossible to suppress. As I posted yesterday, costs to prey are logarithmic and benefits to predators are linear. But when we discuss state vs non-state actors, this can easily be reversed. The mouse and cat can change roles. Why? Because the state is fed by momentum. Its abilty to maintain its preferred order requires maximizing rents. ANd the USA is out of methods of additional financing except for confidence in its economy. So costs to the federal government if the ‘order’, and the economy are the prey, are logarithmic, while the costs to us as revolutionaries is linear. In other words, very small costs on our part produce tragic losses to the state. So there are three levels of action that revolution can be staged within, and only one force within the government that has any ability to operate – and which cannot operate for long periods. Islamism has used these three levels successfully. Becuase they have returned to pre-state warfare, becuase of the low cost of arms and the high fragility of modern economic (food, water, shelter, family) orders. all that is necessary is to (a) cause the military to take charge out of necessity (b) thereby eliminating ability of the economy to produce, (c) thereby eliminating the ability of teh government to borrow, (d) thereby making it possible to ‘settle’ for demands. My belief is that all that is necessary is a credible threat. If not a credible threat then existential evidence, escalating to credible threat. It is very hard to say ‘no’ to eliminating lying in politics. Truth is enough. the four major initiatives are enough to restore wetsern civilization and to do so holding the moral high ground. (rambling a bit. too much going on. But you get the idea.)

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers