Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • IMAGINE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD…. Imagine how much smarter you would be, the en

    IMAGINE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD….

    Imagine how much smarter you would be, the entire population would be, if the same increase in intelligence made possible by physical science was made possible by operational science?

    In other words, imaging how much smarter people were after literacy. (about a full standard deviation)

    Imagine how much smarter people were after mass education in the sciences. (about a full standard deviation)

    We have some idea how much dumber people are because of NOT teaching history, economics, grammar, logic, rhetoric.

    What would happen if instead of being saturated by lies, you lived your life in a world of informational truths – at least in the commons. (I suspect it would produce a full standard deviation).

    Your IQ is a genetic thing, but the application of it is dependent upon the quality and quantity of information MINUS the effort you expend in falsification of it.

    If the market for goods, services, and information, increases in productivity and quality (and our assumption about man as well) increases in optimism, undrer the incremental expansion of law from violence to theft, to fraud, to disinformation… then why ca’nt we do the same with information by the same means?

    Why is it so hard to ask for journalists, public intellectuals, and politicians, all of whom distribute information into the market, to warranty their speech the same way we warranty goods, services, and other information that can cause harm?

    Are you saying that more harm is done by marketers than is done by politicians and intellectuals, and journalists?

    Are you crazy?

    these people almost to a man, lie for a living.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 11:29:00 UTC

  • THE EVIL OF COMFORTING LIES I have a thing: I like calculations. I like calculat

    THE EVIL OF COMFORTING LIES

    I have a thing: I like calculations. I like calculative technologies. I like them because they require specialists. And because they require specialists we get fewer idiots claiming they know what they’re talking about.

    why isn’t public speech in politics regulated as highly as a series seven license for example? Or a Legal License? Or a medical license?

    Are you saying that the construction of commons by political mans, backed by violence, is somehow less dangerous or open to misuse than financial predation, legal predation, or medical predation?

    Why is it so hard to imagine a world in which a journalist, in order to publish content for money, would have to be able to write in propertarian language, a propertarian argument, defending his or her position, even if summarizing that argument in an abstract?

    Why is it so hard for a politician to do the same?

    Why can we ship s—t arguments into the commons?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 10:48:00 UTC

  • THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 09:40:00 UTC

  • The total cost of revolution is unknowable. The total cost of the loss of your c

    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.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 08:53:00 UTC

  • Why Our Religion Fails

    LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING (why our religion fails) It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language. Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent. They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar. So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend. So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words. The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort. And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand. Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic. Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do. We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.

  • Why Our Religion Fails

    LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING (why our religion fails) It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language. Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent. They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar. So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend. So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words. The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort. And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand. Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic. Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do. We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.

  • Why Cant We Speak Religion In The Language of Truth?

    If you cannot speak in the language of truth how do we know you do not lie, and how do we know you are capable of making a truth claim? To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives. So we see the simple truth: that simpletons talk in Children’s stories, semi-simpletons in rational excuses, those that argue using wisdom stated historical references, and those that have obtained that wisdom in the laws of nature that cause that history to occur without our comprehension of it at the time. To be christian is to be european, is to follow the law of nature and natural law, in correspondence with reality. To argue in Christan verse is to argue in children’s stories. To argue in rationalism is to argue in excuses. To argue in law and history is to argue basted on the evidence of our actions. To argue in science is to argue in the laws of nature, and in natural law, drawn from that evidence, corresponding to that history, in spite of excuses, and children’s stories. A MAN DOES NOT DEBAT A CHILD, HE RULES CHILDREN FOR THEY ARE NOT READY – THEY LACK AGENCY Have we not transcended? Are we still ignorant, illiterate, poor, lacking knonwledge, technology and institutions? Do we still require morality by children’s story, rather than by literature, history, law, science, and mathematics? Are we admitting we are children and that we are not able to speak and think in the language that the gods have written the universe with? if you speak the truth then why must you lie? The judeo christian of the church constitutes a framing: a lie. Why must you have that lie? Can’t you look at history as a greater story than the children’s story of the myths and superstitions? the chidren’s stories for the dim, the ignorant, and the impoverished? Why aren’t your own histories superior to those? They are. I can speak the words of natural law in the words of jesus(myths), of augustine(wisdom), of plato(ideals), and of aristotle(description). WE can obtain meaning from myth, wisdom and ideals, But I will only argue them in the language of truth: Aristotle. To deny Natural Law is to destroy mankind. Islam and Judaism deny natural law. Natural Law of the West > Laws of Men, Sharia of Islam, Talmud of Jews. Natural Law results in man’s transcendence into gods. Abrahamism, Paul, and Muhammed results in landlessness and parasitism (jews) or mindlessness and parasitism (islam). The god of Abraham is the devil. in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement. A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure. What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital. What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?

  • Why Cant We Speak Religion In The Language of Truth?

    If you cannot speak in the language of truth how do we know you do not lie, and how do we know you are capable of making a truth claim? To rationalize is to make excuses. To tell children’s stories is to rationalize by imitation rather than reason. To analogize in history is to offer evidence. To argue in physical and natural law is to offer proof. The truth is forever unknown to us even if we speak it. The best we can do is offer proof that we have performed due diligence against all known alternatives. So we see the simple truth: that simpletons talk in Children’s stories, semi-simpletons in rational excuses, those that argue using wisdom stated historical references, and those that have obtained that wisdom in the laws of nature that cause that history to occur without our comprehension of it at the time. To be christian is to be european, is to follow the law of nature and natural law, in correspondence with reality. To argue in Christan verse is to argue in children’s stories. To argue in rationalism is to argue in excuses. To argue in law and history is to argue basted on the evidence of our actions. To argue in science is to argue in the laws of nature, and in natural law, drawn from that evidence, corresponding to that history, in spite of excuses, and children’s stories. A MAN DOES NOT DEBAT A CHILD, HE RULES CHILDREN FOR THEY ARE NOT READY – THEY LACK AGENCY Have we not transcended? Are we still ignorant, illiterate, poor, lacking knonwledge, technology and institutions? Do we still require morality by children’s story, rather than by literature, history, law, science, and mathematics? Are we admitting we are children and that we are not able to speak and think in the language that the gods have written the universe with? if you speak the truth then why must you lie? The judeo christian of the church constitutes a framing: a lie. Why must you have that lie? Can’t you look at history as a greater story than the children’s story of the myths and superstitions? the chidren’s stories for the dim, the ignorant, and the impoverished? Why aren’t your own histories superior to those? They are. I can speak the words of natural law in the words of jesus(myths), of augustine(wisdom), of plato(ideals), and of aristotle(description). WE can obtain meaning from myth, wisdom and ideals, But I will only argue them in the language of truth: Aristotle. To deny Natural Law is to destroy mankind. Islam and Judaism deny natural law. Natural Law of the West > Laws of Men, Sharia of Islam, Talmud of Jews. Natural Law results in man’s transcendence into gods. Abrahamism, Paul, and Muhammed results in landlessness and parasitism (jews) or mindlessness and parasitism (islam). The god of Abraham is the devil. in order to prevent the poverty of every other civilization, we must develop trust. In order to prevent the stagnation of every other civlization we must develop markets. In order to prevent the fall of our markets and trust we must develop market institutions. In order to prevent the failure of our institutions we must develop methods of measurement. A civilization fails when it can no longer measure success and failure. What must we measure? The treasury? In part. Because it is the first capital to expire. But in sum, all capital. What have we done in the 21st century to our measurements and to our capital?

  • What Kind of Anti-Market are You? (You’re some kind, I promise)

    WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU? What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer? – Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information – Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information. – Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information. – Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons. – Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics. – Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property. – Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information – Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information. CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in. PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language. The Frankfurt School modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

  • What Kind of Anti-Market are You? (You’re some kind, I promise)

    WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU? What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer? – Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information – Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information. – Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information. – Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons. – Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics. – Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property. – Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information – Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information. CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in. PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language. The Frankfurt School modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.