Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • “If you were given a new position as head of a large, multi-national company, wh

    —“If you were given a new position as head of a large, multi-national company, which was still around in spite of poor to abysmal management over the course of 100 or so years, how long do you think it would take you to turn that company around and set it on the right track?

    Assuming you have the knowledge and acumen for the job from years of experience successfully running other, smaller, but similar companies.

    Do you think you’d make any mistakes along the way? Do things that seem like mistakes to the casual observer, who doesn’t have your same experience, information, and understanding of the situation?

    How long before you start to see real results?

    Two years?

    Five years?

    Ten?

    Twenty?

    What about two and a half months?”—Danny O’Quillinan

    In my experience, almost always, the problems are :

    1) Debt that can’t be exited.

    2) Maximized rent-seeking that can’t be exited. (pensions etc)

    3) A board or management that can’t be exited, and Incentives that are perversely against the interests of the business.

    4) Capital Equipment or Information Systems, Contractual relations that are deadly but extremely difficult to change without causing even worse damage to the business immediately.

    5) Poor quality employees that cannot be trained to compete in the new market.

    6) The loss of the upper 10-20% of the best talent leaving you with little to work with – talent is the most scarce transitional capital.

    7) Inability to attract the talent necessary to restore competitive excellence.

    8) You’ve been hired too late, and they either want a fall guy, an organized end to the business, a sale to a competitor at fire sale prices. Or they’re stupid and they think a miracle will happen.

    The principle problem in restoring a company is whether you are able to bring in enough talent to make the change with a good enough plan, and enough capital to do it with, and have enough time to do it with, and if once you achieve it, the end product is worth more than what you have already.

    I have never seen a company I could not turn around assuming I had those options. The truth is that in the company, and in all companies, everyone or at least a lot of them, know what to do, but there are some sort of political or economic barriers that prevent them from doing it.

    Why did Microsoft displace IBM, but google and apple and sun fail to displace microsoft given all msft’s series of failures? the error was on both sides. Would you rather have 80% of your revenue dependent upon the iPhone or Windows+Office? (Samsung is a better phone btw).

    Why did nokia fail and iphone/samsung eat their lunch?

    Why is search a dead tennis ball and Walmart, Home Depot and Amazon together have replaced Sears (and its imitators)?

    Why did amazon succeed and barnes and noble (and everyone else) fail?

    When the Xbox team was started why did they demand separate offices away from the rest of campus, and why did that product (sort of) succeed where most other microsoft initiatives fail?

    I can usually diagnose a company in two weeks, and with certainty in thirty days. The problems are not hard.

    If you can’t turn it in two to three years you probably can’t turn it. I would make mistakes. Everyone does. Your strategy for the turnaround has to assume you will make mistakes, and have multiple tiers of success so that you can achieve different levels of success depending upon mistakes surprises, and shocks.

    THE PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 14:54:00 UTC

  • You know, I’m pretty disappointed, but I’m not sure that whacking someone’s airf

    You know, I’m pretty disappointed, but I’m not sure that whacking someone’s airfield for using chemical weapons is the same thing as getting involved.

    Hell, I talk tough to my wife when she crosses the line, my business partners, my friends, and the guy on the street, and I’m willing to get into fights over it.

    How much did Rothbard lie to create libertarianism?

    We have no idea what we’re doing we just do the best we can. Is trump better than Obama? Probably much better. Is he better than clinton? Certainly. Is he as good as we can get? In the current era maybe. Is he as good as we would like or need? No. Is it possible to create a polity without a decider-of-last resort? Um, the gypsies, jews, and muslims shure make it look like the answer is ‘no’, and the chinese and the westerners sure make it look like the answer is ‘yes’

    Mises Institute has a ridiculously long and deep reputation for “heaping undue praise” on its heroes, and “constructing elaborate strawmen” by which to attack its enemies. And the Jewish Economic and Political strategy advanced under the (False) adoption of western terms liberty and austrian economics is just ‘gypsy separatism’, ‘jewish separatism’, and ‘muslim tribal separatism’ sold to the disenfranchised beta males, as a hope for their own minority separatism.

    Let us see, empirically, whether the best we can get in the current era moves the condition of liberty for us forward or not. My view is that he has bought us time to organize and create a revolution. And that if we conduct the revolution under his administration it will not be met with the same suppressive violence that it would have under Clinton’s.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:37:00 UTC

  • AGENCY AND DEVELOPMENTAL VELOCITY (important) For those of us who were born gene

    AGENCY AND DEVELOPMENTAL VELOCITY

    (important)

    For those of us who were born genetically capable of agency, we take longer to mature because we require so much information in order to render decisions without the context that ‘normals’ have. Meanwhile, normals mature earlier at the expense of agency. And the feminine mature earliest at high cost to agency. I think this is the causal explanation we are looking for. My mother told me I was born an old man who desired to play peter pan. This rather motherly and colloquial observation turns out to have been scientifically correct. info-vores arise because of lack of genetic contextualism. We mature more slowly. But possess greater agency because of it. We could say this another way: that humans are capable of breeding a distribution of rates of maturity to ensure a supply of people who are biased to calculate the full range of short (child rearing) and long (tribal competitiveness) problems.

    ( Aaron Kahland, Caitie Doolittle, Jean Barresi, Elizabeth Doolittle)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 11:01:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE YOU NEED? At number of people that I am close to, and

    CAN YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE YOU NEED?

    At number of people that I am close to, and who understand propertarianism well enough, have intuited, suggested, complained, or passionately argued, that a negative philosophy is not sufficient for them, because they intuit, want, and need ‘more’ than via-negativa on the one hand, and transcendence on the other. These people feel the need for a narrative that they can use to visualize, empathize with, some intuition or ideal.

    I’ve seen others attempt to appropriate propertarianism to justify their priors only to realize that it helps explain but does not justify, and may ultimately falsify good portions of those priors. (Libertarians).

    I’ve seen others who understand that natural law gives license for us to use violence to overthrow the current order, and restore our aristocratic order – whether or not the understand the epistemology, ethics, or anything else I’ve written.

    I’ve seen others with religious conviction thrilled at the possibility of restoring our ancient order, only to be horrified that in restoring the church I would eradicate all semitic fictionalism (lying), and return to hero worship, of not only saints (submissives-reactors), but innovators (thinkers), and Warriors and Statesmen (dominants-actors). In other words, I would complete the reformation of christianity into a restoration of our native religion (Aryanism) that the Germans had tried to make.

    A very small number of us just wish to understand, and to take power, and if necessary, to rule. I have produced what I want: a method of reforming the government. I

    I’ve tried for the past two years, mostly at Josh’s insistence to solve this problem. And I have remained fairly constant in my intuition that we must supply narratives in multiple languages on top of natural law. And I think this is the challenge for those who understand but must either compose or select which narratives do that for them.

    I believe that the only monopoly is the laws: the laws of nature, the laws of the limits of man, the laws of cooperation, and the law of testimony (truth). And that the only form of social order compatible with those laws is sovereignty, natural law, and markets in everything, as I have stated many times before.

    I believe that we require a division of narrative as much as we have a division of comprehension. I believe that our ancestors were correct and it was their failure to discover natural law that made them vulnerable to the great lies.

    I believe I can suggest a method of reforming the church both financially, institutionally, in doctrine, and in narratives.

    I believe the restoration of that church will require the return to poly-heroism instead of a monopoly on submissiveness by the prophets and saints.

    I believe it is necessary to restore poly-‘literature’ rather than monotheism, or any kind of theism. Although I can understand the need for theistic (supernatural) fiction, just as I myself understand and appreciate moral supernatural fiction (horror stories, scary legends, and myths).

    I believe it is possible (although not by me alone) to select readings that advance narrative solutions that are, aside from their fiction, or fictionalism, compatible with natural law.

    And I believe the simple need authoritarian supernatural, the ordinary need moral narrative, the average need philosophical narrative, and those of us above average need scientific narratives provided by the laws.

    And I believe that these narratives are compatible if compatible by natural law.

    And I believe that I cannot select those narratives by myself. I believe I cannot write them. I believe that in our history others have written all that need be written.

    And I believe it is those who seek those narratives and who understand natural law sufficiently to judge those narratives moral or not, ‘coherently true’ or not, and not false by natural law, that must provide those readings.

    Because I cannot possibly cover those literatures. In no small part because they fall on deaf ears, deaf empathy, deaf joys, and deaf fears. I have none of them

    I will have done my duty to my people by writing the laws in the language that I need and understand. I will have done my duty to my class in providing the rules and method of rule. But I am not able to do serve my people in the survey of occult, supernatural, supernormal, heroic, martial, political, historic, poetic, verse – although I can, and in my age, assuming I live – manage the artistic.

    The literature of our restoration exists. I have made the law. If you want to restore your civilization, and you want to provide those like you with a narrative, a via-positiva, then perhaps it is your duty, and your service, to your ambitions and your people, that you provide those parables.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 21:20:00 UTC

  • THE NEXT CHURCH —“The universe was, is, and will always be beyond human scale.

    THE NEXT CHURCH

    —“The universe was, is, and will always be beyond human scale. Religions are an evolved response to this complexity. They work. I don’t see how we can figure out what to do without a positive value system, even if it might fail the Darwinian test. I don’t know. All this is too much for my tiny brain. The problem is too big and complex.”— A Friend

    Its actually simple. And just as we need multiple languages to talk to multiple layers of ability (classes), and just as we need multiple states to serve the interests of multiple layers of tribes; and just as we need multiple sciences to break the world into parts that we can disassemble; and just as we need multiple economies (military (slave), commons (serf), union(unskilled labor), market (producers), and finance (gamblers), we need multiple NARRATIVES just as we always have: the religious for the weak, the philosophical for the able, and the heroic for the superior.

    Those narratives already exist. The problem is thinking You’re everyone (democracy and equality) rather than the member of a class.

    The universe may beyond human scale, but the scope of action available to humans of different ability varies dramatically from those who can barely care for themselves, to those that can care for others, to those that can manage others, to those that can organize others, to those that can organize many, to those that can advocate for as many as they can serve.

    Choose the tool that serves the scale that is possible for you.

    What I hear is from most people is “i want to be led”, or “I want to control”. Rather than I want to do. I want to know what to do. I am willing to do the good. But I must know what it is?

    it is the good that you can understand and not bad.

    And between the greek and roman heroes, the scientists, the arthurian legends, and the stories of the church servants, it is hard to imagine yu cannot find it there.

    What I think you mean, and what I think most people mean, is that they lack an institution that assists us in organizing under those principles – those narratives.

    Which is why I think the next iteration of the church talks to each class, not to the peasantry.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 17:44:00 UTC

  • (pot use) I understand that pot causes developmental disorders. I also understan

    (pot use)

    I understand that pot causes developmental disorders. I also understand that it makes developmental disorders, developmental defects, and genetic defects much more tolerable in a modernity where we lack kinship relations, opportunity for hostile negotiations, and practice in hunting and war.

    Medicinally – for the purpose of behavioral treatment – I don’t really have a problem with it.

    Recreationally – as a means of taking a ‘mental vacation’ for an evening I don’t have a problem with it, or wine, or beer, or hard liquor.

    In celebrations and festivals I don’t either.

    People who evangelize it are just evidencing additive behaviors (obsessions).

    People who enter the commons and the market under the influence of it are just another form of parasite imposing a cost on me and others.

    So, I have a problem with anyone using it in the market (commons), and personally I’d like to beat the shit out of anyone who speaks to me under the influence in the market.

    And I don’t like the commercialization of its marketing and sale, and I think this was a mistake. And the evidence in those areas that have legalized it proves it.

    But I there are entire classes of people whose families evolved under the influence of alcohol out of both behavioral and caloric necessity. And these people are better off with pot than alcohol, and they certainly don’t need the calories like we did in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 15:39:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW – AND ITS COSTS (important) What is my favorite featur

    THE VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW – AND ITS COSTS

    (important)

    What is my favorite feature of natural law?

    I can tell you what is false. I can tell you what is insufficient make a truth claim. I can tell you what is the most true of the propositions available. But I cannot tell you what is good. Anything that is not false, not insufficient, and the most true proposition available is a candidate good. The determination of a preference is something up to the individual, or the group, or the polity, or the nation, or the civilization to decide by some method of decidability or other. But the determination of a good is ascertained by the measurements of the prior and consequential states of capital, and the transactions that constitute the change in state. If more capital-in-toto exists, then objectively one achieved a good. If less, one did not. And while the measurement of such changes in capital is somewhat challenging, it is not, by any means, impossible – just undesirable by those who do not seek good in truth, but preference regardless of it.

    Because for the stoic and the ascetic, a condition of freedom to work as I desire, within a condition of liberty for others to organize work, within a condition of sovereignty for others to rule, such that the rest may organize, and labor, is all I desire. I wish the fruits of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom made possible by natural law. I do not wish to act parasitically upon others. As such I understand that I must regulate my consumption to that which I can obtain without imposition of costs upon others.

    I prefer the fine arts, fine architecture, fine antiques, exotic cars, good company, beautiful women, money and especially power. But I do not prefer them at the expense of contemplation and production of ideas for which I earn trivial if any compensation. I leave that for others with other preferences.

    the difference is, that I have proven myself capable of any of those achievements. Having done so, I find them hollow compared to coffee shops, writing, and thinking.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 15:15:00 UTC

  • RELIGION AND MEASUREMENTS (important) ( William Butchman writes an OP reconcilin

    RELIGION AND MEASUREMENTS

    (important)

    ( William Butchman writes an OP reconciling supernatural fictionalism, with propertarianism via decidability. It inspired me to write this piece extending one of his paragraphs to explain that religion provided a means of measurement and decidability. )

    When we moved from religion (the immeasurable world – but a world whose ‘measurements’ if we may call ‘wisdom’ that, consisted of the results of trial, error, and observation – a simple science, but a science none the less) to quantitative science: the measurable world, we rightly increased the precision of the measurable world and evicted religion from our discipline of measurement. Unfortunately we evicted religion from the unmeasurable world (cooperation at scale), and replaced it with pseudosciences (aggregates). So instead of instructing men to act morally based upon experience, such that each action would cumulatively produce a measurable good, we measured goods and told me they need not act morally if we produced this abstract measurement of good. It never seems to have occurred to anyone that all this did was increase the number of not-good actions by people. And falsely attribute to the new measurements what was nothing but the product of fiat money (removing the shortage of hard currency) and fossil fuels (removing the cost of physical labor).

    Religion provides decidability in that which can only be measured by individual moral action that results in cumulative goods. Religions, like the common law, evolved incrementally in response to what we had learned. So each religion contains some error as well as some truth. What we call the physical sciences, provide decidability by aggregate changes in sttate even though we do not KNOW the equivalent of moral action in the universe – the first principles of the transformation of energy at small and large scales.)

    The Natural Law (as I understand it) merely states the measurement of individual ‘good’ action, the way mathematic states the measurement of addition and subtraction of the natural numbers. It is very simple. Addition: do undo others only that which you would have done unto you. Subtraction: do nothing unto others that you would not have done unto you. Through simple addition and subtraction all of the descriptions of the physical world can be written in an increasingly complex set of combinations. And likewise, through simple positive moral actions, and negative moral constraints, we can build all of natural law. And then we can use natural law to examine all religions, and to determine if they are, like the physical universe, written in gods laws, of the physical world(Existence), the world of Action(Property), and the world of Speech(Testimony).

    However, the golden and silver rule are reductio in meaning. They assume the christian or aryan edifice provides context. And while Christianity was always balanced by Martial Aryianism in a competition, The Hindu lost that competition, and the Sinic (Chinese), Semitic (Jewish/Muslim), never possessed it. So what one assumes is good good for himself and others by his actions, may answer the question of what is good for himself and others at city-state scale, but fails at national, empire, and global scales.

    For the simple reason that each civilization, and each group within it, uses a slight variation on those rules in order to perpetuate the group’s strategies in the realities in which it exists.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 13:50:00 UTC

  • THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHURCH So the difficulty facing the church is this: we can

    THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHURCH

    So the difficulty facing the church is this: we can see gods writing in the universe: the laws of nature, and in the actions of man: Natural Law. If church doctrine is incompatible with Natural Law then it is false – the frailty of men of God, interpreting the words of god as best they could. But there is not much to correct. The church developed natural law itself. There is nothing in the words of Jesus Christ, or the Common Law of Europa that is incompatible with Natural Law. There is however, a great deal of Jewish, Babylonian, and Egyptian writing in the bible that is incompatible with natural law. Much of the Tanakh and nearly all of Jewish Law – even that reformed by Mendelssohn is incompatible with Natural Law – it is poly-ethical – and we have seen Jews punished by history for it. And very little of the Koran – so much so that it might be the work of an anti-Christ. For it prevents man from ascent through mandatory ignorance. And we have seen the result in the death of every civilization touched by it. Communism is the worse religion as it is predicated on violations of natural law, and a series of great lies, where most ancient religions are merely ‘imprecise’ because of the limits of ancient knowledge and of ancient languages. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism are prisoners of the limits of primitive human thought and language more than they are incompatible with Natural Law. At present the false pope is not practicing Christianity, nor is he seeking to restore the other half of the church: the aristocracy; nor is he practicing Natural Law, but Communism. He is a False Pope. He is too weak to be an anti-christ. But he is a false pope. So this is why I have little faith in the future of the church. They are trying to make money through donations not to teach the Word and Meaning of God. And as we have seen with the communists, the jews, and the muslims – civilizations pay heavily for failing to teach and learn the meaning of the words of God.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-04 08:42:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING THE WORDS OF GOD, AND THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE TWO DIFFERENT

    UNDERSTANDING THE WORDS OF GOD, AND THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

    FWIW: There is a great difference between understanding the words of Men of God as they write and speak them, and understanding the words of God as he wrote them with the universe. Gods words are perfect, they are consistent, they are comprehensible with enough effort. But they are not simple. Once we understand God’s words, we must then understand God’s meaning. Understanding God’s meaning has been the struggle for men. And men have always been poor interpreters and translators of the divine. Today we understand Gods language better than ever before. But we understand God’s meaning perhaps less than before. And there are those who intentionally lie and deceive, precisely because Gods words are so difficult for man to interpret and translate. We live in a world constructed largely of lies on the one hand. And on the other, I am not sure we will like the meaning of the words of God once we understand them better. Why? Because god made man and woman, young and old, weak and strong, beautiful and not, rich and poor, ill and hale, dim and wise, ignorant and educated. He created a word that is only plentiful if we exist in small numbers. He created a universe which is vast, but that is dangerous to man. He gave us the ability to reason, but not wisdom and character. He gave us the ability to cooperate, but to be selfish. He gave us kindness and care, or the ability to punish and kill. So he gave us tools. But he requires that we cooperate in vast numbers, if we are to earn our way to sit beside him. The One Law he gave us to do so is Natural Law. That which we call ‘reciprocity’. But unless we save all of us, we may not save any of us. And it is this uncomfortable truth we must face: God allowed us to fail. And only together can we succeed. And this is the meaning of the existence of Natural Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-04 08:17:00 UTC