Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a b

    While I don’t really ‘teach’ so much as perform research online, teaching is a byproduct of that research.

    One of the reasons I like “teaching” online is because people have time to contemplate in a way that they do not have time in the classroom. Furthermore they can choose what to contemplate, and when to contemplate it.

    One of the other reasons is the One Room Schoolhouse where people of all levels exist, and people can learn by observation, repetition, asking questions, making arguments, and teaching others.

    We can cover the same material from dozens of different directions.

    To some people this may seem inefficient. But is it? You can teach a hell of a lot of people this way. Versus a classroom? We have an enormous one room schoolhouse on the internet.

    We teach most humans the wrong way – not as a campfire, but as a job. Not through stories and problems but through stress. Not through repetition but through force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 02:22:00 UTC

  • TRUE ENOUGH – FOR THE CONSEQUENCES We are limited by physical reality, and the l

    TRUE ENOUGH – FOR THE CONSEQUENCES

    We are limited by physical reality, and the limits of our biology and technology within that physical reality, because of costs. Costs of time, energy, and resources.

    True? Truthfulness is costly. So, True enough for what?

    1) … The Transfer of Meaning (understanding without harm)

    2) … … Taking Personal Action (utility without harm)

    3) … … … Taking Interpersonal Action (avoiding harm to others)

    4) … … … … Providing Dispute Resolution (imposing harm on others)

    When we discourse or debate? True enough for what?

    1) … To convey meaning?

    2) … … To obtain agreement on categories and values?

    3) … … … For the purposes of subsequent deduction? (sufficiency)

    4) … … … … For the purpose of falsification? (removing argument)

    5) … … … … … For the purpose of coercion? (removing choice)

    6) … … … … … … For the purpose of prosecution? (imposing harm)

    ‘Deflationary Truth’ refers to the absence of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit.

    ‘Science’ refers to the process by which we produce deflationary truth by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit. Not meaning, not sufficiency for individual action, or interpersonal action, but for the provision of agency(limitation of choice), and dispute resolution (reduction of choice), or punishment (elimination of choice).

    “Agency” refers to the condition under which an individual acts having eliminated ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, so that individuals may act in perfect concert with the universe. Perfect Agency exists in a condition of perfect Truth, and Perfect Truth exists only so far as it is created by science.

    “Sovereignty” refers to a condition of agency when acting in reality amidst the limits of physical and cooperative reality. PerfectSovereignty exists in the condition of perfect agency.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 12:03:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL COMMENTARY: AMERICAN TRASH – TALKING Living with my brother in law and

    CULTURAL COMMENTARY: AMERICAN TRASH – TALKING

    Living with my brother in law and re-learning the fine art of american repartee. Americans evolved to add ‘macho’ and ‘hyperbole’ to British wit – creating absurd exaggerations as harmless insults.

    And it is like a comfort food if you’ve been away for a long time – especially amongst the eastern slavs.

    Americans also have a physicality that we share with our Russian Cousins, unlike our continental relations – whom always seem a touch effeminate to us. And this combination of macho insult, and traditional british intellectual insult, is a verbal sport that binds us.

    Ukrainans and Russians not only don’t find it funny, but think it is stupid. Hyperbole – another american trait – self effacing humor, self ridicule, and reciprocal humiliation, about one’s intelligence, character and masculinity, is alien to them. And I found myself constantly ‘corrected’ by the women in my life.

    However, this kind of humor can be used to form bonds of trust across vast differences in experience – and that is what was needed by americans whether in the military, the working class labor pool, or in our social and family groups.

    And for all my effeteness I love every ridiculous bit of it.

    Would I rather live as far as possible from one of america’s ‘immigrant cities’ (plantations)? Absolutely. Would I prefer to live in europe where the state is more protective of consumers? Yes I would. Would I rather live among the slavs? Yes. I would.

    I would sacrifice institutional veracity for a land where family is more important than individual and government; where men are free to act as men, and women as women; and where entertainment is provided by friends and travel instead of purchases. Because the future for a person in the east is family amidst limited consumption of non-familial goods. And the future of a person in the west is a little box of an apartment waiting to die – alone.

    Government in america, ad the hands of jewish socialists and New England puritans has destroyed the family, the culture, and nearly, the civilization.

    The price one pay’s is one’s comfort foods: institutional, cultural, and material.

    And it is a fair trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 09:02:00 UTC

  • SECESSION A SOLUTION TO CULTURAL WAR? Pat Buchanan: ‘Secularism had been enthron

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#gT0rvAD5mjrpGtAi.01IS SECESSION A SOLUTION TO CULTURAL WAR?

    Pat Buchanan: ‘Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion’

    As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.

    Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.

    After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were.

    In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

    One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.

    Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.

    Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.

    While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the “bathroom debate” calls to mind Marx’s observation, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

    Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls’ bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?

    Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.

    After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a “moral obligation” to protect children from bullying and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

    Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.

    But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?

    Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

    Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.

    But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?

    While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump’s solution – send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out – may point the way to a truce – assuming Americans still want a truce.

    For Trump’s solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII – that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.

    In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.

    This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism – that the national government should undertake those duties – securing the borders, fighting the nation’s wars, creating a continental road and rail system – that states alone cannot do.

    Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges – to which there is no appeal – that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.

    Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.

    Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.

    Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.

    And as she wants to “Let France Be France,” and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.

    California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.

    A new federalism – a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles – may be the price of retention of the American Union.

    Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#vIJMIPah96ZBjj5U.99

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 20:05:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT- ON TERMS In 2009 when I both sensed that I’d come up with a solution

    IMPORTANT- ON TERMS

    In 2009 when I both sensed that I’d come up with a solution to government, but needed to improve my understanding, the first thing I did was write a glossary.

    I combed every glossary of terms from economics, politics, social science, and philosophy, and substantially refined many of them, so that I could be sure I was speaking from definitions not assumptoins of meaning.

    My glossary alone is something like 80k words. And while I probably could cut some of it, I can also expand it substantially with the terminology that I use today.

    It reminds me of reading encyclopedias. It’s not so much that I remember everything in the encyclopedia (although honestly, I largely do) but it’s that the act of reading all those different topics forces you mind to form a series of associations, and counter associations, such that … like the use of Series i use in propertarianism, or like ‘fields’ in mathematics, or like any ‘one of these things is not like the others’ games. It is very hard for falsehoods to survive without at least questioning them.

    Most people, when they engage in any discourse on cooperation: ethics, morals, politics, economics, group strategy, do so from a position of ignorance of the terms they use, and their use is terribly conflationary. This means that they generally are making a very simple statement with pretentious words that they don’t understand.

    Our ‘grammar’ (our proofs) make that very hard to get away with.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 13:11:00 UTC

  • I ADVOCATE NATIONALISM, AND THE DEFENSE OF THE CIRCUMPOLAR PEOPLE. SO I DONT LIK

    I ADVOCATE NATIONALISM, AND THE DEFENSE OF THE CIRCUMPOLAR PEOPLE. SO I DONT LIKE TO DIS ON RUSSIANS.

    I have been making the Circumpolar argument for a few years now, and the only holdouts are Russians. And they are holdouts for self imposed red-headed-stepchild reasons: internal myths.

    But please don’t put me in a position where I have to dis on Russia Culture. I love russians, and I think american and russian males have more in common than any other two peoples. I envy much of russian life, I just don’t envy what I see as unnecessary relative poverty, and our politician’s inabilty to allow us to use that similarity for mutual gain. I love Ukraine, but want to see her join Poland in european prosperity. And I want the baltics to return to freedom from the crimes the russians imposed upon them. I hate american policy with a passion, and I would exterminate every individual in the federal bureaucracy without remorse – and with celebratory joy. But I also understand that the american deep state evolved and exists to prevent another world war, by forcing states to develop mature economies, secular laws, and aristotelian (secular) science, and to remain within their borders, so that we never have another world war.

    But while we have achieved the defeat of world communism, which was an economic model. We have lost the battle of cultural marxism. And we are being attacked now by the OPPOSITE of everything we aspire to: islam: dysgenic reproduction, economic recidivism, superstitious laws, and anti-science. All of which suit the needs of the vast underclass of the steppe and desert, but threaten the vast middle class of the forest, river, and plain.

    We have reciprocally compatible ideologies both founded on Aryanism. The old german was the best of these ideologies, with anglos the most optimistic, the germans the most realistic, and the russian most pessimistic, for purely territorial reasons. Why can’t we unify on our Aryanism (rule by domestication) and understand our divisions of labor? At present this is because we all continue to beleive our falsehoods. Americans have done no good against islam becuase it is an underclass not middle class civilization. Russians have been right about muslims, mongols, and chinese principly because they must combat them. there is no mediterranean, north sea, or atlantic that protects russia. She must be more ‘on alert’ than the rest of the ‘white’ peoples. Just as the germans had to be more ‘alert’ than the anglo sea faring peoples.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 10:32:00 UTC

  • Erik Weinstein, Theil Capital (From Elsewhere) A, fan. But a few comments 1) Eri

    Erik Weinstein, Theil Capital

    (From Elsewhere)

    A, fan. But a few comments

    1) Eric ends up describing the elusive goal of reducing discretionary economic *policy* to non-discretionary *rule of law*. The way he expresses it is just unclear. This is the holy grail of political, and legal as well as economic and social science.

    2) Regarding the ‘new economy’. Perhaps, it’s rather better to state that the production of commons in the market for commons (politics) by the demonstration of behavior in the commons, is of greater value in producing goods for consumption, than the production of goods, services, and information in the market for consumption (private goods), when the ability to organize people by voluntary incentives (capitalism and markets) is no longer possible because of the excess of labor, and limited contribution of labor to that process.

    3) Unstated in Eric’s assumptions is a concept of ‘We’ evolved under the enlightenment seizure of the organs of the state from the aristocracy, and its universalism under the subsequent influence of Cosmopolitanism and the Industrial Revolution, and my understanding is that this concept of ‘we’ is disintegrating along with the ‘luxury’ of the cosmopolitan presumption.

    4) Because of the ‘we’ question (the value of nation states, because of the dead weight of the underclasses under Cosmopolitanism), as far as I can tell, the most successful group evolutionary strategy is to force new-normative behavior into nations with large underclasses. And I am all but certain that it is this return-to-normal that will play out.

    5) What Eric does not mention is the similarity between silicon valley and the german princedoms wherein monarchies fought for status and wealth by sponsoring talents across the spectrum. Rather than cosmopolitan solutions I suggest that this is the reason that the germans nearly brought about the second scientific revolution and it’s consequential second enlightenment pre-war. And that this is the model we should take from Silicon Valley, not the fact that Silicon valley is

    In other words, Eric is making the progressive error, common in the Cosmopolitans and Postmoderns that the assumption of growth that the Capitalist state relies upon, is not the assumption he himself relies upon. Bigger is only better if capital is brought to people rather than people to capital.

    As far as I an tell there is no means of constructing a higher incentive than kin, when macro incentives fail, and the choice is between absorbing far more risk and change and increased competition, or creating scarcity and benefitting from it.

    This is how I position the worldwide shift at present. My understanding of the 20th century ‘overstatement’ of economics and mathematics is marginally indifferent from Eric’s. But my understanding of human history is that there is absolutely nothing unique about our present condition other than scale. And one can ‘hope’ and ‘pray’ and ‘aspire’ and ‘labor’ to bring about a solution that continues evolving the world to what amounts to a universal caste system, but the mathematics of the formation of voluntary organizations of production in all the markets: association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of polities, and group evolutionary strategies, suggests that it’s not possible. But that a larger number of smaller polities can achieve those ends without expanding the underclasses and causing the ‘problem’ that Eric is leaving unstated: the market for human beings will not bear goods for that which has no demand – other than kinship.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 13:35:00 UTC

  • the value of programming is that like writing an individual can accomplish great

    the value of programming is that like writing an individual can accomplish great transfer of information from one set of conditions to another with just time and very few resources.

    my expectation is that the future will require, as it generally does, increases in capital in this sector. And that if we are correct that biological modification (medicine) will continue to be the favored growth industry instead of physical consumer goods; and if I am correct in that there will be a clamp down on medical, health and fitness pseudoscience fairly soon, then; then the era of moneymaking from programming might go the way of other crafts, and continue to devolve into a hierarchy similar to the construction business where some people effectively do labor, and some design buildings and others supply standard components according to ‘code’ so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 12:05:00 UTC

  • Dear Russian Orthodox World. You don’t understand us do you? We really are this

    Dear Russian Orthodox World.

    You don’t understand us do you? We really are this evangelical in our beliefs – and really do believe we are trying to create a Utopia. We are just wrong of course, about the nature of man.

    However, because we are wrong about the nature of man, we are very trusting ‘up-front’, and then we punish heavily ‘afterward’ for violating that gift of trust. We can take these risks of trust, because we can trust our fellow men to punish heavily those who violate that trust. The side effect is that americans can take all these commercial and political and military risks and produce such an innovative economy.

    This is the opposite of the Russian world where you cannot trust your fellow men to punish heavily those who violate trust. And so you cannot extend trust first. And that is why you have more corruption, a slower economy, and work in smaller organizations, and need to ‘know people’ to trust them. Yet it is why you are more skeptical of invaders, invasive groups, invasive organizations, invasive businesses and invasive religions and invasive ideas.

    So despite the fact that American and Russian AVERAGE PEOPLE are more the same than an other people on earth, because we both still have HONOR and PRIDE, we find ourselves in conflict for no other reason than differences in trust, because of differences in the trustworthiness of our governments.

    If we still had our ancient nobility we could marry American Nobility to Russian Nobility and use the combined family to unite us, and together rule the world as the family we evolved from.

    How do we unite our people across the entire north of the globe? The world is ours to rule – if only to defend ourselves from the barbarian hordes. Without each other we will both fail. there are not enough Russians, and not enough White (European) Americans.

    How can we bring Russian skepticism of outsiders back into the west, and destroy the decadence we live under, while bringing trust to Russians so that they can equal us in economy and prosperity?

    Together we rule. Divided we fall.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 11:38:00 UTC

  • A WORD TO THE COMMON FOLK If you want pop music, pop humor, pop arguments, and p

    A WORD TO THE COMMON FOLK

    If you want pop music, pop humor, pop arguments, and pop philosophy, I”m not your guy. I know who my audience is and I speak to them. And I don’t even try to speak to ‘the common folk’. It’s too much effort.

    Propertarianism requires constructing verbal proofs – what we call operational tests of possibility. I don’t expect people to grasp what that means unless they already do. But if you can’t do higher math, higher logic, higher programming, higher engineering, higher physics, and higher analytic philosophy, and construct the various forms of proofs those subjects require, I am not sure why you think you’re gonna understand anything I say. You aren’t – Not.Gonna.Happen.

    But it’s strange: why would you think you could understand this subject unless you understand most of the rest? Why is it you think that the most COMPLEX of subjects: the organization of human beings by the use of information and argument, across an infinite number of inconstant relations and unimaginable number of possible operations both biological, logical, and physical, is going to be more accessible than something as simple as mathematics that consists entirely of constant relations and very simple operations?

    I work to save my people from (((The bad people))) and the +++the traitors among us+++, but I don’t need the common folk to understand the math so to speak. I”ll work to save them anyway. Just ’cause they’re kin. Even if they’re petulant and a bit underdeveloped kin. 😉

    In layman’s terms, it’s really simple. We f-ck (((them))) and +++them+++ over really seriously in the way that matters most to them: we make it impossible to make money parasitically, and we make impossible to lie, and we put it in the constitution so its fully legal to spend our free time chasing them out of our lives, our communities, our culture, and our nation.

    You don’t need to understand the math to understand THAT.

    You need only understand the use of Noose, Pike, Pyre, heady murder, and that a few changes to the constitution and they’re done – forever.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-21 19:10:00 UTC