Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • PROGRAMMING IS AN ADDITION TO THE SET OF LOGICS —“Aristotle, Buddhism, Heidegg

    PROGRAMMING IS AN ADDITION TO THE SET OF LOGICS

    —“Aristotle, Buddhism, Heidegger, Patanjali, Dawkins on evolution, Darwin, Hume, and my Cognitive Science and Oblect-Oriented Programming textbooks. Always keep coming back to them; underline, highlighting, marginalia, notes, etc. These ideas are infinite, because they express who we are essentially.”— Adam Voight

    Notice his addition of cognitive science and object oriented programming.

    Programming is a new form of logic. It’s as necessary as every other form of logic. Because it requires computability. Or put more clearly, it requires existential possibility.

    You can learn philosophy very easily by designing databases and programs. The difference is that since a compiler cannot infer, you must provide a sequence of statements that are testable with the information at your disposal.

    Programming is the most current logic that we have. It avoids the errors of set theory, which while useful, also leave room for catastrophic errors and deceptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 11:50:00 UTC

  • THIS ISN’T A NEGOTIATION You don’t understand. So let me help you. Sovereignty r

    THIS ISN’T A NEGOTIATION

    You don’t understand. So let me help you. Sovereignty resulting in Liberty isn’t just an abstract moral good. It’s not just more competitive because it adapts faster than all other political models. It’s not just a eugenic and peaceful method of domesticating and evolving mankind from mystical barbarism to material reason. It’s not just western civilization’s reason for dragging humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, poverty, and disease. It’s not just western civilization’s evolutionary strategy – the first tenet of western ‘religion’.

    It’s that Sovereignty resulting in Liberty is the only condition under which we agree to refrain from conquering, dispossessing, enslaving, and if necessary, murdering you, your allies, your kith, and your kin.

    While it is true that citizens and customers are cheaper and more rewarding than slaves, serfs, and prisoners, it is far more preferable to return to universal warfare, colonization, manorialism, and slavery, than it is to continue to permit you to commit your genocide against our people, our culture, and our civilization.

    So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty voluntarily, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, and kill you and your ilk until your consent is not longer relevant.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-14 14:26:00 UTC

  • Looking for feedback on this one. ——- Conservatives talk about the virtues o

    Looking for feedback on this one.

    ——-

    Conservatives talk about the virtues of a wife consisting of primarily care taking in support of her husband and loving her children because historically males had a clear edge over females in their ability to reliably generate sufficient income for himself, thus making a team consisting of a productive husband and a care taking wife that takes exploits these comparative advantages the most (cost-)effective and reliable strategy for earning a living.

    Today, on the whole and in spite of women’s entry into the workforce, that division of labor still holds true: over their lifetime men, as a group, produce and contribute to tax revenue disproportionately, whereas women, as a group, consume and receive tax revenue (and children and seniors of either gender consume). And where previously the husband’s authority or a natural limit his ability to generate income would limit his wife’s (and his own) ability to consume, we have now transferred the man’s authority to the state. This means that today

    – we broker male-female relationships through the authority of the state,

    – net consumers (women and the children they raise) increasingly rely on the welfare state since jumping through governmental hoops to obtain welfare for many women constitutes a greater return on investment and much lower running cost (or so they think),

    – and net consumers (women and the children they raise) tend to vote for increases in state largesse (as self-interest would dictate).

    More generally, today we practice communistic redistribution and democratic decision making at a societal level instead of at the family level. In addition, because we practice democratic decision making at a societal level the incentives for politicians reward appealing to the lowest common denominator, which the Democratic Party in the US (and every leftist party across the Western world) has increasingly translated into an imperative for increasing the number of dependents in a variety of ways:

    – give women an incentive to leave their husbands by making divorce easy and profitable, thus raising the number of single mothers and the children they raise, which means that

    – we produce a greater number of dysfunctional children, since we now know that children of single mothers disproportionately experience poverty, substance abuse, inability to sustain their own lifestyle and hold down a job, etc. (This also raises the level of conflict within society thereby increasing demand for authority and therefore fragile global instead of resilient local solutions)

    – Importing labor (with the consent of the Republican/conservative elites who wished to punish the underclasses for the union movement) from different countries and therefore cultures who do not share the Protestant ethic but do demonstrate natural kin preference, by only weakly enforcing the border (or in the European case importing and then sustaining economic migrants by opening borders entirely).

    On the whole, this means that we spend a greater and increasing amount of taxes on KEEPING THINGS RUNNING (welfare, law enforcement, conflict resolution, appeasement of minorities, conducting war for oil) than INVESTING IN FUTURE RETURNS (infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, space exploration and colonization, research and development, overhauling and opening the education system – in short, the Commons).

    And where before a failure to reconcile the consumption drive of the wife (women) and children (children, underclasses, and low skill immigrants – the relationship is a domesticating one in all) would have resulted in the breakup of a single family and the absorption of its constituent parts into other families or greater social structures, leading only to minor and therefore negligible damage in the fabric of society, today a breakup of the marriage between productive male and consumptive female, i.e. the state,

    – would and will take a longer time to occur (about 100 years since granting women the right to vote) thanks to consumption of accumulated wealth (in the form of financial, cultural, and genetic capital) and credit-supported liquidity,

    – the arrangement produces a much greater amount of dysfunction before its collapse, and

    – the collapse itself, which by now seems nearly inevitable, will cause a much greater amount of, and perhaps permanent, damage to the fabric of society, all within a very short timeframe, which we may attribute to the long buildup of fragilities that now pervade the entire system.

    [1] Source: http://sci-hub.io/10.1111/roiw.12165#, explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V6s92p42UM

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 17:22:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENT TODAY IS NOT VICTORIAN In Argument and Debate, there is a very great di

    ARGUMENT TODAY IS NOT VICTORIAN

    In Argument and Debate, there is a very great difference between victorian era and today: critical prosecution against falsehood and deceit is very different from cooperative exploration with the assumption of honesty.

    I know what I am doing and I know it is unpleasant, but it is precisely this assumption of honesty and integrity that has led to the failure to resist the pseudosciences that have created the current escalating conflict. So I view it just as immoral to leave undefended the intellectual commons as I do to leave physical danger un-answered within it.

    Our civilization has not been destroyed in both the ancient era and the present by our persistent wars that we wrongly rail against. But by the failure of philosophers in the early twentieth century to expand rule of law, and limit etiquette, to the expansion of both the scale of our cooperation under worldwide industrialism, and the expansion of the power of the voice of deceit under propaganda in media.

    We ceased competing largely militarily and moved to competing economically – and without our knowledge we now compete informationally. And our civilization could not survive authoritarian pseudoscience any more than it survived the first conquest by authoritarian mysticism.

    This is not recreation for me. It’s not personal fulfillment. It’s research into the methods by which we expand our rule of law, to defend the informational commons that has been the source of our second defeat.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 08:35:00 UTC

  • WILLIAM ON THE PURPOSE OF PROPERTARIANISM If you investigate less advanced count

    WILLIAM ON THE PURPOSE OF PROPERTARIANISM

    If you investigate less advanced countries, such as Papua New Guinea and see how they live and behave, by searching “Papua New Guinea witchcraft” (or “Africa witchcraft”), you will discover that liberty is not an intrinsic right. Rousseau’s Noble Savage is a lie to justify the revolution – there are just savages – they lack all nobility. In nature, the life of Man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (Hobbes).

    When you are subject to pure animal whims, then you don’t live in a condition of liberty. If you can’t grow your crops without your neighbors stealing them, then you don’t have liberty. If you can’t raise a family without the government impoverishing you in old age, you don’t have a condition of liberty. A state of liberty is only produced through the wise application of violence. (prevent parasitism, prevent imposition of cost)

    In our modern society, we are so domesticated that we have been separated from this fact that we have even developed mythologies about ‘the state’ as this evil actor which only exists to oppress us. States are simply machines. Some machines produce more noise, heat and smoke (negative externalities) than others. Either way, we need those machines, because they are what separate us from the savages. Propertarianism tries to help us build the best machine, with the fewest negative externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-13 08:16:00 UTC

  • THE VIKING’S, SPARTANS, and ATHENIANS: THE ARYAN’S APPLICATION OF THE DEFAULT AG

    THE VIKING’S, SPARTANS, and ATHENIANS: THE ARYAN’S APPLICATION OF THE DEFAULT AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE

    (interesting)(important)

    VIKING

    Viking (raiding) Policy: “You can trade with us over the long term, or we can conquer and kill you and take your things and your women in the short term. You have no choice to exit. Having discovered you, we will ‘homestead’ you.”

    SPARTAN

    The Spartan (enslaving) Policy: “We can finance your conquest by taking your land, things, and women, and enslaving you, and then domesticate you for profit.”

    ATHENIAN

    The Athenian (ruling) Policy: “Having conquered, domesticated, enslaved, and domesticated you, we can slowly grant you access to the franchise because it is cheaper and more profitable to rule and regulate citizen-customers, than to rule and manage owned-slaves.”

    ROMAN

    The Roman (Commercial) Policy: “You can do as you wish, as long as you do not interfere with rule of law, production, commerce, and trade. If you do then we will punish you until you learn to.”

    ANGLO

    The Anglo-Christian (transcendent) Policy: “We can profit from industrializing rule and in doing so raise mankind out of ignorance, mysticism, poverty, and disease.”

    AMERICAN

    The American (bourgeoise) Policy: “Man is oppressed by the rulers. We can enfranchise all, and profit from enfranchising all.”

    (ROOT) ARYAN

    The Aryan Rule Policy: It is more profitable to rule you, and force you into productivity and trade, than it is to kill you and take your things. We can finance the startup cost of ruling you by taking your territory, your things, and your women, and then enslaving you, until you are sufficiently domesticated that we can profit from your productivity. Citizen customers are cheaper to rule and more productive than slaves.

    This is the group evolutionary strategy of the Aryans removed of Aryan-Christian deceits.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:12:00 UTC

  • UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS: SLAVERY, RAPE, PROSTITUTION, SEX We possess no rights we h

    UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS: SLAVERY, RAPE, PROSTITUTION, SEX

    We possess no rights we have not obtained in exchange, only obligations not to cause harm (export costs) in order to incentivize that exchange.

    A right consists in that you may retaliate (yourself, via kin, via the sheriff, or via the courts) against imposition of costs upon you, without fear of further retaliation from others for having done so. That’s what a right conveys:

    1) retaliation without fear of retaliation cycles.

    2) demand for services of the judiciary to resolve conflicts when retaliation is beyond your ability.

    3) demand for services of the judiciary to resolve a conflict because permission to retaliate has been normatively and institutionally limited to that which is obtained via the court.

    FACTS

    1) A woman possesses her body – that’s fact – as long as she and her kith and kin can defend it.

    2) Under natural law, any violation of her possession will cause her and others to retaliate, thereby breaking the peace (condition of cooperation)

    3) Therefore, almost universally, we grant women the right of retaliation as a norm, and institutionalize that right of retaliation in law.

    HOWEVER

    1) Different groups express and constrain obligations not-to-act depending upon the conditions necessary for (a) the preservation of cooperation within the group (b) the limit to aggression extra group.

    Ergo, natural law is often violated.

    THIS IS THE TRUTH

    You defeat a people in war. You take a woman as your booty. You sell her to me as a slave. There are no conditions on her use.

    I buy a woman as a slave. She has sold herself into slavery. Her sale under slavery includes or excludes use for sex.

    As the number of slaves increases we want to preserve the peace so we agree to limit the actions that can be taken against slaves, in order to keep them from rebelling and killing the hosts.

    As we grow wealthier we prefer not to permit slavery for the simple reason that we do not want our opponents to sell us into slavery, so we limit enslavement to certain classes that cannot reciprocate enslavement.

    As we grow wealthier, we realize that people are more productive as voluntary Customers and Employees than they are as slaves, and we extend the protection of each other to our slaves, and free them.

    To some degree employees and citizens are equivalent to slaves.

    Only the Sovereign are in fact in possession of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Consumption.

    Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Choice are Luxury Goods.

    They are produced at high cost and through sustained effort.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 11:06:00 UTC

  • THE CORRUPTION OF OUR SACRED LAW BY THE STATE There exists only one social scien

    THE CORRUPTION OF OUR SACRED LAW BY THE STATE

    There exists only one social science: Natural Law: the Law(Theoretic) of cooperation, expressible as a Logic of Physical Law, a Logic of evolutionary pressures, a Logic of construction by voluntary action, and evidence of empirical observations that are the result of physical Laws, evolutionary pressures, voluntary actions, and networks of voluntary actions.

    There is no reason that we do not teach natural law as part of the Sequence:

    – Grammar, Logic, Natural Law, Rhetoric.

    But we cannot study the Law today because it contains a conflation of traditions, legislations, regulations, and ‘excuses’.

    We COULD study Natural Law, then study Contracts Between the Classes (Legislation), and study Regulation (Insurance Codes), and if necessary Emergency Commands (Time of War).

    And if we taught the law by this un-conflated method, law would be a much easier (and more assailable, and more honest) field of study.

    Statism was a violation of western civilization since it allowed the state to enact legislation that violate the Law proper (natural law).

    Universal Majoritarian Democracy was a violation of western civilization since it removed the use of houses as vehicles for the conduct of exchanges between the classes, which also must hold to natural law (law proper).

    The Corporate State and the Corporate Democatic Polity have been imposed as monopolies under which we no longer must conduct trades by natural law in every walk of life and instead conduct conflict and winner-takes-all.

    SEQUENCE

    – Universal Opportunity

    – Personal Possession

    – Interpersonal Consent

    – Social Norm or Custom

    – Institutional Legislation(contract), Policy, and Regulation(Command)

    – Natural Law (science of cooperation)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 10:40:00 UTC

  • OF OTHER RELIGIONS IS EVIDENCE OF OUR REPEAT OF OTHER CIVILIZATION’S FAILURES I

    https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=2i7GkX7bIYc&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfKe600qHEAg%26feature%3DshareADOPTION OF OTHER RELIGIONS IS EVIDENCE OF OUR REPEAT OF OTHER CIVILIZATION’S FAILURES

    I would offer this alternative explanation to the author of the video:

    1) Westerners and easterners evolved in different ‘economies’ so to speak: westerners had small populations, with small farms, and pastorialism, a homogenous (single-ethnic) people, with harsh winters (intolerant climate), lacking any extremely productive resource (seasonal flooding that could be organized into irrigation through ‘slave’ labor). A culture with mostly heads of small businesses, requiring constant choices, seeking solutions.

    Conversely, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Hrappa, and Yang-tse, rivers were all open to irrigation and farming during cyclical, silt-replenishing floods. So (colder)westerners developed self-organizing Sovereignty, and (warmer)easterners developed authoritarian, organized (industriralized) farming. A culture with mostly slaves, lacking choices, seeking escapism.

    2) Western Philosophy evolved as a sovereign, aristocratic(propertied) discipline, for aristocratic(propertied) classes, for the purpose of RULE(profiting from organizing production). This rule includes: Rule of self(Sovereignty), Rule of household, Rule of business(farming, manufacture, and trade), and Rule of the Polity.

    When we are ruling self, household, business, and polity, we must place higher demands (value) upon our correspondence with reality, emotional tolerance for correspondence with reality, and continuous adaptation to reality, that we place upon interpreting reality in a way that lessens our emotional, intellectual, and physical burdens.

    In the west, we avoid conflation of disciplines and as such, we produced class-specializations in our ways of thinking:

    – Elites: Rule/law/war,

    – Upper: Finance/commerce/contract,

    – Middle: knowledge/reason/philosophy/morality, and

    – Working/Lower: religion/theology.

    Each depends upon the rest: an integrated polytheism of sorts. We preserved the competition between these disciplines. We preserve the sovereignty of each. And we do so because each represents the needs of the classes that they serve the interests of. The west(small manors and farms) never developed totalitarianism as did the east(industrialized flood-river farming), because we preserved sovereignty, so it was never necessary of the west to engage in conflationary argument as the east has done.

    3) Organized Religion and Eastern Philosophy evolved as a REACTION to the invention of Sovereignty and Rule. (Sovereignty ==> Zoroaster > Hinduism > Buddhism, and Polytheism > Authoritarian Monotheism > Scriptural Monotheism). There are many reasons for this reaction, but in large part, it is that sovereignty is a eugenic evolutionary strategy with upward redistribution of resources. While eastern socialism is a dysgenic evolutionary strategy.

    4) The west *DID* have it’s own version of Buddhism(mental discipline): Stoicism. And it was widely practiced until the schools were closed by the forcible conversion of the empire to Christianity in order to bring Oriental authoritarian mysticism into the declining empire. Why? Becuase it is very expensive to create truthful, empirical, high trust sovereign rule of law, and it is very cheap to create deceitful, mystical, low trust, authoritarian scripturalism. Reason requires voluntarily adopted education, and mysticism requires only ritualistic indoctrination.

    5) In modernity, we are saturated by information (most of which is false), and competition, An absence of norms in which we can find an identity, and our families have been destroyed by feminist legal activism, our intergenerational families have been destroyed through migratory labor and immigration. People live alone and lonely in boxes. Instead of the german model where they use building codes to produce cities with family sized apartments, we have spread people either in isolated suburbs, or limited reproduction in our cities by maximizing revenue per square inhabited meter – the result being that American and British Cities are IQ-sinks and Unused-Ovary graveyards.

    6) So I ask a different question: Why is it that we take the evidence of escapist eastern philosophy as a success, rather than its adoption means that we are replicating the east’s failures, and regressing to their authoritarianism and lack of choice?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-09 07:28:00 UTC

  • We Have No Recourse But Civil War

    Democrats own responsibility for the 1965 immigration bill designed to flood the country with underclasses – reversing two centuries of the Puritan’s American eugenic experimentation. Why? Because socialism is undesirable to the productive people, and the people would not have it. The democrats are responsible for the destruction of the family. And the destruction of the family as the central object of policy: creating good strong productive, inter generational families.

    Democrats are responsible for moving the black family from the farm to the ghetto and destroying their families. The reason? To concentrate votes in cities in order to politically take their possession. Democrats are responsible for ongoing racial hatred be forced bussing and urban planning. Traditions, norms, and habits in any subculture are grown through adaptation over generations. There is no shortcut. Forced integration we’d the catastrophe that took the black man from potential working class to permanent underclass by interfering with the necessary natural adaptation to western high trust low impulse civic society. Democrats are responsible for the competitive decline of education, and blocking all attempts at reform. Why? Control of education using unskilled labor (most teachers ) is useful in indoctrinating generations into socialist submission. Furthermore, it allows women the false hope that their children are by and large mediocre and that the only control they have over the success of their offspring is the quality of man they choose to reproduce with. Democrats are responsible for the disintegration of rule of law. By intentionally designed suits that create law though activist judges. Democrats are responsible for all our ills. They set out with the help of early socialists to steal a continent by importing votes, creating single mothers, and constructing permanent underclasses. We have no recourse but civil war. Welcome to the revolution.