Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • has socialism, or “Socialism of Chinese Characteristics” been so successful in C

    https://t.co/nul23ToajO—“Why has socialism, or “Socialism of Chinese Characteristics” been so successful in China?”—-

    It hasn’t been. Its state corporatism that has been successful in china. China is run as a for-profit corporation of 1+billion people, using the country’s intergenerational borrowing capacity to attempt to create a modern consumer economy by using that borrowing capacity to move vast numbers of people from villages to urban centers in the hope that it will generate sustainable economic velocity.

    The outcome is good so far but just as the french revolution’s experiment is not quite over, that of china has a long way to go yet. It is a very poor, very corrupt country that remains very poor very corrupt.

    And capital is fleeing the country like rats leaving a sinking ship – so that is pretty good evidence that those living there with resources know that it will soon end.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 15:37:00 UTC

  • WHY THE USA FASCINATION WITH EXPORTING DEMOCRACY —“Why does the US government

    https://t.co/TlhDQTLWsxQ&A: WHY THE USA FASCINATION WITH EXPORTING DEMOCRACY

    —“Why does the US government insist on making other countries be democratic?”—

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    The world wars dramatically changed western civilization to which we said ‘never again’. This has driven American policy since world war one. American treats Europe as a set of petulant client states that are incapable of self-rule. This is not new. Americans have believed this of Europeans since the founding of the country.

    THE POSTWAR POLICY

    1) We cannot allow countries to attempt to use border expansion to increase wealth.

    2) We will force all countries to focus on internal development of consumer capitalism, human rights, because this will eliminate any need for inter-state conflict, and it will generate economic ties that will make conflict undesirable and expensive.

    3) All people will rationally choose consumer capitalism if given the ability to choose their own government, because everyone wants to consume, and all people wish to be free.

    4) Therefore we will support the will of all people to establish a democratic, consumer,capitalist society.

    AND THE BIG, UNSTATED, “HOWEVER”

    5) if people choose poorly and institute a government that violates these ambitions we will punish that government and those people until they make the correct, peaceful choice.

    SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM

    1) is a good idea

    2) is a good idea

    3) is absolutely false, and incomprehensibly ignorant. consumer capitalism and democracy are very, very, limited goods, after which both are destructive to family, culture, and civilization.

    4) is what the states does because it is wrong about 3.

    5) is the consequence of doing 4, while still under the illusion of 3.

    THE USA IS A GOOD INSURER. BUT A BAD DIRECTOR.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 15:23:00 UTC

  • are the US political party manifestos?— THE MOST ACCURATE AND COMPLETE STATEME

    https://t.co/mcYRlaw9qG—Where are the US political party manifestos?—

    THE MOST ACCURATE AND COMPLETE STATEMENT YOU WILL FIND.

    The left’s manifesto has been public for over a century, and is represented in the ten planks. And the left has been successful and (a) a complete canon of pseudoscience in the social sciences (b) conquest of the primary education and secondary education systems, (c) conquest of the media, and entertainment businesses (d) invasive immigration of the underclasses, (e) financialization of the economy (f) systematic intentional destruction of our constitution of natural law, by selective advocacy of cases that expose the weaknesses in created by the initial draft’s compromise with the southern states, and the violations of natural law added to the constitution after the conquest and defeat of the southern states.

    The right’s manifesto CANNOT be made public under majoritarian democracy since the right’s program is entirely EUGENIC. There is a reason the right speaks metaphorically and morally – if they spoke scientifically it would be challenging.

    Now, the right (as usual) is ‘right’. But its unacceptable under democracy to state that the entire reason we lifted Europe out of ignorance and poverty was that northern Europe like greco-roman civilization was terribly meritocratic, and northern Europe additionally heavily eugenic.

    The puritans who founded the USA were pursuing a eugenic strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 14:53:00 UTC

  • OUR NEW CHURCH: LETS FRAME THIS QUESTION OF THE CHURCH CORRECTLY (important) Myt

    OUR NEW CHURCH: LETS FRAME THIS QUESTION OF THE CHURCH CORRECTLY

    (important)

    Myths(greek, roman, nordic, german, french, british), Festivals, Plays(church), Judges (gods), Role Models (heroes), Virtues, Stoicism, Rhetoric, logic and grammar are highly paternal and aristocratic frameworks that generate high quality (eugenic). Christianity provided feminine and lower class virtues Insurance, charity, caretaking, compassion. To which later Christianity added a middle-class signal economy: chivalry, whereby a man could signal status by other than as a warrior, nobility, politician, lawyer, philosopher or household owner (businessman). But where the middle and even working classes, could demonstrate fitness through SERVICE. (I live in eastern Europe and it’s obvious it’s missing.)

    There is no reason that we cannot RATIONALLY praise (worship) and remember (ritualize) these heroes both pagan and aristocratic, and Christian and proletarian, and chivalrous and middle class, in our churches, rather than submitting to the authoritarian dominance that is antithetical to our western civilization’s aristocratic origins.

    I have argued that the forcible Christianization of the west is one of the worst crimes in history, right behind the roman extermination of the prehistoric religion of the British isles, by the systematic slaughter of its wise men. And these crimes probably pale in comparison to the forcible closure of the stoic schools – the west’s personal religion and a rational competitor to mystical buddhism,

    That we needed a church, a federal government and administrative literacy is no question. That we had to sell a series of Egyptian, Babylonian and Hebrew lies to provide those practical services is very hard to sustain given the conditions we lived under using greek and British thought, and the conditions we lived under fertile crescent authoritarian mystical thought.

    Perhaps it is too much to ask how we could replicate the experience of our churches, with the rational and historical lessons of our history. But it is not hard to imagine that church, inspiring awe over those who came before us, presenting us with festivals, readings, plays, hymns and debates, would not provide the binding experience that we found under Christianity, while in the current state not having to pretend to listen to scripture as lessons more relevant to our day than would be the collected great minds of western civilization.

    The church functioned as media provider, and teacher, counselor, and judge. For the church to have meaning other than sentimental references to our childhood any such church must return to its central position as educator(information), counselor(emotional), advisor(financial), registrar (births, weddings, and deaths), judge(of family conflict and divorce) and ceremonial leader (festivals, celebrations, plays, and rituals) that provide the only existentially possible environment under which we throw down our weapons of war, of wealth, of status, of fitness, of health, when we enter the chamber, and greet each other as kin.

    It is this experience – the invocation of the safety of the pack response – that we call spirituality, and it’s exploration and mastery we call transcendence.

    This is a future church we can make. Live under, Evolve under, and persist for millennnia.

    Because within such a church there are no lies to be disproven by new discoveries, and we shall never likely see a time where we do not wish the services that such a church would provide for us.

    Western man, despite existing on the edge of the bronze age, in smaller numbers, and poorer, with worse climate, advanced FASTER than every other civilization on this earth in both the ancient and the modern worlds, because we discovered, and made use of truth.

    It was under our dark ages that we master and lived under lies.

    The cosmopolitan enlightenment reaction was to attempt another expression of the devil named Jehovah that the Gnostics warned us about. And having succeeded in imprisoning us in ignorance for nearly a thousand years, we broke free.

    Then Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rand and Rothbard, and Leo Strauss created three versions of utopian lies using same techniques of suggestion, propaganda using new pulpits of the media, and saturation by repetition, and ridicule of dissent, to sell women and our underclasses the second defeat of the west.

    No you may feel that we should return to the last set of lies that they sold to our people under the cover of our youth and ignorance. But this is to remain in the Devil Jehova’s trap.

    Our god is truth: the god of physical law, the god of nature, the god of natural law. If you wish to restore a church to the true god, our god, then that is simple enough to do. We have captured his words for over two thousand five hundred years, in the words of a thousand profits in every field of endeavor.

    The only god that would demand we believe falsehoods is no god, but a devil. The only god that will save us from that devil’s lies, is the one who gave birth to us: truth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.

    ( Aaron Kahland Josh Jeppson )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 13:32:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    [I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy or Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    [I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy or Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute

  • would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”— (a) Libertin

    https://t.co/ii1OPkLzes—“How would an Anarcho Capitalist society look like, in the long run?”—

    (a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.

    (b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.

    (c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.

    (d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).

    (e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.

    The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.

    There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 08:54:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHY: CONTINENTAL IMAGINATIVE LITERATURE(Positive) PRIESTS VS ANALYTIC CRI

    PHILOSOPHY: CONTINENTAL IMAGINATIVE LITERATURE(Positive) PRIESTS VS ANALYTIC CRITICAL LAW(negative) JUDGES

    Philosophers function as intellectual police, detectives, judges, and sometimes executioners. Although I have had literary (nonsense) philosophers criticize me for the position, endlessly.

    If philosophy does not consist in the study of how to speak the truth by discovering how we avoid error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit, then it is just fiction-writing that conflates religion, literature, and pseudoscience.

    Just as judges may discover general rules (natural law) by solving problems of conflict; and just as physicists discover general rules of determinism by solving problems of extending perception (physical laws); our philosophers discover general rules of reason (rational laws) by solving problems of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience and deceit.

    Our function is to police the intellectual sphere for error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    I am not sure we can classify literary dreamers, hypothesizers, inventors as philosophers. We do. But they give us a bad name.

    This is the correct positioning of the philosophical disciplines. Aspirational Literary Religon and Critical Analytic Law.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 06:06:00 UTC

  • WHY DO I CARE ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS? We are compatible, and we need each other

    WHY DO I CARE ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS?

    We are compatible, and we need each other. Some of us work, some of us manage, some of us calculate and design, some of us organize, and some of us decide what to organize, calculate and design, manage, and labor upon.

    It is when we successfully determine a method by which each of us benefits by cooperating with the rest rather than cooperating with others on competing opportunities to perform labor, management, calculation, organization and decision, that we are not only compatible but necessary to one another.

    Aristocracy operated empirically: by compatibilism. Compatibility in reproduction (the family as unit of reproduction), in defense (the hierarchy of command), in production (the hierarchy of organization of production), and in politics (the hierarchy of the classes) while preserving voluntary participation in the selection of mates, in the joining of the army, in the participation in the work force, and between the houses of government.

    Voluntary compatibilism as a method of ‘calculating’ the optimum Nash outcome on an ongoing basis.

    The western aristocratic model was scientific. Until the 20th century.

    I care about the working class because THEY WILL FIGHT. Why? becasue elites create the competitive difference for the working classes, and if they fight for their elites, and they choose the right elites, then they will live under better conditions than if others choose better elites, or if they themselves choose worse elites.

    The problem of american life is that the socialists successfully enfranchised the labor movement and converted compatitiblity to incompatibility – they choose to divide and conquer us, forcing our elites to abandon our working classes.

    If we want a revolution we must act compatibly. We must have elites that decide and organize, middle classes that calculate and theorize, and working classes that manage and act.

    Our name is Legion. And we are many.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 04:46:00 UTC

  • EXTERNALITIES AND KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IN CONTEXT OF INFORMATION AND DECIDABILITY

    EXTERNALITIES AND KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IN CONTEXT OF INFORMATION AND DECIDABILITY

    In price-theory, an externality is any benefit or loss not included in the price of the exchange.

    But we can debate whether economics is the study of investment, production, distribution, trade, and consumption, or whether economics is the model under which all social science, from metaphysics, to psychology, to epistemology, to ethics, sociology, law, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and conflict – the entire model for the entire philosophical spectrum.

    There remains a conflict between the pseudoscientific(postmodern epistemology, freudian psychology, boazian sociology, marxist political science,) and the scientific social sciences all operating within the single branch of inquiry we call “economics”. (the study of information, incentives, and cooperation).

    Since I do understand that economics as a discipline of social science functions as the scientific competitor to the pseudoscientific social sciences, I work with INFORMATION in total, not with PRICES alone. And I extend economic models to include INFORMATION of all kinds, and the consequences of changes in information.

    I am fairly certain that this is the CORRECT (meaning true) framing for the general rules which we work to discover in that discipline we ‘archaically’ call economics.

    Information is the model in the physical sciences, and information is likewise the model in the social sciences. The fact that Mises, Popper and Hayek did not quite bring this idea to fruition, and why, is one of the great intellectual failings of history – if only because it allowed the competing pseudosciences to gain predominance in our academy and as a consequence, policy.

    IN CONTEXT: EXTERNALITIES

    In the context of my talk, and in the context of my arguments, there is no difference between the increases or decreases in capital, and the voluntary or involuntary transfers of that capital, by INFORMATION rather than that SUBSET of information that we call PRICES.

    In other words, the general rule describing the externalities of prices is but a subset of the general rule describing the externalities of all information.

    And unintended consequences are a question of scope of INTENTION, not a question of the scope of the consequences of INFORMATION.

    (if you understand this I don’t really require an apology because I realize this is non-trivial material. I make very few errors. But I am always constrained by the limits of time and circumstance and I cannot explain every concept that I rely upon in every utterance I make. It’s just not possible. )

    NOW ONTO KEYNESIANISM

    Just as I rely on information to produce conditions of DECIDABILITY, I also explain the differences between the natural law (mengerian/austrian), rule of law (friedmanite/chicago), and discretionary rule (keynesian/freshwater) branches of economic theory. In each of these theoretical systems the originators relied upon a method of decidability (or what in math is called ‘axiom of choice’) in order to justify the use of their model over the competing models.

    The Natural Law group takes the position of do no harm (do not ‘lie’ using the pricing system).

    The Rule of Law group takes the position of do as little harm as possible, so that we are not lying but ‘correcting’ information problems under rule of law. So that there is a trade between the disinformation we provide and the information system we call prices and incentives. It seeks to restore a condition of natural law.

    The Discretionary Rule group (Keynesians) take the position that any disinformation we produce now, produces such profound gains, that it’s not only immoral to resist using disinformation, but that its unlikely that any negative consequences we produce would be outweighed by intertemporal gains, that we can fix those problems we cause later on with the proceeds.

    Under this model of economics, decidability in economic theory that is not provided by the axiomatic model is provided by an axiom of choice: ie: subjective valuation.

    This issue of decidability is not solved yet although the general austrian prescription that we cannot in fact ‘cheat’, seems to be correct given the increasing duration and severity of depressions. This is why the debate has calmed so significantly since 2008’s crisis. The mainstream relies upon keyensian decidability to justify increased rates of consumption at the expense of genetic, normative, and institutional capital degradation, under the assumption of genetic, normative, and (possible) institutional equality.

    (which if stated this way, is clearly false).

    It has only been since the worldwide abandonment of marxist economics, and the worldwide adoption of consumer capitalism, and fiat credit, that the west’s asymmetrical technological advantage let us assume that the trend of constant growth was available to us without intertemporal consequences.

    KEYNESIAN IN THE CONTEXT OF DECIDABILITY

    So, when I spoke of Keynesianism it is the method of decidability that I was referring to.

    Again, I tend not to make mistakes. I make many mistakes of brevity, and there are many unintended consequences of my brevity. But all common communication requires information loss or the burden would silence us.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 04:32:00 UTC