Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • UM, NO LIVES MATTER – OR VERY CLOSE TO IT. Actually, purely empirically, very, v

    UM, NO LIVES MATTER – OR VERY CLOSE TO IT.

    Actually, purely empirically, very, very, very, few lives matter at all.

    We just act as if we do so that everyone else will also. We all understand none of us matter. So we treat one another as if we matter out of self-defense.

    We don’t actually matter. We just survive and cooperate if we treat one another like we do.

    Incentives. That’s why communism doesn’t work and consumer capitalism does work. It’s also why everything else works.

    incentives.

    I might argue that civilizations matter. But within them, at any given point, less than one percent of people ‘matter’.

    And the world would be a lot better place if there were a lot fewer people who didn’t matter. Because it matters that they don’t matter so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-09 08:01:00 UTC

  • THE GREAT WESTERN LIE: THAT PEOPLE POSSESS RIGHTS AND NOBLE VIRTUES, RATHER THAN

    THE GREAT WESTERN LIE: THAT PEOPLE POSSESS RIGHTS AND NOBLE VIRTUES, RATHER THAN THEY ACQUIRE RIGHTS BY DEMONSTRATING NOBLE VIRTUES

    The western aristocratic political model stopped improving the moment we started lying – that people possess rights and noble intent rather than that they can acquire rights by demonstrating virtues.

    For women the problem is more significant: meritocracy conflicts with their reproductive interests. Half of their children are in the lower half.

    They cannot earn the franchise by fighting and it is against the tribe’s interests if they do other than reproduce. Our only choice is to pay the best women to reproduce and punish the worst if they do. ( this idea has legs ).

    The Chinese also converted from empirical management to moral management and stagnated. The Muslims and Mongols never developed an empirical order.

    The truth is enough if we demand it by force.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-09 03:49:00 UTC

  • ITS NOT JUST STOICISM, ITS THE ENTIRE WESTERN CORPUS. During the age of transfor

    ITS NOT JUST STOICISM, ITS THE ENTIRE WESTERN CORPUS.

    During the age of transformation the westerners were running individual farms, by extended families, and ruled by a professional warrior aristocracy – today’s “business owners”.

    In this age of transformation, Westerners discovered:

    – objective truth and judgment, testimony, jury, senate

    – debate, reason, and the precursor to science: empiricism

    – common law, contractualism, a prohibition on negatives.

    – the heroic myths and legends as positive mythos.

    – celebrations, plays, and rituals as civic religion.

    In other words they never made the conflationary errors of competing civilizations that combined rule and religion, religion and law, positive claims with negative prohibitions. Where the Babylonians and Egyptians created political monopolies, and where the jews created one book, and the Hindus created one narrative, the Chinese a rational monopoly state as an extended family, and the west “a calculator of innovation”.

    Conflation has led other civilizations to stagnation, and the attempt for example, of the cosmopolitans (and cultural marxists) to reconflate utopian religion and pseudoscience into moral rather than empirical law, has cost us a century and almost cost us our civilization.

    SO WHY DOES THAT MATTER?

    The same conflationary error is true for the methods of conflating mindfulness (individual), mysticism(pseudoscience), and mythology(explanation).

    in the west we did NOT conflate:

    personal mental discipline (emmpirical stoicism)

    the common law (empirical ethics)

    philosophy (rational virtues)

    mythology (mythical ideals)

    natural civic religion( ritual, feast, celebration)

    In other words: nothing was a lie.

    SO LET’S COMPARE THIS STACK TO THE OTHERS

    Japanese ritual

    Japanese ancestor worship

    ‘family’ law (confucius failed to solve the problem of politics)

    Chinese Confucianism (upper), Lao Tzu (lower), Buddhism (escapism)

    Natural Civic Celebrations

    These are ALMOST as ‘true’ except for Buddhism and the fact that the Chinese could not solve the problem of politics (the Han have the same problem as we ‘Aryans’ but they admit it, we don’t). So they were stuck with monopoly. They view their period of consolidation as an achievement without understanding that the warring states, just as each ‘long war’ in europe created a revolution in knowledge and understanding.

    NOW COMPARE TO THE MIDDLE EASTERNERS

    Egyptian, Babylonian, Judaism, Christianity, … you get the idea.

    It is a monopolistic, authoritarian, conflationary, set of such amazing lies and deceits that it is unbelievable that humans fall for it OTHER than that we are so susceptible to environmental overloading of our reason. We are more dependent upon imitation and compatibility with others than we are on reason and evidence. WE are still mimics.

    NOW COMPARE TO MODERNITY

    Boazian, Marxist, Freudian, FrankfurtSchool pseudoscience.

    Postmodern deception.

    How many various techniques for finding excuses for mindfulness?

    How desperate our people for family and tribal information sharing?

    We have television-families, we live alone in boxes – we have replaced interpersonal validation and reality-checks with consumer purchases and store-bought-identities, and virtue signal spirals.

    Feminism, individualism,…. yet 40% of women are on anti-depressants, men are committing suicide in droves over 50, we have a tragic birth rate, and our civilization is being stolen from underneath us.

    What is the difference between selling the Chinese boatloads of heroin, and the import of discount consumer goods that allow us naturally produced endorphine fallacies? There isn’t any.

    I could go on at length, but the point is stoicism is to personal philosophy and personal religion what science is to epistemology, what the common law is to social order, what history is to literature, what philosophy is to religion.

    Stoicism was as important an invention as science.

    And those bastards killed it and forced Christianity upon us on purpose – to enslave the ignorant and the women, and the slaves, to rally against the aristocracy, and to surrender themselves to the bureaucracy.

    There is not enough room in hell for those people, and there is no way to compensate humanity for the damage taht they have done.

    IF hell needs an expansion we certainly can put the socialists, postmodernists, feminists, and pseudoscientists down there enough to force overcrowding. 😉

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-08 11:59:00 UTC

  • The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in

    The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in measurement; the law, that branch of economics we call incentives; and that discipline we call programming on existential possibility from a sequence of possible operations, and the logical and rational disciplines higher emphasis on internal consistency and non-contradictions.

    But physical science cannot use rationalism and non contradiction nor direct experience in its quest for knowledge beyond that which we can ourselves perceive and experience. Even in what we can perceive and experience, our perception and experience are ‘dirty’ or perhaps ‘noisy’ signals that we can trust if and only if we launder them through observations that compensate for our ‘dirty’ and ‘noisy’ perceptions.

    So science is not synonymous with empiricism. Positive Science refers to that discipline in which we construct methods by which we can extend our perception and launder our experiences of ‘dirt’ and ‘noise’: error, bias, and wishful thinking.

    Negative Science refers to that discipline with which we construct methods by which we can launder the statements of others, such that we remove suggestion, loading (framing and overloading), pseudoscience, and deceit in its many forms.

    Science consists of a toolbox of methods for ensuring that we speak truthfully. It does not consist of a toolbox of methods by which we explore the universe. we construct all the tools and methods that we need to extend our perception and to reduce what we cannot observe to an analogy to experience that we can, so that we can make comparisons and judgments.

    But we reason and measure what we imagine, and then we launder the results of our imaginations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-07 04:07:00 UTC

  • Modern Secular Monasteries and Regiments? The postwar boom, great wars, industri

    Modern Secular Monasteries and Regiments?

    The postwar boom, great wars, industrial revolution, and colonial expansion, all led to a decrease in the need for civic society dormitories, and promised all of us families and homes.

    The vast number of women who were part or full time prostitutes, their betters who were nuns, the rest who were home servants.

    The vast number of part time soldiers and criminals, their betters as who were in the monasteries, and the balance who were disposable labor.

    Why do we force people into mandatory self support when there are collective methods at their disposal?

    Why don’t we have civic housing for each gender, and reserve the burden of household care to those who produce and support families?

    Men are not expensive to house and feed. Its the benefits we pay soldiers that are expensive.

    I would live in a dorm of single rooms with men if the regulations were as strict as the university. I would live with brothers in arms if the regulations were as strict as the military.

    Why do we force middle class upon all of us?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 11:09:00 UTC

  • ON CLIMATE CHANGE AS JUMPING THE SHARK IN PSEUDOSCIENCE. I was involved with the

    ON CLIMATE CHANGE AS JUMPING THE SHARK IN PSEUDOSCIENCE.

    I was involved with the people behind the greenhouse gas movement very early on, in an intimate capacity, and as an investor, and my assessment was that it was an excuse to expand bureucratic power over the economy by the calibre of people we find in government and volunteerism: not very good. (I can name names so to speak.) It was this arrangement under which the Clinton Foundation managed to misrepresent themselves, and steal from me $2M USD.

    I pulled out of that industry when the data-manipulation went public in November of 2009(?), and that release killed almost all other financial interest in the sector as well. I was not alone.

    Yes, we affect the climate. The question is whether it’s meaningful or not. I think it is very hard to make the case that it is meaningful. It is possibly hard to make the case that it is not beneficial – at least depending upon the solar-climate cycle.

    The policy prescription is obvious: America needs 300 nuclear power plants, we have too many ‘warm’ appliances that do not need to be ‘warm’; Our commercial glass architecture has been a disaster and is the source of most waste heat, and industry is the primary user, yet we tell consumers and housewives and virtue-signaling idiots, that their micro efforts are meaningful when they’re irrelevant. and the developing world needs to stop breeding for two centuries.

    The dishonesty of the academy and the bureaucracy, and the willing compliance of the media, all acting out of self-interest (demonstrating the will to power) created the skepticism, and they are now ‘paying for it’ and they caused the scientific community to ‘pay’ for it, possibly for a generation or two.

    We have had a century of pseudoscience in the social sciences thanks to Boaz and Marx. We had more than a century of Freudian pseudoscience. We have had at least half of the economics profession engage in pseudoscience in the sense that they are defining the limits of deception, not the properties of human cooperation, or the means of institutional improvement of information necessary for trustworthy planning and forecasting – thanks to the keynesian restatement of marx. We have had a century of dietary pseudoscience. We have had more than a century of statistical and probabalistic pseudoscience which is the cause of most public misrepresentation of poliitcal actions. We have had more than a century of cantorian mathematical platonism, which we can include as a pseudoscience – dooming generations to mathematical mysticism, and expanding mathematical illiteracy. We have had at least seventy years of educational pseudoscience at both the primary, secondary, and academy levels. We have had more than a century of logical pseudoscience, and the removal of grammar, logic, and rhetoric, as well as history from the cirriculums – the manufacture of ignorance. We have had almost a century of dietary supplement pseudoscience. I suspect that we will see much of the past sixty years in mathematical physics as pseudoscience as well since any theory so broadly tolerant is effectively meaningless. I mean the list is endless.

    So as good ‘conservatives’ we are ‘punishing’ the industry as we should punish them, for their hubris, vanity, deciet, and fraud. Because that is what conservatives do: punish excesses.

    Follow Judith. She’s the only one who publishes regularly that’s worth reading on this subject.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    PS: As ‘austrians’ it should trouble us more than others since it was Mises who stumbled upon operationalism in economics but was too authoritarian and pseudoscientific himself to grasp what he had found. And that is made worse by the fact that it is only in psychology economics and law and not in mathematics and physics where operationalism (intuitionism) provides useful dimensional criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 05:03:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM GIVES ASPIES A LANGUAGE WITH WHICH TO DISCOURSE WITH NORMALS. Wo

    PROPERTARIANISM GIVES ASPIES A LANGUAGE WITH WHICH TO DISCOURSE WITH NORMALS.

    Working with the intense-world model of autism, what we ‘aspies’ experience is a lot of localized (intense) but un-integrated phenomenon, and then we try to explain these intense phenomenon to others. Conversely, normals tend to explain the (diluted) single aggregate experience without having visibility into the (intense) localized phenomenon. It’s much easier for them to communicate the RESULTING experience that we DON”T have, than it is for us to communicate the SET of experiences we DO have. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, and therefore fortunately for all of us, just as we cannot inspect how we move our limbs – they just move, normals cannot inspect how they obtain those aggregates. We can inspect how we obtain those aggregates at the cost of losing the ability to communicate in aggregates. Or put differently, we speak in much higher information density with higher causal relation. They speak in lower information density with higher experiential description. One of the things I feel most proud of is giving us (intense world thinkers) a language that lets us communicate WITHOUT Experiential loading, in a language that while wordy is comprehensible both to us and to normals.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 04:59:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL MODELS AS RELIGIONS: STEADY-STATE FALLACY ***Religions evolve slowly a

    POLITICAL MODELS AS RELIGIONS: STEADY-STATE FALLACY

    ***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty.

    We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another.

    But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer.

    Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.***

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 03:06:00 UTC

  • HOW DID I END UP IN THIS INTELLECTUAL MARKET POSITION? (irony) As a libertarian,

    HOW DID I END UP IN THIS INTELLECTUAL MARKET POSITION? (irony)

    As a libertarian, my prescriptions were often Friedmanite solutions to social democratic preferences. As an alt right libertarian I advocate paying the lower classes not to reproduce at replacement levels, and to limit immigration to 115 and above IQ’s in technical disciplines.

    The reason being that I prefer to live in a high trust society with many commons and high redistribution, including ‘dividends’ on the economy (variable and unpredictable basic income) because the labor market pricing structure is out of balance with productivity. And I have come to understand that ‘retirement’ and ‘delayed adulthood’ are catastrophes.

    The single reason I’m associated with the ‘hard’ right is that I’ve come out so aggressively against the great lies of the 19th and 20th century. And that those great lies are just deception constructed as a psudoscientific version of the prior deception constructed in judeo-christian-muslim mysticism.

    But that’s not my central argument. I also state that the enlightement philsophies from all eruopean cultures: Anglo(Empirical/Legal), French(Moral), and German(rationalist) philosophies were equally false, and contradictory to what made europa exceptional and ‘faster than the rest’. It’s true the anglo and german philosophical frameworks were false, but at least they were beneficial, while the french and Jewish frameworks were catastrophes for mankind.

    I’m happy I’ve given young men a language with which to communicate the feelings of their internal voices. And I’m proud that I succeeded in my life’s ambition: to create a language for the rational, scientific comparison of ethical, political, and group competitive strategies. So our generation is armed to the rhetorical teeth so to speak.

    But let’s not lose sight of the broader insight, that TRUTHFUNLESS dictated that I return the philosophy of liberty to its aristocratic origins as the TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE – if not science – of the western aristocratic excellence in the application of organized violence to domesticate mankind by the incremental suppression of parasitism – thus forcing him into productive labor in order to survive and reproduce, and converting the proceeds from our efforts into Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 05:48:00 UTC

  • Well you know, he is right. It’s in the data. We have decades of it. And it’s an

    Well you know, he is right. It’s in the data. We have decades of it. And it’s an open secret in the industry.

    I still don’t understand how anyone can argue with it.

    The marginal difference in talent in the creative industry is very meaningful. It is much more meaningful than in any other industry outside of the top one tenth of a percent of intellectuals.

    Because of the slight genetic advantage men have over women at the extremes, but the vast marginal difference in results at the extremes, we would expect to see a certain distribution of genders. And we do.

    Nobody complains that women have displaced nearly all the men at the center of the distribution where women dominate. But for some reason it’s surprising that men dominate the extremes of the distribution.

    Sorry but it’s not bias. There are just two to four to ten to one hundred men for every woman at the top of the talent distribution. And men demonstrate higher loyalty. And loyalty is an asset. And that combination means that we should have seen peak distribution of women already.

    And that’s what the data shows us.

    Just like women communicate in a much more rich set of signals than men do, and they are invisible to us and discounted as irrelevant if we do see them, women equally fail to grasp the depth and importance of loyalty and sacrifice that men subtly communicate to one another, and women discount it as nonsense when they do see it.

    But we evolved these behaviors and perceptions for good reasons and we would cease to be human if we lost them.

    We are compatible but we are not equal in any way other than our ability to be attempt to be compatible with one another.

    We had enough psychological, sociological, anthropological, economic and political pseudoscience for one century. It’s time to move on.

    It interferes with our compatibility.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 12:41:00 UTC