Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I understand the importance of sacredness in the commons, and why the sacred gro

    I understand the importance of sacredness in the commons, and why the sacred grove was so influential for us. The painful discipline of respecting the sacred in Churches every week, teaches you a behavior to demonstrate in the commons. Those who cannot control their impulses sufficiently in sacred places have many other nasty habits. Men who have nasty habits but can control their impulses in sacred places can still expect to be respected in matters of the sacred.

    i can respect teh sacredness of ritual in japan, I do not like the sacredness of buddhism’s internal life, I certainly do not like the sacredness of muslim obeyance, or its pervasive dominance of society. Certainly don’t like the jewish verbal separatism. I can criticize our churches for their attempt to preserve their absurd babylonian/jewish mysticism. But it is quite hard to argue with the rituals of stoicism, and the sacredness of the grove. The problem I see is that these are not political orders, so much as tribal, and that our people (the west) did not develop a political religion after paganism. And maybe that was the right answer.

    How do we create sacredness in nature, man, and the relationship between nature and man once again? How do we return to the transform of the earth in a garden? Into paradise?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 06:22:00 UTC

  • WITTGENSTEIN AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE INTELLECTUAL CONSEQUENCES OF VARIATIONS IN SEX

    WITTGENSTEIN AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE INTELLECTUAL CONSEQUENCES OF VARIATIONS IN SEXUAL DIMORPHISM

    I might like to add this idea to the Wittgenstein criticism:

    His work (nominalism in general) is a further example of the tendency of feminine thought – an intellectual form of solipsism, in which meaning rather than emotions constitute reality.

    When I make the exaggerated claim that ‘all jews are female’ I do so because this tendency to treat meaning as existential is dominant throughout jewish thought as engineering is dominant in western thought, and as emotion is dominant in female thought.

    once you grasp this you can see the consistent pattern in jewish (feminine) cosmopolitan thought, in german (rationalist) thought, in anglo moral thought, and in american procedural thought, and in engineering versus religion in general.

    This is why popper stumbled upon the idea (falsification) but failed – he was a verbalist. This is why Kant stumbled about the solution but failed – religious verbalism. This is why Locke/smith/hume stumbled upon but could not solve it – moralism. This is why jefferson stumbled on the solution but failed – legalism, …

    We can’t escape our frames. Our cultural group evolutionary strategies are certainly programmed into us over time – the only question is how much of that programming has been reduced to genetics – or at least distributions of genetic preferences.

    This is a profound problem. Which is why truthful speech is as important in philosophical, political and economic discourse as it is in the sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 05:18:00 UTC

  • RESTORING CIVILIZATION I am just barely old enough to remember victorian houses.

    RESTORING CIVILIZATION

    I am just barely old enough to remember victorian houses. Farms and farm animals. The quiet of rural life without the constant rumble of cars and trucks. When the sound of a bell miles away could be used to call volunteer firemen. When parks, cemeteries church yards, government buildings, and great houses were adorned with trees, shrubs, and flowers, and our sculptures were of men of achievement.

    This was taken from us on purpose. We were denied the intertemporal transmission of our history, traditions, myths and values in a multi-generational attempt to destroy aristocratic civilization.

    We husbanded each other, animals, plans, and the earth herself.

    We can do so again. With three simple actions.

    1) Change from a monetary to stockholder economy, wherein dividends are distributed annually, the minimum wage is eliminated, and wage earning is a matter of preference for consumption.

    2) Building materials must be capable of being carried by manual rather than machine effort once again.

    3) Now that we know what ‘bad’ art is, we can prohibit it. We cannot know good art, but we can know bad art.

    4) Train a nation of gardeners, arborists, landscapers, and to build a beautiful intertemporal world, not a cheap and transitory one.

    Beauty is a good in and of itself.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-16 02:37:00 UTC

  • human rights a cultural thing that simply does not apply to cultures that do not

    https://t.co/btpPWny4F2—“Are human rights a cultural thing that simply does not apply to cultures that do not support them? Why or why not?”— https://t.co/btpPWny4F2

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.

    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 14:51:00 UTC

  • (Ya ever get to that point where you don’t want to know more about the universe

    (Ya ever get to that point where you don’t want to know more about the universe because its both not actionable, and … well, … just too scary for words? I mean, we used to have to deal with winters, deserts, forests, seas, and oceans teeming with hostile creatures, brigands, and competitors, and we sort of get our arms around all that only to discover volcanos, gravitational fields, meteors, the movement back and forth across the galactic plane, rogue stars, supernova, colliding galaxies, as whatever dead zone is out there at the edge of the expansion of the local universe. And we haven’t even found something that’s TRYING to kill us yet that’s more dangerous than viruses and bacteria here at home! omg. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 12:44:00 UTC

  • Fundamental truths are so difficult to discover. One needs three points to draw

    Fundamental truths are so difficult to discover.

    One needs three points to draw a line so to speak, and we now have four ages that we understand we had to transform and create new organising technologies to transform with.

    Hunter gatherer and parasitic survival economies, and survival eugenics.

    Agrarian and religion and Malthusian economies, and environmental eugenics.

    Trade and law and money and hard money economies – and commons redistribution, and productivity

    Eugenics.

    Industrialisation and credit finance and accounting, statistical economics – and eugenic redistribution.

    Information and computers digital money, digital reputations, operational economics.

    We need the information system to expand with the scale of cooperation.

    But we must continue to prune the bottom as we go.

    It is only in retrospect that the pattern is obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 07:59:00 UTC

  • LOVING CODING LANGUAGES Javascript/css/less (and now TypeScript) is really more

    LOVING CODING LANGUAGES

    Javascript/css/less (and now TypeScript) is really more interesting to me, because the UI is more where my heart is. And it’s finally matured (almost). I also love Php. But I gotta say that Python is just an awesome language. It’s very clean, very clear, well structured, and well documented. Its all very ‘intentionally logical’. And most importantly. it’s organization dependent not character dependent and for people like me who have a history troublesome relationship with semicolons, it’s wonderful way to work.

    I’ve always disliked memory management and type management as unnecessary (given that I have always designed and built business applications not system software). It’s always seemed like inventory management in adventure games: unnecessarily realistic. I’ve always been better at analysis, application architecture and ui design than coding in and of itself. It’s because I have a tremendous long term memory, but a rather weak short term (working) memory.

    Anyway, I’m in the lisp/php/python/js fan club. the cult of language rather than engineering.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 04:47:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION STARE DECISIS (PRECEDENT) AND THE COMMON LAW VS STRICT CONSTRUCTION. (

    EVOLUTION STARE DECISIS (PRECEDENT) AND THE COMMON LAW VS STRICT CONSTRUCTION.

    (important concept)

    The common law (customary law between competing courts) relies upon Precedent rather than strict construction from first principles.

    The fact that westerners practiced non-parasitism and the oath, meant that by consequence, the common law evolved to REFLECT empirical and natural law, as much as cause and perpetuate it.

    But into the colonial era, then the industrial era, under the strain of complexity and scale,

    We start out as hunter-agrarian tribes, where consensus can be formed and headmen decide disputes, to agrarian urbanism under either despotism, or democracy, where majorities decide and judges resolve disputes according to tradition, to industrial division of labor under either bureaucratic despotism, or multi-house democracy creating a market for commons between the classes reliant on assent, and layers of courts that resolve disputes according to legislation, to the present information era, where we will have corporate-state despotism, or multiple houses creating a market for commons limited only by legal dissent, and a market for courts that resolve disputes by appeal to strict construction under natural law.

    In other words, ***as we scale in population and productive complexity we increasingly transform from the use of consensus and justification of small groups of common interest, to the use of a market to calculate common interest and criticism between groups.***

    We move from majority voluntary assent to minority legal dissent.

    We move incrementally from justification to criticism: from democratic proof to natural law falsification.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 02:07:00 UTC

  • When I say that westerners invented ‘truth’ in the scientific sense, and that th

    When I say that westerners invented ‘truth’ in the scientific sense, and that the aristcracy of peers, the martial class, the militia, and the jury system persisted it, that is not the same as saying that people engage in truthful speech. It merely means that they know how to – with each other (internally / ingroup). It means that the benefits of scientific thought can evolve out of those practices.

    I don’t think westerners are particularly honest. I think that they’re currently more trustworthy, and that trustworthiness is a luxury good produced as a commons.

    But it’s not that I think we are all high and mighty or something.

    We just have the ABILITY to be so.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 12:23:00 UTC

  • THE CONVERSION OF ANGLO CIVILIZATION FROM PRODUCTIVE AND MORAL TO COMMERCIAL AND

    THE CONVERSION OF ANGLO CIVILIZATION FROM PRODUCTIVE AND MORAL TO COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL

    Think of how hard it is to convert a hunter gatherer people to an agrarian economy. From where you know everyone to where you don’t.

    Think of how hard it is to convert an agrarian economy to a mixed-craft merchant economy. You don’t need much trust but you need to at least be able to secure your territory and capital. Where you don’t know who produces what or where it came from. And where organization of production becomes invisible to you.

    Think of how hard it is to convert your economy to consumer capitalism because your trust is high enough that you can create long term contracts. Where cooperation is achieved through the pooling of capital in large amounts so that it can be concentrated to produce lots of goods and services cheaply.

    Think of how hard it is to convert your economy to a financial economy, where you make money from the process of credit alone. Where you are in fact assisting in organizing the production of goods and services as your primary method of production.

    In each of these cases you are making wealth because you’ve produced the commons we call TRUST : reciprocal insurance, and evolved from a laborer, to a craftsman, to an entrepreneur, to a financier. And you’ve moved your entire economy through that same evolution.

    But as your people evolve through this hierarchy, you produce institutions that assist you in producing records, in resolving disputes, and in developing habits that make resolution of disputes unnecessary.

    What you LOSE is the ability to observe externalities.

    Financialization has produced profound externalities that we have no learned how to RECORD, and ACCOUNT for.

    The cumulative effect of our financialization, which in itself may not be a bad thing but an heroic thing, is that we do not account for the externalities produced under the various transactions.

    Why? well off the gold standard we have no method of measurement. And secondly, the progressives have ‘gambled’ upon the fallacy that technology and growth would persist forever – which it hasn’t, won’t, and can’t.

    We departed the empirical society. We became a society of ‘hope’ or ‘wishful thinking’ or ‘fanciful thinking’, instead. The germans remained an empirical people. We became a moral (british) and utopian(american) rather than empirical people.

    It’s fixable. But it won’t be pretty. a 30 year bear market is a pretty understandable thing.

    (h/t: Benjamin Steigmann)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-13 07:25:00 UTC