Form: Mini Essay

  • GAAP(RULE OF LAW) VS IFRS(NAPOLEONIC LAW) (h/t Johannes Meixner )(From elsewhere

    GAAP(RULE OF LAW) VS IFRS(NAPOLEONIC LAW)

    (h/t Johannes Meixner )(From elsewhere)

    This is the material difference in the origins and persistence of the different accounting systems. All anglo-american policy is traditionally implemented under rule of law that approaches formal logic as much as possible.

    The general rule of american GAAP is pretty simple “represent the truth”. This varies from the Napoleonic countries where there is less suspicion of government involvement and less tolerance for discretion.

    Some of this is terribly important given that in many countries that use Napoleonic law and it’s descendants, the bureaucracy tends to be staffed professionally. Whereas in the states the bureaucracy is staffed by ‘those unfit for real productive work’.

    Hence the general believe that there must be no room for discretion in american law and accounting, and arguments must be decidable by a judge using logical means.

    Just to provide context, this is also the difference between the economic schools of thought:

    1) The conservative ‘Austrian’ branch seeks rules of natural law such that institutions can be improved in order to reduce frictions in the economy.

    2) the classical liberal ‘american’ (or freshwater) branch seeks extensions of rule of law that allow intervention in the economy only under predefined rules as to eliminate political discretion and allow private sector planning without ‘losses’ incurred by government exercise of discretion.

    3) the ‘Saltwater’ or ‘American Jewish’ branch seeks to understand the limits of discretionary action in order to give the government the freedom to interfere in the economy with maximum discretion.

    The Debate over GAAP and IFRS is one of RULES vs JUSTIFICATIONS. the USA differs for this reason. Although you would very likely be hard pressed to find many people able to explain this deep difference between the american (equalitarian) experiment and the continental (authoritarian) experiment.

    As such it is a non trivial difference that reflects the difference in cultures. The principle of ‘going concern’ is a mathematical relationship determined between the creditor and the company officers. It is not a matter for ‘interference’ by the state.

    Hence higher risk organizations in america, and the bigger stock market in america, and the more developed tech and research sector in america, and the bond market in london, and the heavy industrial superiority of germany, and the military superiority of russia.

    Risk increases as we move westward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 14:14:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE EACH OTHER, CHURCHES, HISTORY, AND THE BEAUTY OF NATURE. WHY DO WE NEED

    WE HAVE EACH OTHER, CHURCHES, HISTORY, AND THE BEAUTY OF NATURE. WHY DO WE NEED LIES?

    Getting people together to listen to parables of history, feast, and sing is content-independent. It doesn’t matter WHAT people talk about. What matters are the existence of ‘safe’ civic rituals of ANY kind.

    There is almost nothing of value in Christian history that is not in pagan history other than the extension of kinship love to non-kin in order to bridge family and tribal bonds. This improves economic rates of production and trust everywhere it has gone. Unfortunately we gave up worship of existential nature somewhat in order to worship a non-existent babylonian terrorist. Although in much of pagan Europe nature worship continued as the folk religion (just as they still exist in our fairy tales) even if the political religion was christianity, and the aristocratic ‘religion’ was the rough and unforgiving empiricism of warfare.

    Furthermore, just as Chivalry gave dominant males access to status signals and self worth by acts of service, the priesthood and charity gave men and women access to status signals and self worth by acts of service.

    The church took responsibility for insurance, education and family law. The state took responsibility for the construction of order (property), dispute resolution, economic production, and defense.

    This division of labor maintained a balance between the clergy, the nobility, the burghers, the knights, and the free farmers, and the peasantry (illiterate working class so lazy and unproductive we cannot imagine it without watching men on third world street corners.

    But none of this puts any value in the christian dogma. If anything the time of The First Great Lie has passed, and we are just now ending The Second Great Lie. Undoubtably there will be yet a third, but we will do what we can to prevent such a thing for as long as possible.

    So to say we need ‘church’ with the central themes of virtue, family, love, charity, industry, and to remember our heroes and saints is to say the obvious. It would almost certainly be better to regularly remind people of the sacredness of nature, so that they would care for our commons.

    But there is no meaningful reason why we must embrace mysticism in the ancient tradition, or pseudorationalism, or pseudoscience, in the current tradition (Cult of TED for example).

    Nor do I understand, nor can anyone likely justify, the use of outright lying in city square, church pulpit, academic lectern, political podium, news desk, digital internet, radio microphone, motion video, or dramatic play. Why should archaic lies be distributed, and why should modern lies pseudorationalism and pseudoscience be distributed? There isn’t a reason other than we had no prior means of determining whether a due diligence of truthfulness had been performed.

    We need a civic religion. We have one. It’s our history. And it’s a history that is very hard argue against. We likely need spiritualism to feel humility. We have one. It’s nature, our planet, the universe.

    We have each other, we have our history and we have nature. They’re all truths.

    Why do we need lies?

    Cant you imagine a world without lies?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 13:28:00 UTC

  • THE FAILED BOOK OF ATHENIAN TRUTH, THE SUCCESSFUL BOOK OF JERUSALEM’S LIES (The

    THE FAILED BOOK OF ATHENIAN TRUTH, THE SUCCESSFUL BOOK OF JERUSALEM’S LIES

    (The Stoics Were Right: Jehova Is The Devil) (trigger warning) (ouch)

    The Greeks tried and only partly succeeded in creating a discipline of truth telling.

    The Hebrews succeeded in creating an training manual in deception, written using the very technique of deception that they wished to promote.

    The first great deception was monotheism: Moses restatement of Ramses’ monotheism, and Abraham’s use of Babylonian absolutism.

    The second great deception was pseudoscience: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, The Frankfurt School and Critique, Rothbard and Rand, Strauss’s neoconservatism, Chomsky.

    These techniques of deception work by the same mechanism: half truth, desirable falsehood, suggestion appealing to altruism, and loading, framing, overloading, and propagandizing by heaping undue praise on the falsehood while heaping straw man criticisms on the truth.

    It took others a few decades to identify the vulnerability. It took me a few years to understand the technique and find a means of exposing it to analytic criticism.

    But now it’s pretty clear that the ancient battle between western science and middle eastern mysticism is merely the battle between the art of truth telling and the art of lying.

    It is far more profitable to lie than speak the truth. Especially in a land where everyone speaks the truth.

    If for no other reason than it is cheaper and faster to diligently construct desirable falsehoods than unpleasant truths.

    Just as the common law evolves only in response to innovations in parasitism; just as science evolves only by the falsification of theories; so does truth telling evolve only by the incremental suppression of lying.

    This should be clear enough for an individual with a Bachelors degree in a STEM discipline to follow.

    Curt Doolittle.

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 11:22:00 UTC

  • WARNING TO NEW FRIENDS. I’M CHANGING THE WORLD. ENDING THE LIES. AND YOU MIGHT N

    WARNING TO NEW FRIENDS. I’M CHANGING THE WORLD. ENDING THE LIES. AND YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE. THERE IS COMFORT IN LIES.

    (edited, updated, expanded)

    Please understand what I do here. I work on philosophy in public like a medieval street craftsman. You can see it getting made. Successes and failures. I test ideas and some survive and some do not.

    I started with the ambition of creating a rational or perhaps scientific language of morality and politics.

    Along the way I discovered the secret of western rates of development in the prehistoric, ancient and modern worlds: truth telling, oath taking, the jury, and the common law. The consequence was reason, science, medicine, rapid economic velocity. the civic society, and the high trust society.

    What I did not expect to discover was that it was the enfranchisement of women and the rapid expression of their opposing reproductive strategy under democracy that caused the systematic destruction of every institution in western civilization through the use of anti-chivalry, the anti-slavery movement, the voting booth, and the power of the family purse.

    Nor did I understand the conspiracy of common interest between women, the Catholics of the underclasses, the Jews, and the slaves.

    Nor did I expect the dominance of German rationalism in counter enlightenment thought – pseudo moralism.

    Nor did I expect the dominance of Jewish creation of the pseudosciences and their use of critique on one side, and the heaping of undue praise on the other, that when combined with aggressive expansion into the social science departments – and the Jewish conversion of social science into pseudoscience – nor the relationship between that expansion, and the increased dominance of women participating in pseudoscience. Nor how rapidly the academy would switch from an extension of the clergy, to an extension of the scientific movement, to an extension of the pseudoscientific movement in just a few generations : the academy sold what women wanted to buy. And then women justified their pseudoscience at the voting booth and destroyed western civilizations 4000 year climb out of darkness.

    In both the ancient world and in the modern world the Jews created the first and second great lies. First monotheism out of Egyptian monotheism using Babylonian narratives. The distributing it via Roman roads, Roman commerce, Roman slaves and Roman women. Whose gossip in great numbers achieved the destruction that the Justinian plagues did not.

    Then the Germans created pseudo philosophy under Kant and his followers, and created a new means of deceit: a new form of obscurantism. A new way to lie.

    Then the Jews created pseudoscience out of every possible discipline in the modern world, and sold it on Anglo and German roads, railroads, printing presses, radio waves, movies and television to generations of women who for the second time destroyed western civilization.

    So, how do we end the great lies, and how do we launder pseudo rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and lying from the informational commons?

    It turns out that we can.

    I understand why it took 2500 years to solve the problem of truth telling. It was a long hard journey. But just as crime expands faster than the law, lying expanded faster than truth. In both the ancient world the lies spread faster than the high cost of truth to prevent them. Only in the modern world did science progress fast enough that the great lie of mysticism could be outpaced – purely because of mysticism’s vast architecture of falsehoods could not be adapted to the change. So liars had to invent a new means of lying: obscurantism, suggestion, and pseudoscience, sold to a literate proletariat, women and slaves.

    We think we are superior to the past because of our reduction in violence and particularly in the west because of the reduction in theft. But this is false. We have merely shifted from the theft of material goods to the theft of genetics, and the theft of culture, and the theft of norms, and the theft of territory using the most obscure method of theft possible: financialization, fiat money, credit, invisible transfers, and privatization of wealth produced by the productive commons through financialization.

    Instead of promising false salvation in heaven, they bribe us with bread and circus to consume goods instead of bearing offspring and saving for retirement – we will now all be subject to inescapable poverty instead of a few subject to escapable poverty. The subject us to incremental conquest through involuntary immigration. They subject us to propaganda, lying, pseudoscience, obfuscation and obscurantism. They lie.

    But we can now outlaw lying and the transmissions of lies in the commons. We can suppress lying just as we suppressed murder violence theft fraud conspiracy and free riding.

    Civilization consists of suppressing the very visible parasitism of the male: the use of violence to place the burden of production on others; and the invisible parasitism of the female: the use of moral hazard to breed at will and place the burden of upkeep on others. The common law evolved to incrementally suppress each new means of parasitism. Women used democracy and their greater numbers to institutionalize parasitism – undoing all of western history.

    So the enlightenment project whether Anglo empirical, French moralistic, German rationalist, and Jewish pseudoscientific failed. It failed because instead of giving women their own house we treated them as equals.

    But women are not equals. They are competitors that we must either cooperate with or enslave. Women have the rabbit’s r-selection and short term reproductive strategy: consumption and growth. Most men have the wolves’ long term k-selection strategy:scarcity and quality.

    Civilization required taming women and men with property rights and marriage such that they could only reproduce given what they could produce. Marriage is the Great Compromise that restricts reproduction to production.

    The only problem facing mankind is the transfer of rates of reproduction from those who can produce to those who cannot.

    I have solved the problem of post democratic government.

    And We will bring an end to lying, pseudoscience and pseudo rationalism and pseudo moralism the same way we have brought an end to violence theft and fraud.

    Because that is our history: the incremental suppression of parasitism as we discover new means of parasitism amidst our discovery of new means of production.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 06:24:00 UTC

  • INTOLERANCE IS A HIGH COST, A HIGH TAX THAT WE MUST PAY. TOLERANCE IS A FREE RID

    INTOLERANCE IS A HIGH COST, A HIGH TAX THAT WE MUST PAY. TOLERANCE IS A FREE RIDING – A DISCOUNT, A THEFT NOT A VIRTUE.

    Living Light – and safe.

    Sure, I have the contents of a four bedroom house in storage. But otherwise, my life consists of a little red sportscar, six large duffel bags full of wardrobe, a suitcase full of computer gear, and my working computer, id, iPad/exterior monitor, sound system, prescriptions, cables, batteries, umbrella, rain poncho, cash and a few gold coins I keep in my (very fancy) backpack and I never ever take my eye off of it. I keep a cord lock in the backpack and lock it to whatever I can when I am in a public place. Worst case I have a run bag with me at all times.

    Part of this habit is living in an iffy place during the revolution. Part of it is what my government did to me and am forever traumatised by. Part of it was what my divorce did to me. Part of it is autistic in that I must have rituals to remember where I put things. Part of it is just feeling that I don’t need to worry.

    I sleep with my phone, backpack and laptop next to the bed. So I don’t worry about them

    In America I always carry a sidearm out of advocacy. I have only needed it three times. Once when a psycho came after me and Allora when I turned his criminal activity in. And twice when people of different Color decided I was a target late at night. Yelling “help police!!” While pointing a sidearm is very different from returning the threat with macho.

    I know too many people who have had car trunks robbed because someone watched them place items in the boot then either waited or followed them to their next destination and stolen them.

    I have too much experience with east coast urban life. I know the evil men do. When I lived in Back Bay in Boston my heart raced twice a day: when I woke up and checked to see if my car was still there, and when I came home and checked to see that the door had not been banged in by thieves.

    I never feel as unsafe in Ukraine as I did in every American city.

    You know why?

    Intolerance.

    Men beat the hell out of you here for the slightest threatening action just like they used to in America.

    Every man a sheriff. Every man intolerant. Every man a hangman.

    Intolerance is a high tax.

    But we must pay it.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-03 05:21:00 UTC

  • LETS KEEP PRAISE OF PUTIN TO WHAT HE’S ACTUALLY DOING WELL (from Elsewhere) Well

    LETS KEEP PRAISE OF PUTIN TO WHAT HE’S ACTUALLY DOING WELL

    (from Elsewhere)

    Well, lets just say that American Utopianism is a failed experiment because only Protestants have been able to construct a high trust society. The Anglo mythos is that oppressed people need to be free, rather than strong government and strong institutions are require in low trust societies in order to maintain any semblance of order.

    American (and Anglo) utopianism has worked where it spread consumer capitalism (property rights, contracts, rule of law, fiat money and credit). But the Democratic experiment has been a catastrophe. Democratic utopianism has failed because only Germanic peoples have been able to construct a high trust society reasonably free of corruption.

    Other societies cannot do this without generations of a functional middle class, and as aggressive a campaign to suppress the rates of reproduction of the lower classes, and prohibition on cousin marriage. The west hung 1% of people a year for most of its history. They starved those who were unproductive over harsh winters.

    So it is disingenuous for westerners to criticize the harsh punishment of developing societies. It was only since 1900 that the west stopped aggressive use of hanging, and it has led to vast numbers of incarcerated peoples.

    Most other polities cannot imagine a society with as little small crime as america has. This is because of aggressive prosecution in order to preserve their high trust society and the economic velocity that results from it. America has much violent crime among its minorities, but about the same violent crime as Europe among whites.

    So american high trust society is dying from aggressive immigration of underclasses that reverse 3000 years of history – it was started in the 1960s by our ‘left’ (socialists) as a means to seize power by immigration where they could not achieve it in a predominantly germanic country by persuasion and propaganda.

    Putin is a reasonably good Czar who has managed to seize most of the heavy industry in the country for personal purposes. Most of those personal purposes are designed to restore Russia to what he considers its history (despite the rather murderous history of the Soviets, Ivan the Terrible, and the Mongols.)

    If Putin were simply HONEST and said “I must do this to change my society” most of the world would agree with him.

    If Putin had purchased Crimea from Ukraine (by asking the west to force the deal – they would have) for discounted oil and gas, he would not have caused the entire western world to pivot to contain Russia again in fear that another group of soviet lunatics had seized power. Instead eastern Europe is simply waiting for the ability to acquire nuclear weapons to keep Moscow at bay. This was foolish.

    If Putin simply stated why he was doing what he does the world would agree with him because westerners KNOW that democracy has failed us. We KNOW that decadence has been spread by our left and its alliance with feminism.

    If Putin would stop the RT propaganda that is totally fabricated then the western conservatives would support the growth of Russian power as the SAVIOR of the west rather than anther lunatic they need to contain.

    If Putin stayed on message that the western liberal model has been a failure he would lead the world, not by fear of lunacy, but by being THE ONLY RATIONAL MAN STANDING.

    There is no need to LIE when you are RIGHT, and when everyone AGREES with you. It’s ridiculous.

    Thankfully Syria has provided a means for Russia to obtain a Pipeline south, and taken responsibility from the states for policing the muslim world. Also this lets Putin demonstrate wisdom and strength to his people, and allow Russian warriors to gain some experience, without scaring neighbors further and causing more damage to the Russian economy.

    The Russian empire can never expand into the east again. it was a disaster the last time. Soviet Occupation was intolerable and the people of eastern Europe fear Russians more than they ever feared nazis.

    However, all of the islamic world needs adult supervision and Russia is the only adult in the neighborhood. And pretty clearly, utopian westerners are unfit to parent primitive peoples into modernity.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 09:42:00 UTC

  • I Figured it Out. The Method Of Lying In The Religious and Pseudoscientific Eras

    [I] think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics. Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it. I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism. In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not. I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people. So I know how to kill that too. I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline. I am confident now. I can do it. RE:http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/01/04/if-you-can-name-a-thing-you-can-kill-a-thing/

  • I Figured it Out. The Method Of Lying In The Religious and Pseudoscientific Eras

    [I] think it was 2013 that I questioned whether I had to solve the problem of Truth or not. And I was pretty stressed about it. But I just felt like I couldn’t put an end to postmodern deceit unless I did so. So reluctantly I started working on it. And it took me a while. It was fairly hard. Easier thanks to the work on critical rationalism and the current state of the foundation of mathematics. Then, once there, I asked myself, if I could end lying. In January of this year (2015) I posted this on my web site: “If You Can Name a Thing, You Can Kill A Thing”. Meaning that things have ‘true names’ (operational names). And if you know its true name you can defeat it. I wasn’t sure I could solve the technique by which the monotheistic and cosmopolitan lies were constructed. But I did. And now I understand why they had to close the Stoic Schools: they make you impervious to the technique of using half truths to conduct pre-shaming, and to invoke altruistic responses as substitutes rather than skepticism. In other words, liars take advantage of a social cognitive bias. And through repetition convince us that a convenient lie is necessary when it is not. I’ve also begun to understand why western traditionalists think god is the subject of spirituality rather than an excuse to make use of spirituality for totalitarian purposes against the genetic interests of a people. So I know how to kill that too. I thought this would take me longer than a year. In a year I will have religion so deconstructed that I will match the precision of my deconstruction of morality. I will unify religion along with every other discipline. I am confident now. I can do it. RE:http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/01/04/if-you-can-name-a-thing-you-can-kill-a-thing/

  • More On Race. Sorry. I don’t Do Racism. I do Aristocracy for Every Clan, Tribe, and Nation.

    [I] am an aggressive supporter of kin-preference, aristocratic families, paternal aristocracies, and as many of them as man can make. My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism causes conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism and local separatism improve everyone. My position on the cause of the *meaningful* differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses over long periods of time. My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others. My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral. I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families. So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize others successful reproductive strategies, rather than to criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies. I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you on some criticism or other. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • More On Race. Sorry. I don’t Do Racism. I do Aristocracy for Every Clan, Tribe, and Nation.

    [I] am an aggressive supporter of kin-preference, aristocratic families, paternal aristocracies, and as many of them as man can make. My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism causes conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism and local separatism improve everyone. My position on the cause of the *meaningful* differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses over long periods of time. My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others. My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral. I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families. So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize others successful reproductive strategies, rather than to criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies. I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you on some criticism or other. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine