Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ON THE FALLACY OF FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM (very important piece) (this will ruffle

    ON THE FALLACY OF FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM

    (very important piece) (this will ruffle some feathers)

    The three means of coercion can be used for good or ill.

    1) Violence can be used to create property rights and prosperity or it can be used to conduct parasitism predation and destruction.

    2) Gossip can be used to reward contributors to the commons with opportunity for cooperation and mates, or it can be used to lie, cheat, deceive, rally, shame, and justify parasitism, or instill violence.

    3) Trade can be used to increase prosperity for all by accumulating genetic, knowledge, physical and institutional capital, or to destroy the either the producer’s or the consumer’s economy by causing the depreciation of genetic, knowledge, physical, and institutional capital.

    Trade is no more an INTRINSIC good, than is violence or gossip.

    That is the end of it. Trade is nor more a good than violence or gossip. The only determinant of the morality or immorality of trade is whether capital is accumulated or destroyed in the process of production, distribution, trade and consumption, and whether the transfers were voluntary.

    ***This is what I call the requirement for “full accounting” in any truthful (moral) argument. Without full accounting someone is undoubtably lying. General rules expressed without limits are used as means of suggestion by which to deceive the altruistic mind. Free Trade is as much a folly as Autarky. Free Trade is yet another cosmopolitanism by which to rely on suggestion in order to conduct parasitism.***

    This argument is finished. Cosmopolitan Libertarian absolutism is finished. Libertine libertarianism is finished. It is a dead ideology. I have killed it – forever. And I have demonstrated as thoroughly as any man can, that the only possible liberty from which we obtain our prosperity is TRUTHFUL COOPERATION: The productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property-en-toto, free of imposition of costs by externality, wherein our statements survive tests of identity (non conflation), internal, consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, parsimony, limits, full accounting, and voluntary exchange.

    Children require virtue ethics, because they can but imitate. The young require rule ethics because they lack experience. The adult requires outcome ethics because otherwise he can use rules to obscure his frauds. Any ethical claim must hold to all THREE forms of ethic:

    a) virtue: should every man do this, the outcome would be moral

    b) rule: should every man obey this rule, the outcome would be moral.

    c) outcome: should every man do this, the outcome would be moral.

    It is not that one ethical method supersedes any other. It is that we can only expect the child to imitate, the young to obey rules, and the old to obey experience. As such we tolerate greater error from the child, than the young, and least from the experienced. It is not that any ethical method produces greater results. It is that each method requires making full use of the knowledge that each actor possesses, and that as long as he acts according to those principles, that we forgive him for his failures.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kyiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 09:30:00 UTC

  • OVERTURNING THE FALLACY OF FEMALE VS MALE COSTS OF REPRODUCTION (worth repeating

    OVERTURNING THE FALLACY OF FEMALE VS MALE COSTS OF REPRODUCTION

    (worth repeating)

    —**While incorrectly stated as a difference in *COST* of reproduction – since male deaths from production and defense of the tribe are higher than female deaths in birth, and male lifespans are shorter from accumulated injury and cellular damage – the genders differ not in cost but in the *CONTROL* over reproduction. Females can directly control their reproduction, nurture offspring, and rally males and females to her defense, while men can kill or prohibit other males from access, gain access to additional females, and defend females and offspring in order to propagate their and their brother’s genes.**—

    —The female reproductive economic strategy (r-selection) is to bear as many children as she can, to place their cost upon the tribe, and to advocate for their success regardless of their merit. The male economic reproductive strategy is to capture as many females by killing as many opposing tribe’s males, then pairing off with female mates so that all brothers maintain incentives to preserve the group. This paring off is the most effective compromise between the genders (which is institutionalized in marriage). If combined with creative ‘cheating’ by males and females, both social alliance and reproductive improvement can be achieved.—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 07:31:00 UTC

  • IS NEO-REACTION? THREE POINTS. ( Hoppe is a german rationalist cum cosmopolitan,

    http://freenortherner.com/2015/11/06/what-is-neoreaction/WHAT IS NEO-REACTION? THREE POINTS.

    ( Hoppe is a german rationalist cum cosmopolitan, yarvin/mencius is a cosmopolitan, and I am an anglo empiricist. This is not an opinion, but a statement of the method of argument employed. And the differences in our approaches demonstrate the weaknesses of the hermeneutic cosmopolitan, and german rationalist methods compared to the anglo empirical method.

    In this response I try to hint at why propertarianism is very much part of the dark enlightenment, but post-NRx in the sense that it’s an empirical rather than rational or moral formation. )

    Not that I mean to act as a critic, or to draw attention away from your excellent post, but you might need to add the third point in the first position.

    THE FAILURE OF THE UTOPIAN CATHEDRAL’S RELIGION

    First and foremost it is a criticism of the Cathedral Complex: Academy, State and Media, and the use of propaganda to perpetuate detrimental falsehoods.

    I would argue that the criticism of the Cathedral Complex as a False Promise using deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda, is the first principle of Neo-Reaction, and the most effective content in the neo-reactionary movement.

    NEOCAMERALISM

    NeoCameralism I agree with. The state is a corporation acting in the interests of its management and staff at the expense of the customers long term interest, by the constant sale of territorial, physical, cultural, and normative capital in exchange for short term consumption (r-selection). The problem is, how do we construct commons: territorial, physical, cultural, and normative while at the same time, eliminating the privatization of those commons that is the means by which the Academy, State, Media complex sustains and expands itself?

    FORMALISM

    Formalism attempts but fails to capture what one intuits in its use, which is why I’ve restated it in greater depth as a complete philosophical system

    It is the failure of formalism (because the author is a hermeneuticist of the cosmopolitan jewish tradition) that prevents neo-reaction from institutional actionability. Unless expressible as law (the anglo analytic and empirical tradition) it must be propagated as religion using the same propaganda mechanisms that the cathedral complex relied upon, but without possessing either the assets of distribution or equalling the incentives that the cathedral promises. This is non-logical.

    THE CRITICISM INFORMS US

    In propertarianism and testimonialism I have created a formal system of thought that unifies biology, psychology, morality, sociology, philosophy, law, economics, and war into a formal logic (Formalism). Propertarianism inverts democracy to a market for commons between the classes, not dependent upon assent, but upon dissent: survival under universal standing under law. (prohibition on parasitic outcomes). A law which is made possible by the formal unification of the fields.

    Small changes in the law – the constitution upon which laws are constructed – make a reactionary program possible. But in this case, it is not reactionary, but revolutionary – not restitution but reformation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-06 06:08:00 UTC

  • is the model for both natural and social sciences. If wages for labor rose in th

    http://andrewmcafee.org/2012/12/the-great-decoupling-of-the-us-economy/Information is the model for both natural and social sciences.

    If wages for labor rose in the industrial era and are declining in the information era then those prices (wages) are telling us something.

    If wages for problem solvers was limited in the era of concentrated capital (early industry), and is expanding in the era of distributed capital between temporary alliances of firms – then we should see increasing wages where capital is concentrated and decreasing wages where distributed.

    So instead of wealthy and poor countries we have wealthy and poor firms. And we have a declining wage for anyone not in a firm able to concentrate capital.

    And capital today is available at zero cost. So the only marginally competitive value is in human beings marginally superior to other human beings.

    Technological man is the scarce resource(genetics). High trust is the scarce political environment(culture).

    The industrial era was an outlier.

    Farming went from a good business in 1830, to a terrible business in 1930.

    Industrial labor is following farming.

    And white collar labor is close behind.

    Hence Propertarianism tells me that we must pay off the unemployable to maintain the commons, and decrease their numbers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • We Can Restore Western Civilization. It’s Not Difficult. It’s Just Done At The Point Of A Gun.

    Having a ‘Systematizing’ mind (which is a nice sounding term for an autistic and compulsive need for order in everything whether useful or not) mostly helps you find similar patterns in what were to most people are disconnected subjects. You can however, take this method too far, as most philosophers have, by trying to carry an analogy like a hammer that is looking for nails. And so I am very cautious about doing that. But fortunately or unfortunately, once you start to see how simple human behavior is, and how obfuscatory most of our language is – by conflating experience, action, observation and intention – it becomes clear that like most things man has discovered, the fundamental principles are quite simple.

    Man acquires. Man cooperates because acquisition is dramatically superior when we cooperate. Man cheats. Because it improves his acquisition costs if he gets away with it. Man invests heavily in suppression of cheating in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate at every opportunity. Males evolved so that a group of brothers collected women and kept away competing males. Females evolved to keep the peace and to control alphas wherever possible – especially once men developed weapons such that betas could be rallied to suppress alphas. There are three ways of coercion and man specializes in them. As such we don’t develop a single class hierarchy, but we develop three, and whatever group is more useful at the moment leads while the others compete for leadership – the first time in history that the martial class has been out of power is the USA between 1963 and the present. Which hasn’t been very good for the west. Man justifies his negotiating position and ‘feels’ he speaks morally and justly when he does so, but this is only true if and only if cooperation with competitors is voluntarily produced so that each side must compromise. So majority rule is dysfunctional because it makes exchanges impossible. The virtue of the anglo model was that just as the private sector formed a market for the production of goods and services, the public sector formed a market for the production of commons. And they did that by exchanges between the houses: monarchy, nobility, middle class, and clergy. So upon enfranchising women, we did not create a separate house for them and their ‘special interests’ but because of their less diverse interests, they concentrated their forces with the minority of ‘cheating’ males, and incrementally destroyed western civilization. We can quite easily repair this process. But it is going to be done at the point of a gun, not by the moral judgement of women and their allies in the Cathedral complex. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • We Can Restore Western Civilization. It’s Not Difficult. It’s Just Done At The Point Of A Gun.

    Having a ‘Systematizing’ mind (which is a nice sounding term for an autistic and compulsive need for order in everything whether useful or not) mostly helps you find similar patterns in what were to most people are disconnected subjects. You can however, take this method too far, as most philosophers have, by trying to carry an analogy like a hammer that is looking for nails. And so I am very cautious about doing that. But fortunately or unfortunately, once you start to see how simple human behavior is, and how obfuscatory most of our language is – by conflating experience, action, observation and intention – it becomes clear that like most things man has discovered, the fundamental principles are quite simple.

    Man acquires. Man cooperates because acquisition is dramatically superior when we cooperate. Man cheats. Because it improves his acquisition costs if he gets away with it. Man invests heavily in suppression of cheating in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate at every opportunity. Males evolved so that a group of brothers collected women and kept away competing males. Females evolved to keep the peace and to control alphas wherever possible – especially once men developed weapons such that betas could be rallied to suppress alphas. There are three ways of coercion and man specializes in them. As such we don’t develop a single class hierarchy, but we develop three, and whatever group is more useful at the moment leads while the others compete for leadership – the first time in history that the martial class has been out of power is the USA between 1963 and the present. Which hasn’t been very good for the west. Man justifies his negotiating position and ‘feels’ he speaks morally and justly when he does so, but this is only true if and only if cooperation with competitors is voluntarily produced so that each side must compromise. So majority rule is dysfunctional because it makes exchanges impossible. The virtue of the anglo model was that just as the private sector formed a market for the production of goods and services, the public sector formed a market for the production of commons. And they did that by exchanges between the houses: monarchy, nobility, middle class, and clergy. So upon enfranchising women, we did not create a separate house for them and their ‘special interests’ but because of their less diverse interests, they concentrated their forces with the minority of ‘cheating’ males, and incrementally destroyed western civilization. We can quite easily repair this process. But it is going to be done at the point of a gun, not by the moral judgement of women and their allies in the Cathedral complex. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Having a ‘Systematizing’ mind (which is a nice sounding term for an autistic and

    Having a ‘Systematizing’ mind (which is a nice sounding term for an autistic and compulsive need for order in everything whether useful or not) mostly helps you find similar patterns in what were to most people are disconnected subjects.

    You can however, take this method too far, as most philosophers have, by trying to carry an analogy like a hammer that is looking for nails. And so I am very cautious about doing that.

    But fortunately or unfortunately, once you start to see how simple human behavior is, and how obfuscatory most of our language is – by conflating experience, action, observation and intention – it becomes clear that like most things man has discovered, the fundamental principles are quite simple.

    Man acquires. Man cooperates because acquisition is dramatically superior when we cooperate. Man cheats. Because it improves his acquisition costs if he gets away with it. Man invests heavily in suppression of cheating in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate at every opportunity.

    Males evolved so that a group of brothers collected women and kept away competing males. Females evolved to keep the peace and to control alphas wherever possible – especially once men developed weapons such that betas could be rallied to suppress alphas.

    There are three ways of coercion and man specializes in them. As such we don’t develop a single class hierarchy, but we develop three, and whatever group is more useful at the moment leads while the others compete for leadership – the first time in history that the martial class has been out of power is the USA between 1963 and the present. Which hasn’t been very good for the west.

    Man justifies his negotiating position and ‘feels’ he speaks morally and justly when he does so, but this is only true if and only if cooperation with competitors is voluntarily produced so that each side must compromise.

    So majority rule is dysfunctional because it makes exchanges impossible. The virtue of the anglo model was that just as the private sector formed a market for the production of goods and services, the public sector formed a market for the production of commons. And they did that by exchanges between the houses: monarchy, nobility, middle class, and clergy.

    So upon enfranchising women, we did not create a separate house for them and their ‘special interests’ but because of their less diverse interests, they concentrated their forces with the minority of ‘cheating’ males, and incrementally destroyed western civilization.

    We can quite easily repair this process. But it is going to be done at the point of a gun, not by the moral judgement of women and their allies in the Cathedral complex.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-04 13:48:00 UTC

  • ON THE FUTURE OF RELIGION BY HARARI THOUGHTS: 1) Any entity with which we can co

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_DbloTHOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF RELIGION BY HARARI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_Dblo

    THOUGHTS:

    1) Any entity with which we can cooperate need only observe the principle of non-imposition of costs either directly or through externality, which we institutionalize as property rights. Whether mechanical or biological, natural life or artificial life, cooperation is dependent upon this single principle.

    2) It is certainly true that by analogy the human organism consists of processes that calculate the perpetuation of the organism. that does not influence the principle of cooperation – non-imposition – whatsoever.

    3) Because both evolutionary necessity and the desire to cooperate rather then engage in murder, harm, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, enslavement, conversion, invasion, and war – provide *decidability* by the the same principle of cooperation: the non-imposition of cost.

    4) since we compete and there is no evidence that we will not, then any technological innovation will merely increase the rate of our competition with one another for status, and continue to increase our differences.

    5) The reason liberalism, consumerism, and technological innovation have such influence over our lives is our wealth generated under consumer capitalism. But in a world where few of us are productive, most of us live in dependence, and a minority (Pareto’s 20%) produce and organize production, that means a great number of people must seek status (mating) by means of non-productive signaling. The uncomfortable option of large numbers of young men is one the world has encountered many times in the past, and is the source of all revolutions.

    6) There is very little reason to develop a computer that thinks like us, because we are in a constant battle between pre-property individuals who acquire regardless of cost to others, and cooperating members of a group who do not. And the need to preserve ‘cheaters’ in order to preserve both the moral intuition to cooperate and the moral intuition to punish cheaters. If we can empathize with cheaters we can then cheat. To identify cheaters we must be able to empathize with them. If we were to build a machine with the same method of thinking of man, then it would also, like HAL’s lie, know how to cheat. For this reason the most valuable computers are those that think only with acquisition, property, and voluntary exchange, and like title registries, cannot violate property.

    7) As far as we know, Patriarchy arose with property, when the value of male’s productivity allowed him to control female’s sex affection and reproduction . Females evolved as the property of bands of related males who preyed upon competing males to obtain their females, just as males humans prey(ed) upon competing male’s sheep, goat, cattle, and land. Females evolved gossip to rally and shame males into constraining alphas.

    8) Socialism and Communism are based upon PSEUDOSCIENCE, not rationality. Rationality is weaker than myth over multiple generations. All major religions are supported by rational argument. It is dependent upon superstitious mythology not pseudoscience. Religions function as a means of limiting the government (nobility), and limiting men and women in the society. (Harari misrepresents natural law for what I assume are cultural reasons of interpretation.) The basis of western civilization is natural law of necessity for peaceful cooperation. That is quite different from dependent upon natural order. Laws of Nature(pseudoscience) are different from Natural Law(science), just as Rule by Law(command) is different from Rule of Law(limits on lawmaking). These are precise and technical terms that are abused in the public discourse.

    9) Matriarchal societies constrain inheritance of property to the female line, but as far as we (I) know, they are always ruled by headmen.

    10) Harari tried but he carries his cultural bias by demonstrating asymmetric criticism and praise. But we all do and none of us can escape it. I am as biased by my anglo aristocratic heritage as Kant and Heidegger are by theirs, and Marx and Harari are by theirs. This is due in no small part to the challenge of eliminating dependence for meaning and decidability upon introspective judgement. Harari is advocating universalism of cosmopolitanism (the Jewish enlightenment) just as surely as every single German advocates the German enlightenment, americans advocate Jeffersonian Contractualism. And there are some of us trying desperately trying to transcend the failures of the anglo, french, german, and ashkenazi enlightenments – all of which are simply restatements of their local group evolutionary strategy in universalist terms, by merely secular restatement their mythos. Hence my emphasis on the only universal rule: not how can we cooperate best, but why should we cooperate at all, if predation is preferable? The fist question of ethics is “Why don’t I kill you and take your territory, women and things?” All other positions are deceptive attempts to reason by fraud. And that is just how it is. And that is what separates the west from the rest: we invented ‘truth’ by which we mean ‘scientific objective truth’, testimony regardless of how we feel about it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-01 06:12:00 UTC

  • +ian drake Science is, for ancient reasons, artificially separated from philosop

    +ian drake

    Science is, for ancient reasons, artificially separated from philosophy because while law and morality require justificationary reasoning, truth requires criticism; and survival from criticism leaves us with truth candidates. Science has evolved a methodology for cleansing error, imaginary relations, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our thoughts and words. Scientists are not calculators, but if they are indeed engaging in truth (science) then they must at some point make objective propositions.

    MY criticism of Lakoff, Chomsky and their ilk, is that they are practicing a long standing tradition of the Cosmopolitan enlightenment, which is to state a half truth in order to perpetuate a lie by means of suggestion. In the case of these immoral men, pseudoscience is the vehicle for their half truth. Because only pseudoscience can convey a half truth with the pretense of science.

    Of the various tests we subject our theories to, one is parsimony and its inverse: “full accounting”: weighing all consequences, not selecting consequences in a ‘ben franklin’ close (intentional selection bias, in order to create suggestion that overwhelms reason by appealing to intuition.)

    So when one practices the discipline of science, avoids parsimony, and avoids full accounting, one is not engaging in science but pseudoscience for the purpose of using suggestion to perpetuate a deception.

    The Cosmopolitans have a long history of half truths via pseudoscience: marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises, and the frankfurt school. And their technique was adopted by the neo-puritans and feminists as socialism, keynesian economics, postmodernism, and political correctness.

    It has only been since about 2000 that science has begun to overthrow the deceits of these men. And I am quite confident that they will be remembered in history as what they demonstrate they are: pseudoscientists and propagandists with almost entirely political objectives.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 07:35:00 UTC

  • A MUSLIM DEVOTEE’S ARGUMENT (Whats funny is that as I write this i’m berating an

    http://www.amazon.com/Omar-Khayyam-Poet-Rebel-Astronomer/dp/0750947152/EXPLAINING A MUSLIM DEVOTEE’S ARGUMENT

    (Whats funny is that as I write this i’m berating an ignorant american standing in front of me for a similar error. irony is everywhere.)

    I’m going to be generous and suggest the reviewer does not understand what he speaks.

    In the western tradition we have three languages: (a) the anglo, roman and greek empirical and historical, (b) the german and french ‘continental’ and rational, and the (c) Catholic Theological under Natural Law.

    The Islamic tradition has not gone through either the continental or empirical revolutions, and remains an inspirational and mythical construction. Inspiration and myth are indeed a means of communicating ideas. The continental tries to bridge between the inspirational and authoritarian methods of the theological, and the factual and empirical methods of the empirical.

    MANY of the same ideas can be COMMUNICATED and TAUGHT by inspirational/mythological, continental/rational and analytic/scientific means of communication. But it is much harder to error, bias, wish, and deceive in the analytic tradition than in the rational and mythological.

    So just as the young need myth and virtue ethics, the mature need history and deontological(rule) ethics, and the wise need science and teleological (outcome) ethics, civilizations require virtues for the ignorant and laboring class, rules for the educated and managerial class, and science for brilliant and leadership classes.

    Because the virtuous man, the educated manager, and the brilliant leader influence different numbers of people. The man himself, the manager of men, and the leader of men, require greater precision in their knowledge because they must distill information from larger numbers of people, and distribute instruction to larger numbers of people.

    The author of this fine book is speaking in the empirical language of professors, scholars, and leaders of educated men. He is not speaking in the virtues of laborers. Islam is a language of ignorant men because islam has not evolved into a technological society. Christianity was the language of ignorant men before they evolved into a technological society.

    Virtues can be expressed in many languages: that which inspires, that which managers require, and that which leaders require. But the truth required of leaders cannot be expressed by mere inspiration.

    Islam like christianity, like judaism, like zoroastrianism that Muhammed immitated, is a language for the leadership and management ignorant people herding sheep and cattle.

    It worked. But it is not ‘true’ any more than icarus and daedalus are true. They merely teach broad general rules for life. They do not tell us how to transform the universe into a garden of eden.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 08:21:00 UTC