Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I haven’t noticed any decline in cognitive ability with age, just the opposite:

    I haven’t noticed any decline in cognitive ability with age, just the opposite: there is a sort of critical mass you can achieve where all new learning is easier.

    I do notice two things: languages used to be easy, and I used to retain local maps more easily.

    But it seems more that I have to focus on language and spatial memory.

    So I am not sure it’s a loss of function rather than the relative dominance of internal thought relative to new external stimuli.

    What would methuselah think like? Almost all experience would be noise.

    For we infovores, so we grow irritable with age if we are no longer able to find new experiences via information?

    I know that I am like a drug addict and become agitated if I cannot find new information to consume.

    How does it transform our thinking now that information access cost is near zero?

    Is scanning really inferior to reading? Is Nick Carr right or wrong?

    Why is internal reasoning more effective than external searching if pattern recognition so readily defeats reason?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 12:39:00 UTC

  • KANT’S MONOPOLISM VS PROPERTARIANISM MARKET-“ISM” Kant wasn’t quite right. Prope

    KANT’S MONOPOLISM VS PROPERTARIANISM MARKET-“ISM”

    Kant wasn’t quite right. Propertarianism explains why. It’s not that we fail to perceive the world accurately. We do. In fact, we perceive all of it that we can act upon – which makes evolutionary sense really. Instead, it’s that we VALUE our perceptions differently. As a monotheist and monopolist, Kant did not understand the division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, nor did he understand it’s cause and value. He did not (as 20th century philosophers did not) understand the moral blindness caused by this difference in values. Nor the difference in moral biases as reproductive strategy. Nor did he understand that just as in the market, the information from voluntary exchanges accumulates in prices, that through cooperation across the moral spectrum we gain information necessary for the choice of construction and maintenance of commons. I despise Kant for giving the world a replacement for biblical authority. But thankfully we are no longer bound by the fallacies of monotheism, christianity, monopoly government, nor economic ignorance. And we can now construct governments as a market for commons suitable for complexity and scale beyond our perception, rather than as a monopoly producer of commons limited by our perceptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-09 05:45:00 UTC

  • ON THE ISLAND PEOPLE OF BRITAN (saying it like a propertarian) —“The story sta

    ON THE ISLAND PEOPLE OF BRITAN

    (saying it like a propertarian)

    —“The story starts with geography. Britain is a relatively small island situated off a large but historically divided continent. It is narrow, with navigable rivers, and it is blessed with natural resources and fertile land.

    This combination of factors has various implications for the country’s development. Its island status and narrow dimensions mean that the coast is always nearby, making a large proportion of the population maritime; add an ample supply of wood, and conditions are ripe for the construction of a strong navy.

    The fertile soil allows for a stable population, while resources such as coal, metals and sheep (for wool), along with navigable rivers, facilitate strong international trade. From the United Kingdom’s perspective, the divisions in the Continent both reduced its threats — limiting Continental powers’ ability to build a navy strong enough to invade — and increased its opportunities, as British traders found ways to insert themselves between countries that were often at war.

    Thus, once the island’s basic needs of safety and nourishment were satisfied, Britain’s geography enabled it to become a maritime trading power.”—

    George Friedman, Stratfor

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-08 08:26:00 UTC

  • INSIGHT INTO THE DAMAGE OF LEVANTINE MONOTHEISM AND PSYCHOLOGY UPON THE FRAMEWOR

    http://bit.ly/1K1OwnHAN INSIGHT INTO THE DAMAGE OF LEVANTINE MONOTHEISM AND PSYCHOLOGY UPON THE FRAMEWORK OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    Just an insight into one of the many ways authoritarian cosmopolitan pseudoscience of psychology has damaged our world view: introversion is the result of deep thinking, and ‘neuroticism’ (worry) is the result of deep thinking. Both of which are criticized rather than rewarded. Everyone else is just ‘noise’ without the deep thinkers.

    My work on Propertarianism taught me to see us as locally specialized ants, and that there is no such thing as an ideal individual other than one who does so honestly and knowingly.

    Our observable personalities advocate for acquisition on behalf of our genes. Because of our different reproductive costs, very desirable males, very desirable females, and every gradation in between, is merely negotiating using his or her necessary strategy. What makes us ‘crazy’ is when we construct lies.

    MONOTHEISM did this damage via ‘one-ness’. That’s how damaging it is. It’s freaking tragic. Polytheism did not do this to us.

    This is a profound restatement of the nature of man.

    We are expensive creatures. We must act to acquire ‘property’ – that which we inventory for our own use and consumption. Cooperation is so disproportionately rewarding a means of acquisition we must bias in favor of cooperation to acquire. But cooperation invites parasitism. So we must act to punish violations of cooperation. And cooperation is always an act of experiment: trial and error. So we must preserve non-cooperation in our genes in order to ensure that unlike lemmings, we break off when cooperation is no longer in our interests.

    This is man. Everything else is accumulated lie. Most of it from babylonian and levantine deceit. Meanwhile in every epoch europeans seek to overturn this authoritarian deceit and return to our pagan egalitarian origins.

    Propertarianism tells us how.

    (a) we are all different and therefore need our own ‘gods’ for use in our own virtue ethics.

    (b) Monotheism is more damaging because of ‘one-ness’ (and equality) whereas polytheism (correctly) preserves differences (and hierarchy).

    (c) Perfect rulers are infallible and demand we obey(positivism), and imperfect rules are not always working in our interests and demand only we do not irritate them (falsificationism).

    Freudian Psychology further expanded one-ness and servitude by demanding conformity to a personality type that could be forcibly indoctrinated through peer pressure, guilt and shaming (and it worked), whereas polytheistic reasoning, and darwinian reasoning, and scientific analysis tell us that we each fulfill niche’s that need exploiting.

    Monotheism, 20th century Democracy, and Freudian psychology,all perpetuate a catastrophic fallacy of man. But why was this fallacy developed? Well, in Judaism it was developed for the same reason monotheism was developed between the Iranians and the Indians, who were originally the same people: to put them into conflict so that the Iranians could be controlled (by lying). Just as the jews needed a reason to unite different primitive tribes (by lying). Whereas in the west we did not encounter this problem since rule was achieved by arms, not deceit. It was only once Rome was too weak to enforce rule by arms that Justinian closed the schools and imposed christianity on the west. The value of christianity is in that it was ‘germanicized’ and that the central proposition: extension of kin love to non-kin was useful in uniting Europe under christian kings sanctioned by the church.

    This criticism of ‘monopoly’ and ‘monotheism’ and ‘one-ness’ and ‘equality’ is an application of the propertarian principle of the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy, between the consumptive (feminine) productive (libertarian), and accumulative (conservative) biases, wherein the only means by which we can make use of all available perception, cognition, and knowledge in the spectrum, is to conduct voluntary exchanges between the classes in that division of perception, cognition, and knowledge, just as the only means by which we can make use of the knowledge in the market is by voluntary exchange, money, prices, and contract.

    This a profound reformulation of the enlightenment vision of man, and the necessary form of government that assists him in production, reproduction, and genetic persistence

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Testimonialism, Propertarianism, New Classical liberalism.

    The Propertarian Institute , Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-08 05:27:00 UTC

  • I Am Trying To Repair The Enlightenment

    [C]OMPARISONS:
    1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
    vs European Universalist Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.

    2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)
    vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).

    3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism
    vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.

    METHODS:
    1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).
    2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).
    3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).
    3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)

    All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).

    The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.

    Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)

    That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.

    So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.

    That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.

    Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • I Am Trying To Repair The Enlightenment

    [C]OMPARISONS:
    1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism
    vs European Universalist Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.

    2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)
    vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).

    3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism
    vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.

    METHODS:
    1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).
    2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).
    3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).
    3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)

    All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).

    The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.

    Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)

    That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.

    So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.

    That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.

    Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • I AM TRYING TO REPAIR THE ENLIGHTENMENT COMPARISONS: 1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pse

    I AM TRYING TO REPAIR THE ENLIGHTENMENT

    COMPARISONS:

    1) Ashkenazi Separatist Pseudoscientific (belief) Libertinism

    vs European Universalists Empirical (Legal) Libertarianism.

    2) Ashkenazi Neo Conservatism (Make the world safe for separatists)

    vs Anglo Burkeian Conservatism ( Parent the world into prosperity).

    3) Ashkenazi (Pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Communism

    vs Anglo-German (pseudo-scientific/Pseudo-moral) Secular Humanism.

    METHODS:

    1) Anglo American (critical) Empirical (Law).

    2) German (justificationary) Rationalism (Philosophy).

    3) French (subjectivist) Moralism (literature).

    3) Ashkenazi (overloading) pseudo-moralism, pseudo-scientism, pseudo-rationalism (Pseudoscience)

    All cultures tried to universalize their sectarian ideologies as rational and scientific platforms. Yet these different group evolutionary strategies all failed the test of universalism. The anglos were right in method (science) and wrong in vision of man (aristocracy of everyone). The germans were wrong in method (kantian rationalism) and right in vision of man (paternal hierarchy).

    The Ashkenazis were at best hermeneutic, and at worst deceitful (separatism without paying costs of commons) and pragmatic by creating a new ‘religion’ – a new means of suggestion by loading,framing and overloading; thereby taking advantage of western high trust and pathological altruism.

    Through this rather broader lens, we see that all the enlightenments failed. (I don’t address the french because no one takes them seriously). We see that the last century was plagued by lies, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and justification, and as Hayek warned us, was a century of mysticism (which was the best word he could come up with at the time.)

    That is why I am aggressively anti-ancap: because I see it as another great lie that has been propagandized upon my people, and has misdirected their energies and aspirations away from the only possible source of liberty: the prohibition on parasitism, the common law, universal standing, every man a sheriff, and universal militia. There is no state and no ruler if we rule by law.

    So where the person looking at leaves sees minor errors in the ancap-libertines, and where the person looking at trees sees a set of competing ideologies, I look at the forest and see group evolutionary strategies covering a spectrum from anglo empirical and legal ‘truth’, to german justification (kant and the german idealists), to french pretense of reason(Rousseau), to ashkenazi systemic deception: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt-School, Rothbard. The second great deception (authoritarian pseudoscience) duplicating what was done to rome by abraham, jesus, peter and paul: the first great deception: authoritarian monotheism.

    That explains why I am hostile to well intentioned fools.

    Because they’re part of the problem: useful idiots of the libertine rather than communist and neo-conservative types.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-03 08:04:00 UTC

  • Privatization is Not an Intrinsic Good

    [W]ell, the Nobility in western Europe privatized everything and in doing so virtually enslaved Western Europeans. They were civilized by the church, each other and competition for commerce, and eventually displaced, or as in the case of France – murdered wholesale. The rest of Europe surrendered rather than face the same fate. The “Nobles” in eastern Europe privatized everything and in doing so enslaved the eastern europeans. They and their ‘administrators’ were either executed or run out of Europe. The Russian Boyars and Oligarchs privatized everything, and enslaved Russians. They were either massacred (frequently) or imprisoned for it. Now they have been exterminated. Although Putin’s privatization of the commons seems to be holding up relatively well – but it will likely end in similar fashion. How many Arab tribes have privatized everything, yet have been recently tortured and dismembered? PRIVATIZATION Privatization is not an intrinsic good. Privatization is only valuable if it both decreases costs and improves services through competition. Privatization is not so much a good, as much as a monopoly bureaucracy is a bad. That does not mean that common assets managed by competing contractors, in the care of a monarchy is not better than both. (it is). RULE OF LAW Privatization is a distraction from the only source of liberty: rule of law, universal standing, under the common law, under the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against the demonstrated property of any other. This scope of law eliminates all possibility of extra-legal retaliation, and eliminates all demand for the state for the discretionary choice of fault, and all demand for the state as a prohibitor of retaliation for those impositions that humans universally retaliate against. COMMONS Commons are the most effective means of competing against other groups. The west progressed faster in both the ancient and modern periods when they produced the most competitive commons. Property rights and rule of law, the jury process, truth telling and honesty are all normative commons that are exceptionally expensive to construct. Commons prevent rent seeking by private agents. That’s what define’s a private (corporate) or public (civic) commons: something you can’t force costs upon, yet from which all of us gain “fructus” (fruits. Benefits) THE ‘PRESTIGE’: VERBAL SLIGHT OF HAND OF MORAL ‘MAGICIANS’ Conversely, privatization is just another excuse to recreate the oligarchical parasitism of Russia and eastern Europe. We have had enough deceit for one century. The Cosmopolitans were a failure in all their forms: Socialists, Rothbardians, Freshwater economists, and Neocons. The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which was practiced between european aristocracy: rule of law, universal standing, and property-en-toto. While the effort to create an aristocracy of everyone failed, that does not mean that we cannot create an aristocratic rule of law that everyone must adhere to. And why not? The only reason to practice the ethics of libertines (Block and Rothbard) are to license parasitism, and prohibit retaliation. There is no noble ambition here. It is to restore the parasitism of eastern Europe. So, leave the Russians and The Eastern Europeans to their own history. It continues to be a tragedy they struggle to exit from. Liberty is the product of the aristocratic militia: the organized application of violence to institute rule of law such that all parasitism is prohibited, thereby forcing all humans into the market for the productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange of goods and services free of external imposition of costs. Rule of law: Universal constraint, universal standing, strict construction, total prohibition on parasitism, expressed as rights to property en toto, and ‘every man a sheriff’ to enforce it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Privatization is Not an Intrinsic Good

    [W]ell, the Nobility in western Europe privatized everything and in doing so virtually enslaved Western Europeans. They were civilized by the church, each other and competition for commerce, and eventually displaced, or as in the case of France – murdered wholesale. The rest of Europe surrendered rather than face the same fate. The “Nobles” in eastern Europe privatized everything and in doing so enslaved the eastern europeans. They and their ‘administrators’ were either executed or run out of Europe. The Russian Boyars and Oligarchs privatized everything, and enslaved Russians. They were either massacred (frequently) or imprisoned for it. Now they have been exterminated. Although Putin’s privatization of the commons seems to be holding up relatively well – but it will likely end in similar fashion. How many Arab tribes have privatized everything, yet have been recently tortured and dismembered? PRIVATIZATION Privatization is not an intrinsic good. Privatization is only valuable if it both decreases costs and improves services through competition. Privatization is not so much a good, as much as a monopoly bureaucracy is a bad. That does not mean that common assets managed by competing contractors, in the care of a monarchy is not better than both. (it is). RULE OF LAW Privatization is a distraction from the only source of liberty: rule of law, universal standing, under the common law, under the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against the demonstrated property of any other. This scope of law eliminates all possibility of extra-legal retaliation, and eliminates all demand for the state for the discretionary choice of fault, and all demand for the state as a prohibitor of retaliation for those impositions that humans universally retaliate against. COMMONS Commons are the most effective means of competing against other groups. The west progressed faster in both the ancient and modern periods when they produced the most competitive commons. Property rights and rule of law, the jury process, truth telling and honesty are all normative commons that are exceptionally expensive to construct. Commons prevent rent seeking by private agents. That’s what define’s a private (corporate) or public (civic) commons: something you can’t force costs upon, yet from which all of us gain “fructus” (fruits. Benefits) THE ‘PRESTIGE’: VERBAL SLIGHT OF HAND OF MORAL ‘MAGICIANS’ Conversely, privatization is just another excuse to recreate the oligarchical parasitism of Russia and eastern Europe. We have had enough deceit for one century. The Cosmopolitans were a failure in all their forms: Socialists, Rothbardians, Freshwater economists, and Neocons. The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which was practiced between european aristocracy: rule of law, universal standing, and property-en-toto. While the effort to create an aristocracy of everyone failed, that does not mean that we cannot create an aristocratic rule of law that everyone must adhere to. And why not? The only reason to practice the ethics of libertines (Block and Rothbard) are to license parasitism, and prohibit retaliation. There is no noble ambition here. It is to restore the parasitism of eastern Europe. So, leave the Russians and The Eastern Europeans to their own history. It continues to be a tragedy they struggle to exit from. Liberty is the product of the aristocratic militia: the organized application of violence to institute rule of law such that all parasitism is prohibited, thereby forcing all humans into the market for the productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange of goods and services free of external imposition of costs. Rule of law: Universal constraint, universal standing, strict construction, total prohibition on parasitism, expressed as rights to property en toto, and ‘every man a sheriff’ to enforce it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.