Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • TRUTHFUL VS MEANINGFUL AND THE SOLUTION TO POLITICS OF THE WEST Plenty of meanin

    TRUTHFUL VS MEANINGFUL AND THE SOLUTION TO POLITICS OF THE WEST

    Plenty of meaningfully true things can be said “Untruthfully”. (Unscientifically.)

    But that’s not the point.

    It’s that very few untrue things can be said “Truthfully”. ( By Truthfully, I mean, scientifically, and including Propertarianism’s operationalism and morality).

    Philosophers, Scholars, intellectuals, pundits, journalists, reporters, and the common man, all emphasize the truth content of their utterances, but not the means by which they make those utterances.

    Science the language of truthful speech. Or rather, the language of truthful speech is science.

    And that is because truthfulness requires we warranty our communications against imagination, error, bias and deceit.

    Science evolves our knowledge because of truthfulness.

    And while truth content may be found in many places, the problem the listener has, is that it is costly and error prone to separate potential truth content, from imagination, error, bias and deception.

    And worse, individuals load, frame, and overload us to bypass our ability to defend against imagination, error, bias and deception.

    So we must give individuals a counter-incentive, against imagination, error, bias, and deception, to speak truthfully – by raising the cost of speaking untruthfully.

    By punishing untruthful speech. Not untrue speech but untruthful speech.

    So why can’t law, government, politics and public speech evolve because of truthfulness as well?

    It can.

    *The informational commons*

    Distribute shares in the informational commons. Privatize everything. Create universal standing.

    Propertarianism.

    The attack on the west has been conducted by sophisticated lying: repetition, pseudoscience, rationalism, and postmodernism, the same way it was conducted by sophisticated lying the first time: christianity.

    Why should we tolerate people who lie? Why do we forgo violence, and cooperate, if we are to be lied to? Isn’t it irrational to cooperate with someone unless they are both non-violent, non-theiving, non-conspiratorial and truthful?

    We don’t need to tolerate liars, or cooperate with liars. And it’s harmful – its a violation of the rational incentives to cooperate, and by cooperating abandoning violence.

    We can abandon cooperation for all those who speak untruthfully, and return to violence.

    If someone speaks untruthfully, they abandon all implicit and explicit agreements to cooperate. And having broken that contract, you, we – all of us – are no longer bound to refrain from violence.

    So, unbound from our agreement to refrain from violence, let us use our wealth of violence.

    Speak truthfully or die.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-09 01:09:00 UTC

  • FWIW: My positions Regarding Russia are : (a) That the Russian criticism of west

    FWIW: My positions Regarding Russia are :

    (a) That the Russian criticism of western socialism, neo-puritanism, progressivism, and libertarianism, just like Western conservative criticisms, and the prediction of the outcome by both Russians and western Conservatives – are correct.

    (b) The world is not a better place with a bigger Russian empire moving west, but it is a better place moving south and east.

    (c) Russians are demonstrably not capable of self government, nor of government of others because of their low trust society. They retain their Mongolian and Tatar ethics and morality.

    (d) Their low trust society, persistent in the modern world, is a function of lack of property rights, and lack of rule of law, which creates rule by corruption.

    (e) Without a martial aristocracy, a militia, and a middle class that depends upon commerce, or the equivalent class produced by a church that needs the common law to defend itself from the state, it is impossible to develop a judiciary that can impose rule of law.

    (f) The west however retains rule of law, and must retain rule of law, to maintain our competitive advantage against lower trust, more aggressive socieites.. And that we do not need to give up trust and rule of law in order to purge anglo neo-puritanism, anglo puritanism, jewish socialism, and jewish libertinism, from the west – and restore german aristocratic stoicism.

    That is a pretty straightforward argument.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 12:22:00 UTC

  • GOING OUR OWN WAY: THE WAY OF WESTERN MAN: TRUTH AND COMMONS. NATIONALISM, TRADI

    GOING OUR OWN WAY: THE WAY OF WESTERN MAN: TRUTH AND COMMONS.

    NATIONALISM, TRADITIONALISM are one thing. RULE OF LAW is another, and TRUTH TELLING is yet another. Putin wants to expand Nationalism and Traditionalism using propaganda because they produce power, but he does not want Rule of law, or Truth Telling, because they constraint, limit, and in most cases, eliminate power.

    Power is necessary in Russia, because like China – who must keep oppressing it’s conquered territories – Russia is a military empire. That’s because Russians have no ‘Cutlure’. There is nothing at all ethnically or culturally “Rus” in Russia. Russia is not of the clan Rus (Scandinavian) but of Muscovites, who spend long periods under despotic Mongolian rule, looked to the south to the byzantines and arabs for inspiration, and whose invading peoples brought with them Asiatic concepts of the evil in man – not greek concepts of man’s perfection and potential to sit among the gods. Russia (Muscovia) is a Mongolian and Tatar State steeped in Steppe culture that blends orthodox christianity and islamic Familialism, with Chinese deception.

    With some work Peter the Great tried to move the Russian empire into Europa, and without Germany’s aggression at England’s seduction, might have completed the transition. But the largely Jewish postwar uprising that we call the Russian revolution, returned Russia to despotism, with Asiatic Lenin and Stalin joining Asian Mao as the greatest murderers in human history.

    Thanks to the church, the Russian concept of interpersonal ethical action, is identical to the western. But the Russian concept of moral, cannot even IMAGINE the western man’s moral intuitions, nor his faith in one’s fellow man. It is unimaginable to a Russian that Western man acts primarily out of moral habit – moral tradition, and altruistic punishment[1] of those who do not observe it. Primarily because we have been both wealthy enough to afford to act morally, and because we were successfully able to use law and the church to enforce morality by punishment by law, by ostracization by the church, and by starvation by deprivation of access to land necessary for sustenance and survival.

    The Russian does not pay for commons. He does not pay to punish. He does not pay to reward. He does nothing that is not in his direct interest. And he expects all others to do the same. He cannot imagine a world where we take as little as possible to one another and contribute as much to the commons as we can – unknowingly.

    This is why authoritarian governments are necessary: commons are not voluntarily constructed, because all fear that any such contributions will be privatized by individuals, or corruption by the state. It is challenging enough to create a civic order such that we produce ethical man. But it is extremely expensive to create moral man – the man who neither externalizes costs into the commons, nor avoids paying for the commons, and instead, constantly contributes to the commons.

    Western man is moral man taken to the logical extreme. This is why motivating the western man to neoconservative war is easy – by invoking and appealing to our instinct of altruistic punishment . Motivating the Russian to war, requires creating the feeling that he is under threat. He does not fight for moral reasons. he fights to steal, or to prevent stealing, but he does not fight for the common good.

    This is the opposite of western man. Western man produces commons. It is our competitive advantage: truth telling, monuments, parks, civic architecture, civic organizations, arts, chivalry, the jury, and consensual government are commons unique to western man.

    Yes, we are full of own folly – we still feel, as true Burkeian evangelism, that we must save the world from ignorance, mysticism, poverty, familialism, hierarchy and tyranny. And we cannot grasp, that like our light skin, hair, and eyes, our moral intuitions are recessive, and preserved only through biological and cultural selection and inbreeding.

    Current emerging evidence suggests it is in no small part genetic. And that it emerged somewhere in the north of the North Sea – Baltic Region. That it emerged less than 20k years ago. And that it is a recessive trait, like intelligence, only sustained, and protected from regression against them mean by inbreeding.

    Russians cannot imagine that western man operates by altruistic punishment – of paying high personal cost to build what he sees as the voluntary civic order. Even if we are unaware that our genetics and culture are a unique, fragile and vulnerable outlier possible only in and around the north sea, and that not only can the reset of the world NOT make use of our model, but that it is antithetical to them to conceive of a world in which we all contribute to the commons, rather than seek to contribute as little as possible and take as much as we can.

    Russia(Muscovia)[2] and the West can both have Nationalism (advancing the interests of the extended family and tribe), and we can both have Traditionalism (the family as the central unit of society), but unless we wish to descend into Russo-Jewish brutality and Asiatic deception, we in the west must retain what separates us from the rest: truth telling, rule of law, the jury, and the civic society.

    We already have had enough of Russo-jewish influence for one century in this world, and the Russian-sponsored Frankfurt school’s damage to our society through pseudoscientific propaganda remains with us like an intellectual cancer, destroying our people and our culture.

    Love your people first. Defend the west from what the Russo-Jewish empire have done to us already with Marxism, Communism, socialist, postmodernism, progressivism. Russia is not a model.

    Instead, raise arms, steel yourself for heady violence, and get into the streets, and start a revolution – for you and yours. Defend the west from the tyranny of the east. WE have done it for almost 5000 years, and now is not the time to surrender.

    The best revolution is the one with the greatest volume of heady murder. A lot of killing is needed. A lot of killing must be done. And if we kill enough of them, then we will restore the west.

    Deeds not words.

    Cry havoc.

    Curt Doolittle

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    [1] “Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. “

    [2] The only “Rus” are in Ukraine. Kiev was the founding city of the Rus (Scandinavian) peoples who created it as a trading post – largely for slave trading – with byzantium. The Mongols destroyed it and teh Muscovites tried to gain their narrative history by adopting the Rus history of Kiev as their own. This is Russia’s problem. They have no history to be proud of. No culture to be proud of. No civic mythos, and no common people to rally. They are a set of conquered peoples, despotic peoples ruled by despots in Moscow. The head of the Muscovite empire, won by brutality, held by brutality, and now expanding through postmodern lies and brutality.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-04 07:05:00 UTC

  • The Purpose of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ.

    [T]he data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books – but the right books at your level of experience.

    Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity.

    However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.

    So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.

    The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas. 

    But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.

    LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:
     – Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions  
     – Moral arguments <- normative arguments
     – Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)
     – Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)
     – Scientific (Empirical) Arguments <- specialists in causal relations
     – Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations
     – Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments
     – Constructivist Explanations <- description of reality

    It gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.

    If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.

    SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?

    You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.

    But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.

    At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.

    Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev

  • The Purpose of Being Well Read No Matter What Your IQ.

    [T]he data is pretty good you know. You don’t have to be a genius. You just have to be well read. Being well read means reading the right books, not just any books – but the right books at your level of experience.

    Now, the more causally accurate the argument, the less allegorical and more operationally descriptive it is. The more operationally descriptive it is, the further it is from experience. The further it is from experience the greater the detail needed to construct an analogy to experience. This is why simple narratives are easier to comprehend. They reduce complexity.

    However, by reducing complexity, they obscure causality.

    So that’s a hard way of stating that for about every 15 points of IQ we have entire literatures saying similar things at higher and lower orders of precision, and therefore greater and lesser degrees of content, that have higher correspondence with reality, or higher correspondence with our levels of perception and cognition.

    The more literate you become, the more you grasp that there are a limited number of fundamental ideas. That those fundamental ideas are counter-intuitive. That evolution did not provide us with intrinsic means of grasping or using those fundamental ideas. 

    But that to cooperate in large numbers and to understand the structure of ourselves, our actions, and the universe in which we act, we must somehow master them. Either at high operational correspondence that few of us can master, or at low operational correspondence but high intuitive correspondence that all of us can master.

    LAYERS OF INCREASING COMPLEXITY:
     – Intuitive expressions <- pre rational reactions  
     – Moral arguments <- normative arguments
     – Allegorical Arguments <- abstract arguments (most people)
     – Historical Arguments <- facts (educated people)
     – Scientific (Empirical) Arguments <- specialists in causal relations
     – Economic Arguments <- specialists in emergent relations
     – Ratio-scientific Arguments <- synthesis of specialized arguments
     – Constructivist Explanations <- description of reality

    It gets harder as you climb that ladder. Most of us can manage allegorical. But beginning with Historical arguments one enters the realm of empirical rather than intuitive, and that requires a lot more knowledge at each rung on the conceptual ladder.

    If you cannot explain something in constructive (operational) language you do not understand it. But if you can at least explain something, then you are at least able to determine possible courses of action.

    SO HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TO READ?

    You read what you can. You climb the ladder as far as you can. At some point you will get good at climbing the ladder. At some point you will realize that you can climb no further. For some of us, we learn how to add rungs to the ladder itself.

    But the important thing to remember is that there are a very small number of fundamental concepts, and a very small number of intuitive falsehoods that evolution cursed us with.

    At every 15 points of IQ someone is writing a book in your language. IN the level of abstraction that you can grasp.

    Read the best book you can. Try the next book up the ladder. stop when you cant climb. And the truth is, that if you want to live a full life, you do not need to add to the ladder, only to climb beyond the intuitive limits that evolution left us with. At that point you will be close enough to the truth (correspondence with reality independent of human cognitive limitations) that you are no longer hindered by your mortal coil.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev

  • WHAT ARE WE TO ACCOMPLISH? Sheldon Richmond : ———-“So, one of the signs th

    WHAT ARE WE TO ACCOMPLISH?

    Sheldon Richmond :

    ———-“So, one of the signs that we want to look out for, and one of the most important signs, happens in how we approach communication. Are we really out to reach human beings? Are we really out to build a bridge to somebody whose context may be very different from our own? Do we still remember that a lot of what we now regard as self-evident once upon a time wasn’t self-evident? Or do we walk into a conversation on the premise: I’ll give you one chance, after which you’re irredeemably evil?”———

    The problem with this ambition, like all enlightenment visions, is that the scientific evidence is increasingly persuasive that we cannot convince anyone of anything. Instead well all sentimentally feel, verbally justify, politically advocate and demonstrate by vote, our reproductive interests by gender, class, age, and tribe. All talk is just attempt at negotiation with others in the hope to find allies in order to obtain power by which to increase the possibility that we may satisfy our reproductive interests.

    Libertarianism, like conservatism, and like progressivism, assumes a monopoly political order for the provision of commons both physical, institutional, and normative: that OUR reproductive strategy (non-contribution to the commons), is best for all. When in fact, what is best for all is three different political orders: socialist, propertarian (versus libertarian), and conservative (aristocratic). And that the only moral question, is not whether one organizational model is superior to another, but instead, that regardless of which order we prefer – that the only transfer between individuals regardless of order, is voluntary, and therefore moral.

    So the question I ask of libertarians (libertines excluded) is, if we cannot persuade anyone (and we demonstrably cannot meaningfully do so, and those we do convince are predominantly frustrated classical liberals), then the entire persuasive strategy, all our talk, is mere self gratification, justification, and illusion. We give ourselves hope, no differently from a mystic promising life after death to the poor and suffering.

    Progressives rebel, conservatives rebel less so. We talk to the wind, and even the wind doesn’t listen.

    This is despite the fact that we offer the single best solution to the provision of goods and services: the market. BUT WE FAIL TO GRASP THAT THE MEANS OF PRODUCING COMMONS ACROSS HETEROGENEOUS POLITICAL ORDERS REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO CREATE SUCH A MARKET. Why? Because competition produces a virtuous cycle. Privatization of gains, and Socialization of losses in the market provide us with incentives. However, no commons can be produced if people can privatize the commons, or socialize losses into the commons. For this we require the contractual agreement NOT to privatize the commons – “permitting Usus without Fructus or Abusus”.

    The market for goods and services is an artificial construct produced by the organized application of violence to institute property rights, by prohibiting all imposition of costs upon others. The market for commons must likewise be constructed by the organized application of violence to institute property rights for shareholders, prohibiting parasitism upon the commons.

    Because otherwise people will not produce commons. That is why low trust societies have no commons, and norther european high trust societies bathe in them.

    The west’s competitive advantages came from our success in producing commons that no other culture could produced. Truth telling, trust, property rights, and liberty are the most beneficial commons that we produce by the organized application of violence. These produce economic velocity and innovative velocity. That velocity separated the west from the rest both in the classical period, and in the late medieval and enlightenment periods.

    The question is not how we create a libertarian society, but how we create a libertarian class producing our desired commons, in exchange with the socialist and aristocratic classes in producing theirs.

    If these different commons are produced by voluntary exchange then we have made use of the knowledge of the progressive short term consumptive, the libertarian middle term productive, and the conservative long term accumulative visions.

    None of us is ‘right’. It is a division of knowledge and labor.

    We understand the market. We are the smart people. It’s time we abandoned monopoly visions and started acting like it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-26 05:44:00 UTC

  • LOANING ONE’S VIOLENCE TO THE STATE (oldie but goodie) —“”To the State: If for

    LOANING ONE’S VIOLENCE TO THE STATE

    (oldie but goodie)

    —“”To the State:

    If for a moment, you forget that you are dispensing my violence on my behalf;

    and you seek to treat me not as a citizen who bestows upon you my violence, to be justly administered, but a subject who must obey rules;

    and if you believe and act as though the law not as a convenient tool for the resolution of differences between peers, but a scripture that I must obey as a subject;

    then it is not only my right, but my duty to myself and others, to take back from you my borrowed violence, and to remind you if I can, and teach you if I must, that the source of that violence you dispense is the citizenry.

    If I must remind the state, then I hope it is by this simple, gentle oratory. But if that will not suffice, I will not resort to the display of petty personal violence, nor to the disorder of rabble and protest. Because that is not the capacity of violence that I gave to the state.

    I will instead raise an army and show you what violence it is that I do restrain, so that you are once again reminded, that you are an actor on my behalf, and on behalf of my fellow citizens – and nothing more.

    And if you doubt for a moment that I can do such a thing, I will be only so happy to prove it to you, by starting in this very room, on this very day, if necessary.””—

    Cry not havoc but order. And bring forth the men of war.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-25 15:40:00 UTC

  • EXPANDING FUKUYAMA’S THEORY OF SEQUENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT. So Francis

    EXPANDING FUKUYAMA’S THEORY OF SEQUENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

    So Francis Fukuyama argues that a professional bureaucracy must form prior to enfranchisement to prevent corruption.

    This is slightly different from the thesis that the party and voting conditions determine the quality of policy. Both of which are insignificant from my perspective compared to universal standing, rule of law, and property rights.

    But I am fairly certain that Fukuyama’s theory applies to the enfranchisement of women: early enfranchisement of women will have turned out to have been as bad as democracy prior to the professionalization of the bureaucracy.

    Worse, early enfranchisement of women, EXACERBATED the problem of an unprofessional bureaucracy.

    Why?

    Because the labor movement didn’t work. They couldn’t get the working classes to adopt cosmopolitan immoralism (socialism). However, they COULD get women and minorities to adopt it.

    And then use it to populate the bureaucracy.

    I wonder if I could get the good professor to answer that one.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-25 11:18:00 UTC

  • The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumst

    The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumstances, and men do not. Men are hard-coded by about 15 or 16, even if we don’t mentally complete our maturity until 22, 32, or even 40. We just decrease in energy level from that point onward. Women are not damaged in utero, so they start out with an advantage, and mature by their early teens – at the expense of a more integrated mind, and less ability to escape its multitude of impulses. But to find happiness in acceptance in a cooperative group, women will adapt to all sorts of environments. Which is why they can survive in the workplace so much longer under perishable patterns of production (switching jobs). I am sure to women it frustrates them that the higher regions are so predominantly, if not exclusively male. But that is because we are specialists. Everything we do goes toward narrower set of ends. That is not the case for women. But conversely, for two-thirds of men, modernity is painful because it changes, and they cannot adapt as do women. Civilization is much better for women than for men. Most of us are happy with pickup trucks, guns, some food, some guys to fight, and some friends to fight other guys with. That is our natural state. 🙂 And we have to be trained out of it by the use of substitutes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 06:28:00 UTC

  • Love of Architecture: If we added the single constitutional requirement that all

    Love of Architecture: If we added the single constitutional requirement that all public buildings, all public infrastructure, must be constructed of man-portable, hand-laid materials, then we could both absorb vast amounts of low skilled labor, and return to the production of monumental artworks that last for generations. And we could escape the era of disposable panel-products constructed with machines, that insult us with their very presence. Architecture is our monument: it demonstrates that we improve the land we occupy. It marks the land as ours. It demonstrates our love for it – and for each other. Art evolved as we understand it, to decorate our architectural monuments, public demonstrating our love of man, for what man is capable of with his hands, and such art can only be constructed within arts that were themselves constructed by the hand of man. The devolution of art was both a marxist intention – to destroy our heroic aristocratic traditions, and the product of post-war panel products and industrialization of architecture: industrialization of our monuments. Industrialization of our arts. But it is easily reversible. And no man who builds a monument to his people with his hands, will tolerate insult to the his efforts, the monument, of the sentiment that he contributed to, and constructed, with is own hands. We own what we invest in. And we will not defend that which we do not own.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-18 07:36:00 UTC