Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • TRYING TO UNDERSTAND UKRAINIAN SELF PERCEPTION Ukrainians are Europeans -and- Mu

    TRYING TO UNDERSTAND UKRAINIAN SELF PERCEPTION

    Ukrainians are Europeans -and- Muscovites are Mongols.

    Ukraine is a borderland whose people want to choose to stay with Christian Europe instead of be captured by the Muscovite Mongols.

    The Muscovites adopted the “Rus” viking name as an act of self-legitimization, but in fact they are not Rus (Vikings). They are Muscovites.

    Despite modernization attempts by the nobility (St Petersburg),

    They think and act as mongols.

    80% of Ukrainians self identify as european.

    80% of Russians (Muscovites) identify as asian.

    MY POSITION

    We assume because they look like us and are tangibly christian that they are just misguided eastern europeans. But they are an amalgamation of people trapped between europe on the north, muslims in the south, asians in the east, and they have adopted whatever is useful from each competing polity.

    We had hoped, Gorbachev had hoped, that we would unite the circumpolar people: europe and russia again.

    I hoped the same.

    But russians always make the wrong decision.

    Another 10 years and russia would have civilized and owned europe.

    America would have been unwelcome and unnecessary on the continent with russian warriors to protect them, and russian resources to make use of.

    The western right could have conquered the western left and saved the west.

    But russians always make the wrong choice.

    The long term is never possible for them.

    Only the short term.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-11 08:40:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS I have always considered americans ignorant, but that igno

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS

    I have always considered americans ignorant, but that ignorance is cultural, not systemic. We are taught ‘how the world works’ from birth. Law, commerce, the environment, weather, and scientific method are systems we understand – and we look at the world as systems. Partway through my third year here, I have begun to see that it is not just a matter of language and culture, but people in this part of the world are just exposed to much less information than we are. So between exposure to much less information, less information about systems, zero awareness of commercial, legal, and political systems, they are handicapped compared to us. They are skilled in ‘small’ systems (the family and friends) but they are not schooled in american-scale systems: big complex things that work because people do what they promise. The vision the average (ignorant) american high school kid understands, (even in the lower classes) is almost inconceivable here to the average person. I know very well educated people here, and very smart people, but they think in the “Radius of Their Cultural Trust” like all of us do. And that means that they think ‘small’. They have small ambitions. Small companies. Small circles of trust. And they have small wallets because of it.

    Maybe today i’m sensitive but it really bothers me.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-10 13:30:00 UTC

  • THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMEVOLUTION: THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, AND FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMMONS.

    (profound idea)

    The only moral criteria I can identify is one of voluntary cooperation, and the only political criteria I can find across heterogeneous moral codes is voluntary cooperation , reflecting heterogeneous reproductive strategies. The more incompetent require mutual insurance, and the more competent require liberty. The more incompetent require socialism, the more competent require private property. The more incompetent require organization, the more competent construct the voluntary organization of production. Both the more competent and less incompetent require organized violence in both defense, and construction of the voluntary organization of production.

    There is no reason we cannot create a market for (a) the construction of commons, just as we have created a market for (b) the provision of goods and services, and a ‘market’ for (c)the provision of mates: marriage. But to create a market for the construction of the commons, we must give up on the monopoly of decision making that we gave up under alpha monopoly of reproduction, totalitarian monopoly of organizing agricultural production in the fertile crescent – and give up on monopoly of production of commons.

    I am quite certain that alphas could not imagine marriage and monogamy, equally certain that tyrants could not imagine the voluntary organization of production, and it is obvious that we now face the problem of the voluntary organization of commons. But whether a dramatic change in affairs is hard to imagine places little bearing upon its possibility. All that was required for marriage was the use of violence to produce reproductive choice. All that was required to create the market was the use of violence to produce productive choice. All that is required to create a market for commons is the application of violence to government, to prevent all involuntary transfers, free riding, rent seeking, privatization of gains, and socialization of losses from the organized production of commons: to transform the monopoly production of commons that we call government, to a market for the production of commons.

    Monopoly serves no purpose except involuntary transfer.

    See:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 14:35:00 UTC

  • RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION We know why incentivized leftists do what they

    RESCUING MISES FROM OSTRACIZATION

    We know why incentivized leftists do what they do now, and mises was wrong. Its status seeking, not guilt. Guilt is interestingly more powerful in the jewish construct of man where status seeking is more powerful in western heroic vision. We know that most leftists are genetically determined, and environmentally reinforced. So if one is to deduce human behavior and incentive, one must correction understand the hierarchy of those incentives and he was incorrect.

    My goal isn’t to discredit Mises, it is to eliminate postmodern deceptions and pseudosciences. And to rescue Austrian economics from the damage done, so that I can reintroduce morality into empirical economics, requires that I demonstrate how and why mises was mistaken. The problem is that mises, like many cosmopolitans, argued pseudoscientifically. I understand now why this was done by both germans and jews of their era. But the net is that it is pseudoscientific and must be corrected or be thrown out along with every other pseudoscience. To correct it requires only that correction I have made: mises was mistaken. He had discovered operationalism (intuitionism) in economics as a test of existential possibility. But it is beyond question at this point that economic phenomenon are not deducible from has nonsense ‘axiom’. Instead, we can create theories however we wish, we can test them through criticism. Once we possess them we can create models from them. Models help us investigate the possibility of new theories. However, we must criticize (falsify) our theories to determine if they survive scrutiny. Included in these tests are internal consistency (logic) external correspondence (empirical testing), operational definition (existential possibility), parsimony (falsifiication), as well as morality (voluntary exchange/transfer). These tests warranty that we relay what exists not what we imagine, by laundering imaginary content from our imagined theories, leaving the most accurate description of phenomenon that we can measure.

    From this perspective, Misies is correct: he sought to practice moral economics (exchanges), and the mainstream adopted immoral economics(deceptions). Unfortunately he tried, as germans and jews are want to do, to conflate axiomatic truth and morality, instead of theoretical truth being necessary for the conduct of moral economics.

    This is, I think, how we rescue mises from his ostracized position in history, and restore morality to economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 03:30:00 UTC

  • A THEORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM AND MORALITY If em

    A THEORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM AND MORALITY

    If empiricists are correct, and that all memories are the product of observations (both internal and external), and that intuition serves as a search engine(which cognitive scientists seem to agree at present), and imagination a hypothetical engine(again a search engine), then all mental content originates with reality, all knowledge as theory, and the function of thinking, reasoning, and science are to criticize imaginary intuitions, hypotheses to see if they can take the standing of theories (which is analogous to belief), and law (which is analogous to norm, ritual, or sacred tenet).

    The difference between justificationary and critical points of view buried unconsciously in our language, is that feeling, belief, knowledge and truth describe a justificationary epistemology, and intuition, hypothesis, theory and law describe a critical epistemology.

    I would add that I believe (hypothesize) justificationary epistemology is necessary in highly interdependent small polities where most reproduction and production functions as a commons in which all members are shareholders; and therefore the use of most property, is as common property, and so even normative rules (the normative commons) must be justified to others. Whereas under an advanced economy, we are individual actors, and need not justify to others how we make use of resources – only that we do no harm to them. Under both Justification and Criticism we must warranty our words and deeds. Just as we do in all of life.

    This is probably the correct interpretation of why we evolved from systems of beliefs (justifications within a commons) to systems of theories (criticisms under individual property rights) – we must claim knowledge is ethically and morally obtained and practiced. But what constitutes moral action changes as property is increasingly privatized. We move from needing permission to use property, to not. But in the process, we increasingly privatize responsibility for our actions as well.

    It appears that all justification and criticism are merely the conditions of warranty under different structures of property. And that we have increasingly applied our cooperative methodology to those areas of the world where cooperation is no longer involved.

    In other words, it was necessary to privatize property to gain the normative permission to seek the truth. Having privatized it, we have now obtained a condition where we see that the only truth possible is critical. And having abandoned morality from the pursuit of truth, it appears I am unconsciously, unknowingly, and unwittingly, reinserting it into the search for truth as a constraint upon the externalities produced by our search, in an effort to constrain people who would take advantage of the justificationary system for criminal, unethical, and immoral purposes to which it has been put for the past century and a half.

    More to come as I drill into this further.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-07 03:29:00 UTC

  • MORAL SUPERIORITY BY REJECTION OR ACTION? Well, you can claim moral superiority

    MORAL SUPERIORITY BY REJECTION OR ACTION?

    Well, you can claim moral superiority and reject the rest of society – accomplishing nothing other than a dramatic disapproval: the equivalent of a raspberry. Or you can make a plan, rally fellow warriors, and change society to suit your will. The moral question is simple: if you seek to impose greater suppression of free riding, and increase the requirement for voluntary exchange you are in fact, increasing the moral content of society. If you are increasing predation, parasitism and free riding, then you are acting immorally. But whether you use violence to achieve either end is immaterial. Violence can be put to good (suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation) or ill (increasing free riding, parasitism and predation.) So contrary to feminine sentiment, violence not only solves most conflict, it is necessary for the solution of conflict. Violence is a virtue, if put to virtuous ends. And the suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is a virtuous end.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    L’viv Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 09:09:00 UTC

  • WHATEVER TRUTH WE CHASE IS ACCIDENTAL – WE NEGOTIATE. I am increasingly convince

    WHATEVER TRUTH WE CHASE IS ACCIDENTAL – WE NEGOTIATE.

    I am increasingly convinced that all thought, all conversation, all discourse, and all debate is not truth seeking but negotiation – whether we believe or desire to pursue the truth or not. And that those few of us who do seek truth only happen to do so because it coincidentally reflects our negotiating strategy.

    I am fairly sure that this is correct. And that alternative explanations are remnants of the search for tribally homogeneous means of persuasion under the presumption of equality of interest and relative ability.

    When in our present condition, in the absence of economic dependence upon the family and tribe, it appears that we participate in a division of knowledge and labor at individualistic atomicity, and that our different interests cannot be rationally accommodated – nor need they be. And attempts to do so are always and forever attempts at privatization.

    And as such voluntary exchange (operational truth testing) and prices (amplitude of value) act as our only operationally possible forms of reason. So` the question is not what is best, but how to enable us to make use of one another’s information and demand, with the least distortion (dishonesty).

    I just can’t decide whether it’s beautiful or horrible….

    Michael Philip:

    “Social negotiation”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 08:47:00 UTC

  • Anglos are the most obnoxious well intentioned fools on earth. OMG. The more I u

    Anglos are the most obnoxious well intentioned fools on earth. OMG. The more I understand the world, the more I am proud of dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty on the one hand, and on the other hand, the more I want to hang our puritans (my ancestors) and neo-Puritans (current northeast secular democrats) and Cosmopolitans (Jews) from tree-limbs and beg the german people for forgiveness, and apologize to the rest of the world of the after that.

    The most important strategic change in the world must be the overthrow of the united states government and its perpetuation of the puritan, neo-puritan, cosmopolitan ideological cancers, and to return to familialism and nationalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 06:32:00 UTC

  • ON CHINA Broadberry’s data presents a more nuanced picture. In it we can clearly

    ON CHINA

    Broadberry’s data presents a more nuanced picture. In it we can clearly see the economic “efflorescence” of China’s medieval economic revolution and the wealth that came with the mid-Ming economic reforms. In many of these periods the average Chinese man was more wealthy than his European counterpart. China was far from stagnant for 1,000 years.

    But it also never had sustained economic growth. As happened across the premodern world, successful dynasts would establish a system that allowed commerce to flourish, urban centers to grow, and wealth to increase. In the words of Jack Goldstone, these societies would undergo an economic “efflorescence” that historians of later days would remember as a Golden Age [3]. These Golden Ages would not last. After a few centuries these societies would push agrarian civilization to its limits and contraction would begin.

    This process is seen quite clearly in the Chinese data. The decline in GDP per capita between 1600 and 1750 hides the fairly impressive economic achievements of the early Qing: despite a fourfold (!) increase in population, Chinese living standards remained on par with most of Europe, even though most of this expansion was happening in unproductive, virgin lands far away from China’s traditional urban centers while expensive levies were continually raised to pay for one war after another. Alas, this type of efflorescence could not endure; as the centuries passed the condition of the Chinese peasant plummeted. It is sobering to realize that the average Chinese of 1000 was twice as rich as his descendents were 850 years later.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 04:57:00 UTC

  • THE HIGH TAX OF TRUTH TELLING It is a terribly high tax – a payment into the com

    THE HIGH TAX OF TRUTH TELLING

    It is a terribly high tax – a payment into the commons – to speak the truth, to speak it truthfully, to promise, to hold one’s promise, to take only what is voluntarily exchanged, productive, and free of negative externality. That is why no other people does it. No one other than Germanic man. It is terribly expensive. And why we do it may be traditional, or genetic, a combination of the two.

    Over the past century and a half, the counter-enlightenment efforts of the Germans and the Jews have taught us to lie again, through the use of new media, just as they forced us to stop learning the truth by closing the greek schools and then forcibly taught us to lie in the first place, via the new media of the church and bible. We rescued ourselves from the system of lies after more than a millennium of enforced ignorance and deception. And then the anglo evangelical puritans, and now, after the Germans have been conquered, anglo neo-puritans, have allied with the Cosmopolitan Jews and taught us to lie, justified lying as in the common good, ridiculed us for telling the truth, taken over our academy (seminaries) and our government, and our media (churches), and forced our children to listen to lies, to lie, and to obey lies.

    Truth telling is enough. With courts of common law, property rights including the physical, normative, and informational commons, and the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality – and its inverse: the prohibition on involuntary imposition of costs – we can, each of us, police the division of knowledge and labor at our own discretion, according to our fragmentary knowledge and ability, and use truth and violence to construct our unique, prosperous, innovative, moral order, and eradicate from government the parasitism we have eliminated from tribe, and locality, and centralized in the bureaucratic state.

    This is what the high tax of truth telling, and the equally high tax of using violence to enforce truth telling buys us: the most prosperous and innovative society on earth, that leads man toward his potential of being the god he imagines directs him, but who, if exists, seeks only to succeed him, as do all parents.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-06 04:26:00 UTC