Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Dear Budding Entrepreneurs: Smart people have a disease: they are lazy. They thi

    Dear Budding Entrepreneurs:

    Smart people have a disease: they are lazy. They think too much. And they gather too little information. If you’re thinking rather than researching you’re just lazy, not smart. The same is true of Rationalism versus Empiricism: if you’re thinking rather than researching, then you’re just lazy (and not very bright).

    Smart people exhaust all possible knowledge until the answers all come back the same. Talk to people. Get information. Look at details. As advice. Analyze competitors.

    Smart people don’t plan so much as have clear goals, do lots of research, and seize opportunities. And why to some people fail to do this even if they think they’re smart? Because despite the fact that other humans are the source of knowledge and you need to seek to understand others, to empathize with them, and to work with them – and it’s something you’re simply avoiding.

    If you think you’re smart and efficient – you probably aren’t either of them. You’re avoiding work and avoiding social interaction. And the primary reason you avoid social interaction is fear that your bubble will be burst.

    Advantages are found in unpredictable outliers.

    A plan is a bubble to be burst. A goal is merely the end point obtained by seizing identified opportunities.

    Business plans are sh_t. The ultimate business plan? Find customers. Sell them what they need.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 09:11:00 UTC

  • MORE ON RACE : THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTY My objective is achievement of liberty. Bu

    MORE ON RACE : THE DESIRE FOR LIBERTY

    My objective is achievement of liberty. But there are very few means of achieving it.

    For all intents and purposes, classes are genetic in origin: reproductive desirability, intelligence, impulsivity, aggression determine your class as much as do your parents norms.

    As a rule of thumb, the races act as political blocks (kinship) and they possess different distributions of abilities, forming a racial stratification of means, with east asians, Askenazim and northern europeans on the higher side and others on the lower side. As far as I know this difference in distributions means only that there are more people in the lower classes of some races than there are in the lower classes of others. And that the reason for this is the reproductive challenge of the circumpolar peoples, plus the Ashkenizi outcast of those who can’t pass the tests of admission; the northern european use of manorialism to reduce breeding of the lower classes; the asian systemic murder of anyone and everyone with the least impulsivity.

    The problem of racial conflict is one of defense of our lower classes. Our white lower classes are justifiably racist, because their elites have abandoned them and redistributed their kinship privileges to other groups.

    EQUALITY

    Equality is impossible without tyranny. The only way to approach equality is either homogenous populations of near-kin, (the nordic model) or heterogenous populations with marginally indifferent abilities (aristocratic classes, and suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses).

    An advanced economy requires sortition: the voluntary organization of production by natural ability. Any group that does not practice natural meritocracy will be crushed and impoverished by those that do. (because that is the logic and the evidence).

    THREE POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR ACHIEVING EQUALITY:

    (a) Tyranny – forcible organization of production and forcible redistribution (the anglo model);

    (b) Homogeneity (kinship) of small states which voluntarily organize and redistribute, (the nordic model) or;

    (c) Dramatic reduction of the reproduction of the lower classes (those below 105-107) for larger states, in which all members can contribute to production. (ancient model)

    That is it. As far as I now human beings can and will possess liberty only under (b) and (c). And only those models can produce both relative equality and relative liberty.

    ONLY RACISTS CAN DISAGREE

    If you disagree with this then you are de-facto arguing in favor of racism.

    As far as I know my argument stands under all conditions no matter what.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 05:10:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID I get a lot of criticism from my friends for trying to ‘hel

    YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID

    I get a lot of criticism from my friends for trying to ‘help’ idiots. And yes, it is often a waste of time in the sense that you can’t change their thinking (much). On the other hand, I learn a lot about how to debate when I do argue with simple folk.

    I saved today’s conversation with (well meaning person) Wes Lysander, and some other twits or two. I can’t post a pdf here so I’ll put it on my site.

    But when I criticize ‘meaning’ rather than ‘truth’, and require definitions, that’s because meaning is dependent upon the imbecile’s abilities and knowledge, whereas truth is not.

    Now, truth is yet another problematic word whose ‘meaning’ is degraded into analogy after analogy. Because the truth content of a term is that which survives testing, not that from which we derive meaning.

    This is why I ask people in propertarianism to use terms only when they understand the entire spectrum in which that terminological point addresses a limited context. This is to ensure that we are not making argument by loose imprecise analogy.

    Often arguments require multiple axis of causality and therefore multiple spectra.

    So meaning is an exceptional device for deception, self deception, and error. (Yes I think I have settled that matter now – self deception is possible by intuitive desire.)

    And the reduction of any term to that which survives the process of elimination by the use of multiple axis of constraint, defines the necessary properties of the term (true), and not the abuses of that term (meaning).

    Just because I can use a shoe to hammer a nail does not mean it is honest to refer to a shoe as a hammer.

    That is what appeals to ‘meaning’ attempt to do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-30 04:50:00 UTC

  • Ending Demand For Racism

    (positioning)(achieving equality)

    [T]he only reason your race is behind my race or any other race is the difference between rates of reproduction of the classes. Just as my race is behind or a head of other races because of our suppression or lack of suppression of birth rates at the bottom. That’s it.

    So fix it. Because until you do, racism will persist – and should. Because any other behavior is illogical. It is not the color of your skin or the shape of your nose, but the percentage of your population in the bottom half of mankind.

    Human life isn’t universally sacred. It’s just that anyone who demonstrates disregard for human life is a potential risk and threat to the rest of us. But just because disregard for life is dangerous doesn’t mean you’re worthy of redistribution – or even the consumption of oxygen. You’re merely a moral hazard for the rest of us.

    If you or your offspring can’t find a way to participate in production without externalizing your costs, then you aren’t a precious snowflake. You’re a moral hazard, and a drain on both humanity and the planet. And the source of the demand for a political class that exploits productive people to fund the dysgenic and unproductive.

    You cannot deny this argument without in turn demonstrating your racial bias.

    So control reproduction. A woman has no intrinsic right to bear a child, and a man no intrinsic right to spawn one.

    That is the only way we get to equality. Equality in fact, not in lie.

    And I agree: equality is a moral ambition.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Ending Demand For Racism

    (positioning)(achieving equality)

    [T]he only reason your race is behind my race or any other race is the difference between rates of reproduction of the classes. Just as my race is behind or a head of other races because of our suppression or lack of suppression of birth rates at the bottom. That’s it.

    So fix it. Because until you do, racism will persist – and should. Because any other behavior is illogical. It is not the color of your skin or the shape of your nose, but the percentage of your population in the bottom half of mankind.

    Human life isn’t universally sacred. It’s just that anyone who demonstrates disregard for human life is a potential risk and threat to the rest of us. But just because disregard for life is dangerous doesn’t mean you’re worthy of redistribution – or even the consumption of oxygen. You’re merely a moral hazard for the rest of us.

    If you or your offspring can’t find a way to participate in production without externalizing your costs, then you aren’t a precious snowflake. You’re a moral hazard, and a drain on both humanity and the planet. And the source of the demand for a political class that exploits productive people to fund the dysgenic and unproductive.

    You cannot deny this argument without in turn demonstrating your racial bias.

    So control reproduction. A woman has no intrinsic right to bear a child, and a man no intrinsic right to spawn one.

    That is the only way we get to equality. Equality in fact, not in lie.

    And I agree: equality is a moral ambition.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev Ukraine

  • ON ENDING RACISM (positioning)(achieving equality) The only reason your race is

    ON ENDING RACISM

    (positioning)(achieving equality)

    The only reason your race is behind my race or any other race is the difference between rates of reproduction of the classes. Just as my race is behind or a head of other races because of our suppression or lack of suppression of birth rates at the bottom. That’s it.

    So fix it. Because until you do, racism will persist – and should. Because any other behavior is illogical. It is not the color of your skin or the shape of your nose, but the percentage of your population in the bottom half of mankind.

    Human life isn’t universally sacred. It’s just that anyone who demonstrates disregard for human life is a potential risk and threat to the rest of us. But just because disregard for life is dangerous doesn’t mean you’re worthy of redistribution – or even the consumption of oxygen. You’re merely a moral hazard for the rest of us.

    If you or your offspring can’t find a way to participate in production without externalizing your costs, then you aren’t a precious snowflake. You’re a moral hazard, and a drain on both humanity and the planet. And the source of the demand for a political class that exploits productive people to fund the dysgenic and unproductive.

    You cannot deny this argument without in turn demonstrating your racial bias.

    So control reproduction. A woman has no intrinsic right to bear a child, and a man no intrinsic right to spawn one.

    That is the only way we get to equality. Equality in fact, not in lie.

    And I agree: equality is a moral ambition.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-28 03:38:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism and the Purpose of Philosophy

    (very important)

    [T]he value of philosophy is to convert what we learn, into the web (network) of related concepts that we currently USE. (Note that I do not use the word ‘believe’, which is a synonym for justification.) This often requires a great deal of rearranging of our concepts. That which was before subordinate, turns out to be superordinate. That which before was moral, turns out to be immoral. Trusted truths become harmful fallacies.

    Look at the scope of what I am trying to do:

    1) Western philosophy is the history of attempting to speak the truth, truthfully.
    2) Science and mathematics discovered the means of speaking truthfully.
    3) The scientific and mathematical methods however, did not include costs.
    4) By integrating costs into the scientific method, that method evolves into the universal means by which humans can endeavor to speak truthfully – regardless of discipline.
    5) Thus fulfilling the 2500 year old attempt to speak truthfully – even if we are forever bidden from knowing whether or now we are speaking the ultimate, most parsimonious truth that is possible.
    6) With this knowledge we can then embody in law, the principle of truth telling. And under universal standing, and rule of law, and property-en-toto, require truthful speech whenever costs are involved in one’s utterances: ethics and politics.

    If you can find more noble an ambition then I would like to know it.
    If you can find a better argument then I would like to know it.
    But I am fairly sure that I stand on the shoulders of many who came before me and the destination of their vision is pretty obvious from this height.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Propertarianism and the Purpose of Philosophy

    (very important)

    [T]he value of philosophy is to convert what we learn, into the web (network) of related concepts that we currently USE. (Note that I do not use the word ‘believe’, which is a synonym for justification.) This often requires a great deal of rearranging of our concepts. That which was before subordinate, turns out to be superordinate. That which before was moral, turns out to be immoral. Trusted truths become harmful fallacies.

    Look at the scope of what I am trying to do:

    1) Western philosophy is the history of attempting to speak the truth, truthfully.
    2) Science and mathematics discovered the means of speaking truthfully.
    3) The scientific and mathematical methods however, did not include costs.
    4) By integrating costs into the scientific method, that method evolves into the universal means by which humans can endeavor to speak truthfully – regardless of discipline.
    5) Thus fulfilling the 2500 year old attempt to speak truthfully – even if we are forever bidden from knowing whether or now we are speaking the ultimate, most parsimonious truth that is possible.
    6) With this knowledge we can then embody in law, the principle of truth telling. And under universal standing, and rule of law, and property-en-toto, require truthful speech whenever costs are involved in one’s utterances: ethics and politics.

    If you can find more noble an ambition then I would like to know it.
    If you can find a better argument then I would like to know it.
    But I am fairly sure that I stand on the shoulders of many who came before me and the destination of their vision is pretty obvious from this height.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • On Convincing Others

    [C]HALLENGING THOUGHT OF THE DAY
    (useful)

    0 – We are unequally desirable mates – this is necessary for evolutionary adaptation.
    1 – We evolved a reproductive division of labor – the genders.
    2 – We evolved an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor:
    4 – We demonstrate short, medium, and long term preferences; 
    5 – We demonstrate short, medium, and long term moral biases;
    6 – We evolved, quite naturally, lower(<95), middle(<125) and upper(>125) classes;
    7 – We need virtue(imitative), rule (rational), and outcome (scientific) ethics;
    8 – We need sacred(religious), moral(normative), and calculative (legal) rules;
    9 – We rely upon intuitive(experiential), conscious(rational), and instrumental(calculative) tools to made decisions.
    10 – Our moral biases reflect our reproductive strategies.
    11 – Our normative biases reflect our reproductive strategies.
    12 – Our formal and informal institutions reflect our group-competitive strategies.
    13 – All universalist strategy is to extend group-competitive strategies to dominate other group competitive strategies.

    Short term strategy is in the interest of the lower classes (socialism – labor)
    Medium term strategy is in the interest of the middle classes (classical liberty – trade)
    Long term strategy is in the interests of the upper classes (aristocracy – order)

    Some people are only CAPABLE of sentimental talk and argument.
    Some people are only CAPABLE of rational talk and argument.
    Some people are CAPABLE of scientific talk and argument.

    So what does all of this tell us about persuading others? It tells us that we cannot (and should not) try. It tells us to create institutions that allow cooperation across moral codes and reproductive strategies. It tells us that the majority cannot understand these matters except experientially – once implemented.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • PROPERTARIANISM, AND THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY (important) The value of philosophy

    PROPERTARIANISM, AND THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY

    (important)

    The value of philosophy is to convert what we learn, into the web (network) of related concepts that we currently USE. (Note that I do not use the word ‘believe’, which is a synonym for justification.) This often requires a great deal of rearranging of our concepts. That which was before subordinate, turns out to be superordinate. That which before was moral, turns out to be immoral. Trusted truths become harmful fallacies.

    Look at the scope of what I am trying to do:

    1) Western philosophy is the history of attempting to speak the truth, truthfully.

    2) Science and mathematics discovered the means of speaking truthfully.

    3) The scientific and mathematical methods however, did not include costs.

    4) By integrating costs into the scientific method, that method evolves into the universal means by which humans can endeavor to speak truthfully – regardless of discipline.

    5) Thus fulfilling the 2500 year old attempt to speak truthfully – even if we are forever bidden from knowing whether or now we are speaking the ultimate, most parsimonious truth that is possible.

    6) With this knowledge we can then embody in law, the principle of truth telling. And under universal standing, and rule of law, and property-en-toto, require truthful speech whenever costs are involved in one’s utterances: ethics and politics.

    If you can find more noble an ambition then I would like to know it.

    If you can find a better argument then I would like to know it.

    But I am fairly sure that I stand on the shoulders of many who came before me and the destination of their vision is pretty obvious from this height.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-27 04:58:00 UTC