Form: Mini Essay

  • THE CONSEQUENCE OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM IS PERFORMATIVE TRUTH. What is the diffe

    THE CONSEQUENCE OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM IS PERFORMATIVE TRUTH.

    What is the difference then, between the critical rationalist position that we cannot know the truth of a theory, only eliminate error; and the consequential argument that I cannot know that you speak the truth, and therefore must be sure that you speak honestly and without error?

    You know; the blade cuts both ways. Just as in science we are constrained to constructing recipes and eliminating error, in all our arguments we are constrained to operational descriptions, and defending against deception.

    Not sure how critical rationalists who buy into Popperian platonism feel about that – but I think it is an inescapable consequence of the critical rationalist assertion.

    We can construct recipes. We can testify to operations. That’s all we can do. Any narrative we construct is a memory device and nothing more.

    Why do we need theories anyway? Justification? If I construct by verbal means, a general rule, that describes common properties of many recipes, then have I really done anything at all other than create a loose description of similar recipes? That description places no constraints on future recipes. Isnt’ this just an artifact of speech? Of verbalism? Isn’t speech a symbolic generalization of many memories? So why should we give such weight to what amounts to a verbal protocol for the purpose of simplifying communication. i mean, wouldn’t it be easier to just transfer memories of related instances? We can’t do that but that’s what our words attempt to do.

    Actions not words.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 14:20:00 UTC

  • RADICAL NOT CONSERVATIVE Or, why I am and am not a conservative at the same time

    RADICAL NOT CONSERVATIVE

    Or, why I am and am not a conservative at the same time. πŸ™‚

    My position is radical, not conservative. I’m not advocating retention of the status quo (the definition of conservatism), nor am I asking to return to the past. But insisting that we adopt institutions suitable to our people’s competitive needs, which are also as it turns out, man’s evolutionary needs – because of the uniqueness of our civilization.

    Yes, we can learn from our past, in that we can learn what caused our success – resistance to the concentration of power (division of power), the division of labor, testimonial truth, and the common law.

    Truth is inseparable from calculation, and calculation inseparable from action, and given the necessity and utility of action, all else is justification and deception in pursuit of competition within the existing genetic, geography, family, economic, and political structure. Or more clearly: while it is possible to calculate verbally, it is also possible to lie and deceive verbally. Where it is not so possible to lie and deceive operationally (calculatively).

    The cost of this difference is meaning. The problem is, when we say meaning, how much of this is justification to the self, or justification to others? Is not all philosophy and argument merely political?

    Until I started focusing on Neo-Reaction instead of the fallacies of libertine-libertarianism, I did not perhaps understand the full import of what I am doing. Is meaning merely a feeble attempt to connect the intuitive with the calculative? Can we instead of separating our mental activity into intuition and reason (verbalism), can we separate it into perception, intuition, calculation, and justification? Is reason but justification?

    If this is true then human intellectual history is upside down.

    I am not there yet, but getting closer.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 11:04:00 UTC

  • IS PHILOSOPHY A PROTOCOL FOR JUSTIFICATION? AND IS PHILOSOPHY A FORM OF CALCULAT

    IS PHILOSOPHY A PROTOCOL FOR JUSTIFICATION? AND IS PHILOSOPHY A FORM OF CALCULATION?

    I am fairly certain that calculation in the wider sense – that which is necessary for action – precedes verbalism necessary for philosophy, and I am unsure that philosophy as currently stated is calculative and necessary, or whether it is merely justificationary.

    In other words, is philosophy a form of calculating, or is calculating a form of philosophy? And I am increasingly convinced the former.

    We may require philosophy to categorize and describe such things but we do not require philosophy to act, nor to act morally, where morally is defined as prohibiting free riding in-group and prohibiting imposed costs in and out-group. We did these things prior to philosophy, and they exist independent of philosophy.

    Furthermore, how do we account for the use of philosophy for the purpose of deception and obscurantism in the french, german and jewish schools, the use of mysticism in most other cultures, or the past (Kant) and current (progressives,postmoderns, libertarians) use of moral philosophy to restate christianity in non mystical terms. In other words, calculation (demonstrated action as well) does not allow us to make such framing and loading, while language does, and it is quite possible to use language to err, lie, obscure, frame, load and overload.

    This gets quite deep in distinguishing between demonstrable actions stated as operations and analogies as used in philosophy and reason. And I want to stay on track. But it is useful to at least point out that I am approaching problems descriptively via action, and treating language as largely justificationary. That shouldn’t be a big leap really.

    Philosophy is necessary to justify to the self or others, but it is not necessary for action. Hopefully that makes sense. I may be engaging in philosophical discourse but that is very different from planning and acting.) I work with operationalism precisely because it is insulated from the various sins of rationalism. That is why science and even psychology have adopted Operationalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 08:33:00 UTC

  • NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY) Even though I’ve spent the past month

    NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY)

    Even though I’ve spent the past month almost entirely on the business, for the past few days I’ve been trying to write a restatement of Neo-Reaction (The Dark Enlightenment) in Propertarian language. There are a lot of introductory pieces on NeoReaction out there, but they’re all fairly weak. It’s much easier to write a “Neo Reaction for Dummies” with Propertarianism. But I am trying to cover all the subjects (there are not that many really), and turn their (Mostly Mencius’) ideas away from the poetic into the analytic.

    THREE CULTURAL AXIS

    1) Mencius picked up on Rothbard’s correct attribution of puritanism to the postmodern condition, but not that Rothbard tried to avoid admitting the cosmopolitan influence (the jews), or that the Cathedral constitutes a conspiracy between the three axis: (a) anglo secular restatement of christianity, (b) the jewish combination of socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-Conservatism,and (c) the continental influence of the germans and the french, as equally anti-enlightenment attempts to preserve authoritarian orders.

    THREE PERSUASIVE AXIS

    2) No one in the movement seems to have grasped either Johnson’s insight that there exist only three means of persuasion (force, payment, moral persuasion), or my insight, that social classes organize around specializations in these forms of persuasion – and that this is why neo-reaction has been articulated in three different forms, mirroring the three forms of the jewish attack on aristocracy: socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-conservatism. I think I can add value by explaining this relationship to the movement.

    REASON

    They (again, mostly Mencius) have correctly identified the failure of Reason, but they have not equally identified the solution to the problem of reason as Calculability (or, in my work, what I call Operationalism) nor the corresponding solution as one of simply speaking the truth. This I can understand because while I intuited the problem very early on, I was only able to solve it finally over the past year and a half. I think it took me twelve or fourteen years from initial intuition to full articulation.

    More to do.

    Interesting stuff.

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-11 08:36:00 UTC

  • THE CONDUCT OF EASTERN EUROPEAN FOURTH GENERATION WAR There is a limited but fai

    THE CONDUCT OF EASTERN EUROPEAN FOURTH GENERATION WAR

    There is a limited but fairly extensive literature on infantry tactics – the kind of things ordinary soldiers need to do in 20th century armies. In that literature, the primary objective has been to get the US military to abandon pre-vietnam military structures in favor of higher reliance on skilled and equipped infantry, and less on complex weapons systems.

    Moreover, since 1990, the literature has been advocating means of fighting insurgents, and now islamists, who use decentralized “4gw” (Fourth generation warfare). Meaning, the fourth generation signifies the nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. Or as we anti-statists would argue, the post-state era is upon us because militias with machine guns and RPG’s selecting targets of opportunity can effectively crush any concentration of armed forces. Modern economies are fragile and the nation state cannot survive long term insurrections.

    The problem with the literature is that it does not address how to ACT like a 4GW opponent – only how to defend against them. When I read these manuals, they seem very antique. They are manuals for soldiers not warriors. In the sense that soldiers patrol territories, in order to create order, while warriors conduct raids in order to destabilize economy, infrastructure, and daily life.

    If you are an eastern european, you need to have a few nuclear weapons to keep Russia at bay (Russia being the most concentrated civilization of white people, and reliant on concentration of forces), and a very inexpensive military, which consists of a militia that can readily get access to RPG’s and AK47’s and warm clothing and rations. Ukraine would benefit from the regimental system, wherein good leaders could recruit talent, and the central government would only need to ensure that they had access to USA-style national guard armories. This is an inexpensive and unstoppable form of military order on the swiss model.

    All of that boils down to a mixture of the swiss and american reserve models, with more frequent training for the men in the american model, and a reliance on infantry tactics and militia in the swiss model. Ukraine is a larger territory and supply lines for the militia are more challenging. However, a decentralized militia, skilled in 4gw themselves, rather than the US/NATO 3gw, attacking not in concentration, but against weakness would make eastern europeans nearly impervious to Russian conquest – just as Afghanistan was.

    The problem is, that the manual for conducting such a military does not exist, and must be written. Strangely enough, the Islamists are writing it for us. And it is a much more bloody form of warfare, more suited to the warriors, personal grievances and close relations of regiments than the slave labor and cautious patrolling of NATO military training.

    I do not need more work to do unfortunately. I have enough of it. I have enough for two of me, and one more project is more than I can manage.

    NOTE: The swiss strategy is to make attempts to occupy or conquer Switzerland extremely costly in men and machines. They rely upon an almost entirely militial military. Professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel and the rest are male conscripts 19 to 34 (but in some cases up to 50) years old. The soldiers keep their own equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home. Military service is compulsory for all male Swiss citizens, and women serve voluntarily. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable. Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-10 16:10:00 UTC

  • PERSONAL ADVICE (worth repeating) It is not helpful to think of others as fools,

    PERSONAL ADVICE

    (worth repeating)

    It is not helpful to think of others as fools, idiots or malcontents, which presumes human equality of ability, but to think of others as different breeds of human with better and lesser abilities, each of whom does the best it can competing against the mean of human abilities that we call ‘society’.

    Instead of wishing for lower transaction costs, which one cannot possibly achieve, it is better to recognize one’s superiority, and choose between helping the demonstrably inferior, ignoring them, or admonishing them a little bit in order to ‘correct’ their behavior – a necessary and beneficial contribution to the commons.

    The illusion of equality under the enlightenment fallacy has produced negative conceptual norms even in the best of us. So those of us with Aristocratic abilities and sentiments should not fall victim to the fallacy ourselves.

    My approach is to assume everyone is making constant errors, and to try to help them. It’s an aristocratic duty, and taking priestly, professorial, or philosophical, or whatever approach you wish to call ‘teaching’ or ‘training’ has improved my life dramatically. In my twenties I decided to help everyone I cam in contact with in some small way – usually by helping them understand the world as it is, rather than as they wish it to be.

    Helping others removes frustration, and brings you and others joy. You will always be happier helping than being frustrated. And yes, helping is a high cost. On the other hand the more helping you do the better you get at it, and it is wonderfully rewarding to experience how you are treated by others when they expect that you will try to help rather than confront them.

    We have a lot of work to do. The enlightenment fallacy, the errors of the socialists and the lies of the postmodernists can be countered with recent scientific evidence, and by learning a few arguments from Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Propertarianism, and Testimonial Truth and Operationalism.

    They created a fallacy by talking. The cure is truth. And truth is helpful.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-08 07:36:00 UTC

  • I understand marketing. If I wrote quiet little pieces over years, I would make

    I understand marketing.

    If I wrote quiet little pieces over years, I would make no difference and be unknown. If I wrote something as elegant as Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Propertarianism, Testimonial Truth, and Operationalism, and published it in a backwater press, it would gather dust.

    But I come out swinging and ready to take all comers. I did it on purpose. You can read it. It’s out there. It worked. I created awareness. πŸ™‚

    Everyone is drawn to conflict. πŸ™‚ Put on your brass knuckles and pick fights. Teach other guys to fight. Start a fight club.

    All publicity is good publicity.

    Pick fights. If you want to restore violence to the discourse, pick fights.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-04 19:27:00 UTC

  • (stupid stuff. celebrity photos) Maybe I am just immune because my entire life i

    (stupid stuff. celebrity photos)

    Maybe I am just immune because my entire life is exposed online, but I don’t see the whole fury over the exposed selfies of celebrities. I mean, they look like a bunch of normal, pretty girls, doing normal stuff. Certainly none of the white trash nonsense we’ve seen from the Kardashians and others.

    That’s what the internet era has done to privacy: it’s made us all realize that our illusions are just that. That we’re all the same. That we all care about and do the same things.

    Now, I am not in favor of libertinism at all. And I understand that northern european prudishness is merely an attempt to delay childbirth so that women become educated, participate in the work force, and can support their own children before they have them, and therefore don’t remain a burden on their parents – and society. Because our declining incomes are in no small part due to the 40%+ of children who are born out of marriage to single mothers. So I’m all in favor of demanding gentlemanly and ladylike behavior.

    On the other hand, none of these young ladies seem to be terribly risquΓ©. I mean, they act like normal middle class girls. (whereas the the lower class girls act quite differently.)

    Just seems like a non-issue to me. But then I am not a solipsistic female.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-03 11:57:00 UTC

  • “CRITIQUE IS WEAPONIZED GOSSIP” It’s interesting. Fascinating really. Gossip evo

    “CRITIQUE IS WEAPONIZED GOSSIP”

    It’s interesting. Fascinating really.

    Gossip evolved as a means by which to control alphas. So that females could control reproduction again. Or at least exert some control over their reproduction.

    One of the theories is that we learned to speak in order to gossip. In that sense, the theory that language was invented to lie, has some merit.

    Gossip consists mostly of lies and deception. It is an attempt to to provoke rallying and shaming.

    If you combine hermeneutic analysis of scripture (psychologizing), Gossip (control), Rallying and Shaming, and dual ethics (justified immorality) you can develop critique. The left’s technique.

    The left’s war on truth and meritocracy.

    Truth and violence are the cure for deception and critique.

    (See. I am still making progress. Slowly. Slowly. But progress none the less.)

    Quite the opposite of the rationalists, as far as I can tell, all language that is other than unloaded factual description is largely justification.

    Quite the opposite of the platonists, truth is constituted in testimony, and testimony is demonstrated by recipes. That we use general theories to describe recipes is merely a device for simple memories to create generalizations – patterns. But the net is, that only recipes that work are correspondent with reality, and all words are merely allegories.

    One thing the left did, with its hermeneutics, and its psychologizing, and its platonism, is to intentionally confuse words with actions.

    It’s time to end the second war of mysticism. First was the christianization of the west and the second is was the mystification of science and reason.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-01 08:14:00 UTC

  • THE “WHAT IF” OF UNIVERSALISM What if all companies compete in the market with t

    THE “WHAT IF” OF UNIVERSALISM

    What if all companies compete in the market with the same strategy? Those with the most credit will eventually accumulate the talent and other resources to defeat the rest. So companies specialize in market tactics.

    What if all states compete in the market with the same strategy? If everyone competed on meritocracy, the most technologically advanced state would capture a disproportionate amount of the wealth. If on violence, the strongest would capture a disproportionate amount of the wealth, territory, and control. The most vocal the most influence. This is why states specialize in different tactics. Because meritocracy is only beneficial to the meritocratic. war is most beneficial to the strong. and everyone else engages in criticism and complaint as moral rebellion.

    What if all tribes compete in the market with the same strategy? If all compete on meritocracy, the smartest, strongest, most trustworthy, and most technologically advanced will capture a disproportionate percentage of the wealth. If on strength, the strongest, and fastest, willing to make the greatest sacrifices will capture it. The rest will rely on gossip criticism and complaint and negotiate whatever possible ends they can. So tribes specialize in reproductive and social tactics.

    What if all families compete in the market with the same strategy? if families competed in the polity using the same strategy the wealthy would prosper under meritocracy and the poor would prosper under communism, and the powerful would prosper under authoritarianism. This is why families politically compete using different political preferences: it is in their interests to do so. Classes vote as classes because classes share reproductive strategies. As much as we do not like it, humans use three different strategies (gossip/criticism/guilt, violence, remuneration) to compete, and they do so because the upper classes are literally genetically superior to the lower classes in both intelligence, ability, and reproductive value.

    An homogenous polity, an homogenous moral code for a political system, is a disadvantage to some and an advantage to others. The state isn’t the only monopoly that’s ‘bad’. As an artifact of an extended family of aristocrats, it is adequate for the representation of their interests. A multi-house government is merely a market for constructing social contracts – as long as they are contracts that expire, rather than laws that do not. The mistake we made was in not adding the church as the lowest house of the state, and requiring that aristocracy(the land), merchant and banker (commerce), the common folk (the church and care-taking) were not separated into individual houses. Each with their own requirements for entry, and taxes paid, and all of which participated in exchanges.

    Even as such, a division of those preferences does not solve the problem of the demand for totalitarianism on one end and demand for liberty at the other. The problem is that property rights must exist as universally atomic (private) but that we can use those rights under a political contract, to construct whatever political order best suits our reproductive interests.

    Any order that constructs a market for exchange between those of us with dissimilar interests and abilities is a moral one. However, any order which favors one house or the other through parasitism rather than exchange does not.

    The fallacy of the enlightenment is that of equality, since equality is a code word for monopoly, and monopoly is a code word for tyranny, and tyranny is a code word for parasitism. And under no condition is cooperation rational under parasitism. And if we are not cooperating then violence is on the table.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 04:31:00 UTC