Curt Doolittle

Form: Outline

  • WHY THE RELIGION OF THE STATE: POSTMODERNISM? Family structure + literacy + godl

    WHY THE RELIGION OF THE STATE: POSTMODERNISM?

    Family structure + literacy + godlessness = political ideology

    1) Family systems and agrarian systems

    2) Modernization phases (literacy, industrialization, dechristianization, contraception)

    3) Ideology (nationalism, socialism, religious conservatism)

    -Emmanuel Todd (France)

    The state suppresses christianity in order to replace it with postmodernism (state socialism). That is why it is OK to criticize christianity, and white people, but no one else. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 09:30:00 UTC

  • COUNTERING THE NOBLE SAVAGE MYTH (QUICK LIST OF CITATIONS) (Pinker put a stake i

    COUNTERING THE NOBLE SAVAGE MYTH

    (QUICK LIST OF CITATIONS)

    (Pinker put a stake in that postmodern vampire.)

    ^ Pinker, Steven. “1 A Foreign Country -Human prehistory”. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3. “In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. I know from conversations and survey data that most people refuse to believe it.”

    ^ Chagnon, N.A. (1996). .Bock, G.R & Goode, J.A. (eds.), ed. Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 202–231. ISBN 0471957194.

    ^ Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996): War Before Civilization New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195119126

    ^ Martin, Debra L., and David W. Frayer, eds. Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1997

    ^ “The fraud of primitive authenticity”. Asian Times. 4th of July, 2006. Retrieved 16 July 2013.

    ^ Wade, Nicholas (2006). Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (4th print. ed.). New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-079-3.

    ^ Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, germs and steel : a short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years (5th print. ed.). London: Vintage. pp. 155–292. ISBN 0-09-930278-0.

    ^ Eisner, M. (2003). “Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime”. Crime and Justice 30: 83–142. Retrieved 22 July 2013.

    ^ Lindström, Dag (2009). Body-Gendrot, S. & Spierenburg, P., ed. Violence in Europe. pp. 43–64.

    ^ Pinker, Steven. The better angels of our nature : why violence has declined. New York: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-05 18:26:00 UTC

  • CANADIAN LAW ON RECORDING POLICE 1) There is no law in Canada that prevents a me

    CANADIAN LAW ON RECORDING POLICE

    1) There is no law in Canada that prevents a member of the public from taking photographs or video in a public place (other than some limitations related to sensitive defense installations);

    2) There is no law in Canada that prevents a member of the public from taking photographs or video of a police officer executing his or her duties in public or in a location lawfully controlled by the photographer (in fact, police officers have no privacy rights in public when executing their duties);

    3) Preventing a person from taking photos or video is a prima facie infringement of a person’s Charter rights;

    4) You cannot interfere with a police officer’s lawful execution of his or her duties, but taking photos or videos does not, in and of itself, constitute interference;

    5) A police officer cannot take your phone or camera simply for recording him or her, as long as you were not obstructing;

    6) These privileges are not reserved to media — everyone has these rights;

    7) A police officer cannot make you unlock your phone to show him or her your images; and

    8) A police officer cannot make you delete any photos.

    Canadians might hate white males, but aside from that they get a few things right. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 05:06:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL POWER OF ORGANIZED MINORITIES Chechens In Russia Cartels in Mexico Tur

    http://darussophile.com/2013/07/27/chechens/THE POLITICAL POWER OF ORGANIZED MINORITIES

    Chechens In Russia

    Cartels in Mexico

    Turks in Germany

    Pakistanis in Britain

    The Mafia in Ukraine

    African-Americans in America

    One “DC Sniper” in Washington.

    While all of these groups can create lawless areas within each country, and the government cannot act on it, because it demonstrates the powerlessness of the government in the face of organized violence, some groups are superior at organized violence than others. So policing only works against people who want to be policed. Think about that when you go to a court room and see a long line of people being punished for no other reason than administrative compliance because they live powerlessly on the financial margin. Or when you see a mom pulled over in a mini van for going three miles over the speed limit, while another area of town is battened down like a war zone because the police cannot afford to, and are not willing to, protect it.

    If you can make the police officers and or judges afraid of you, then you can take over any country. A little at a time.

    The question is only whether you can organize effectively or not. And CLANS are very effective means of organization (Chechens). But you can also organize by religion, or commercial interest. The difference is the incentives: a clan has an incentive that is immutable, religions are weaker, and commercial interests are weakest. Yet It’s easier to form commercial organizations and harder to form clans.

    The question is only whether you choose to support the state or not. If you choose to undermine it. THen a small organization of any kind will rapidly make an area ungovernable.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 04:01:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION (This is an outline of the proper

    PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION

    (This is an outline of the propertarian case against multiculturalism. )

    People are different from livestock, goods, services, technologies and recipes – unless they’re slaves that is. I can keep, slaughter or abandon livestock, choose to consume or ignore goods and services, use or ignore technologies and recipes. And immigrants consume opportunity, commons, norms, traditions and laws by competing with them. any norm that increases high trust is an increase in shareholder assets. Any that doesn’t is a loss of shareholder assets.

    Im a libertarian. But any group with the same family structure, norms, values and myths, indistinguishable from kin is a corporation for the purpose of shared production and reproduction in a race against the red queen: the dark forces of time, ignorance and malthusian limits.

    And the introduction of competitors is just theft of shareholder assets. Any economic benefit produced independent of the impact on high trust norms is noise, not signal, and simply a means of using positivism to obscure theft and involuntary transfer from one group to another against their wishes.

    We compete in the market for goods and services despite in-group (in-kin) competition for resources as universally morally objectionable.

    Immigration without adoption of language, norms, family structure, myths, traditions, values, laws, is not non-neutral. It is a high cost. High trust norms that facilitate risk taking in the production of goods an services are the highest cost infrastructure that any group can possess.

    Immigration without conformity, and voting prior to conformity, is in fact, theft. It is violent conquest by the use of the violence of the state against the shareholders in the corporation of high trust norms.

    This isn’t allegory. This is just logical necessity, supported with difficult to measure but empirically demonstrable fact.

    Immigration into a high trust society without mandatory and managed normative enforcement is simply systemic theft and the destruction of cultural (human) capital. Immigration of people into a high trust society of people who share those values is just an increase in kin, and only a net negative if it affects the wages of existing shareholders.(Citizens).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 14:51:00 UTC

  • OUTLINE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/07/22/a-defense-and-criticism-of-the-class-philosophy-we-call-libertarianism/WORKING OUTLINE

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-22 14:27:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS? (edited and re-posted from elsewhere) How do we

    HOW DO WE SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS?

    (edited and re-posted from elsewhere)

    How do we solve global problems of pollution, conflict, corruption, and dispute over resources?

    a) a division of knowledge and labor using private property, money prices, accounting, contracts and rule of the common law: the science of cooperation;

    b) a division of knowledge and labor using empirical tests against the natural world: the physical sciences;

    c) a division of labor using rational tests of empirical results – logic and rational philosophy bounded by philosophical realism: the science of reason;

    d) education of the willing in all of the above – cooperative, physical and rational sciences – and the economic, political and social ostracization of the unwilling.

    In other words, the prohibition of authority and the elimination of the need for homogeneity of opinion, through the use of organized and self organizing trial and error by ratio-scientific man – accompanied by the ostracization and impoverishment of the magian and totalitarian man.

    Currently we have insufficiently privatized the capital of the natural commons so that prices limit overconsumption, and we are engaging in redistribution without matching restraint on reproduction largely because of it.

    That is how we solve global problems of pollution, conflict, corruption, and dispute over resources: science and reason bounded by rules of calculation and the elimination of authority, commons and consensus.

    (oh, my, god. I think I made a funny…. Profound, but funny.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 17:40:00 UTC

  • (PERSONAL NOTE) First sketch: Contra Quine. The Physical Universe Observation (m

    (PERSONAL NOTE)

    First sketch:

    Contra Quine.

    The Physical Universe

    Observation (memory)

    Descriptive language

    The Scientific Method

    Measurement

    Mathematics

    Logic.

    Each of these is related to the one before it.

    Each loses information over the one before it.

    Rather than this hierarchy, they can be arranged on multiple axis describing various relations between them.

    But in every set of relations, information loss remains.

    Calculation in the broadest sense is impossible without information loss.

    The reason Popper’s CR is attractive is that it is a theory of action.

    It compensates for a cognitive bias all humans possess, which is that sense, perception, memory, and ‘calculation’ theorizing and planning are of necessity inductive processes, because we are always working against a kaleidic future whose state we can only approximate.

    Humans evolved to act with little information.

    When we extended our sense perception (observability) first with language and the narrative, we developed argument in the loosest terms. Second with quantitative measurements, we developed mathematics to work with objects whose scale was beyond our perception. Third we developed what we now call pure or symbolic logic to work with sets instead of quantities.

    But each of these systems launders information.

    Furthermore, we are confused by physics and fortunately countered by economics, because while the categories that we measure in the physical universe equilibrate, and we believed economies equilibrated because of prices. But it turns out, that because of flocking and schooling by induction-driven humans, that economies actually drive to disequilibrium, where they crash and people reorganize. Many small reorganizations are easy to absorb, and very large are not. ( Housing, Plague, trade routes, war. )

    There is a vast difference between symbolic logic and the logic of action for similar reasons of information loss.

    And this is the problem with both how popper argued in favor of CR in his era, and how Quine et all’s criticism is false.

    It is that the physical sciences snd the symbolic languages of logic and mathematics refer to constant categories that mirror the properties of the physical universe because ratios equilibrate in a manner identical to the physical universe wherever that universe exists independent of human action.

    But since humans act with limited information, their actions are fraught with error. In their inductions, in their, theories, in their actions and in their observations.

    The difference between poppers CR and Quine’s formal logic is that popper is inarticulately trying to give us direction given that we have made many errors of inclusion, exclusion and calculation in articulating a theory whatever its form, but our error is an error in the selection of information not an error in reasoning.

    Quines errors are many but I think they can be summed up as confusing an error in reasoning with errors of measurement, by confusing the content of statements with the categories that they are symbols of, because the simplistic set theory he is working with correlates highly with the physical universe because that universe equilibrates to a natural state, while the human race faces the unique challenge of creating disequilibria in the physical universe so that we can capture the energy available in the difference.

    I have always viewed formal logic as a tautological victorian parlor game.

    Someone smarter than i am will have to take on the burden of creating a smbolic logic of action in disequilibrium. But i suspect that we already have it, in the scientific method and that the attempts to conjoin formal logic of certainty and the critical rationalism in science are operationally distinct fields.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 08:12:00 UTC

  • Notes On The Libertarian Reformation (Revised and Edited)

    [D]raft of the principles of the libertarian reformation. 1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, anti-rational Postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind. Emphasis on past heroes is not constructive or valuable. It is indicative of the failure to produce successful solutions to the communalist adaptation to the failure of socialism in theory and practice: Postmodernism. 2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ is the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. And it is a good government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government. A monopoly set of property rights is necessary for the rational resolution of disputes, with the lowest friction possible. 3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women. 4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.) 5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners. 6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction. 7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’.The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market. They also boycott although they do not forbid, profit without demonstrated addition of value. 8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without these two additional moral prohibitions instituted both formally and as norms: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right. “Externality and Symmetry Enforced By Warranty” are ethical constraints necessary for markets to function as the only permissible involuntary transfer: by competition in the market. 9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have the broader set of moral biases, and demand for adherence to norms, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that Rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient to achieve what they claim to.

  • NOTES ON THE LIBERTARIAN REFORMATION 1) Our generation’s challenge is not social

    NOTES ON THE LIBERTARIAN REFORMATION

    1) Our generation’s challenge is not socialism, it’s the state religion of anti-scientific, contra-rational postmodernism. (The religion of progressivism.) The dogma, literature, and ideological bias of the libertarian movement is a generation behind.

    2) Government per se, is not a ‘bad’. What’s ‘bad’ are the corporeal state, monopoly, bureaucracy, majority rule, and legislative law. When we fail to make this distinction we are in fact, ‘wrong’. A government that consists of a monopolistically articulated set of property rights and the terms of dispute resolution, operating under the common law, and a group of people whose purpose is to facilitate investments in the commons by voluntary contract, but who cannot make legislative law, is in fact, a government. It may not be necessary government among people with homogenous preferences and beliefs. But it is somewhere between necessary and beneficial government for people with heterogeneous preferences and beliefs. It is however, not a bad government.

    3) Property is unnatural to man. Tribal human settlement is matrilineal, egalitarian, malthusian and poor. Mate selection is determined by sexual favors within the group, and raiding, capturing and killing for women outside the group whenever there was a shortage of women.

    4) Property rights and paternalism were an innovation made possible by the domestication of animals and the ability of males to accumulate wealth outside of the matrilineal order. Property rather than sexual favors was such an advantage that it inverted the relationship between the sexes and determined mate selection. (The feminists are correct.)

    5) Property rights were created by a minority who granted equality of property rights to one another in exchange for service in warfare. The source of property rights is the organized application of violence to create those property rights. Because property rights are the desire of the minority. However, property rights created such an increase in prosperity and consumption that others sought to join the ranks of property owners.

    6) The redistributive state that was voted into power by women, has reversed the innovation of private property and in concert with feminists, is eroding the nuclear family, and the male ability to collect property. The institutions of marriage, nuclear family, and private property cannot survive when a democratic majority can deprive men of private property rights, and their ability to control mating and reproduction.

    7 ) Rothbardian Libertarian ethics are ‘insufficient’. The high trust society forbids involuntary transfers by externality and asymmetry of information, and enforces this demand with a requirement for warranty. The ethics of the high trust society forbid all involuntary transfers except through competition in the market.

    8 ) Rothbardian ethics are wrong (and bad): The market incentives alone are not high enough to overcome corruption, and create the high trust society without additional moral prohibitions: norms are a commons. They are property. Conservatives are right.

    9 ) Libertarians do not exist in sufficient numbers. And it is not possible to enfranchise the conservatives (classical liberals) with Rothbardian ‘ghetto’ ethics. Without conservatives, who have a broader set of moral biases, the libertarian bias is morally objectionable to too large a population, and libertarians are too small in number to accumulate and hold the power necessary to determine property rights in a geography. It’s important to understand that rothbardian ethics are ‘wrong’ because they are insufficient.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-08 08:07:00 UTC