Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “IF WE CANNOT HAVE ANCESTOR WORSHIP THEN BY RECIPROCITY YOU MAY NOT EITHER.” Fin

    “IF WE CANNOT HAVE ANCESTOR WORSHIP THEN BY RECIPROCITY YOU MAY NOT EITHER.”

    Fin.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 16:43:00 UTC

  • THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES> I didn’t say there is an end to

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrUNO, THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES>

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continuing the anglo tradition, we must periodically update our constitution and law to reflect innovations in irreciprocity. I am merely adapting the current constitution and law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science. The difference is that institutions change with greater difficulty than does un-institutionalized knowledge. 😉

    JFG – Love you man but you have a habit of declaring understanding when you are hypothesizing understanding, and cannot warranty your words. 😉 Of course, in P-Law, you would have to change your behavior, and say your understanding was such, but that you can’t warranty it as true. 😉 Otherwise you’d be liable for ten times the air time to correct your prior claims. 😉

    And yes, I know you run an opinion show. JFG opinion is entertaining. 😉

    youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU Updated Mar 28, 2020, 3:16 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 15:16:00 UTC

  • “The CDC is the DMV for germs. Same excellent service.”— Rob Rupprecht (ouch)

    —“The CDC is the DMV for germs. Same excellent service.”— Rob Rupprecht

    (ouch)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 14:42:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER. (in res

    PROPERTARIANISM FITS, BUT SOVEREIGNTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW FIT BETTER.

    (in response to hate from a universalist libertarian)

    —“Doolittle needs to come up with his own descriptor. By his own admission, Propertarianism no longer fits. He long ago abandoned any propertarian roots he may have had, denying any propositional aspects of human culture in favor of racial collectivism. A ludicrous course down a blind alley, easily exposed by observing the changes in European behavior effected by the Frankfurt School’s “long march through the institutions”.— Karl Brooks

    If you mean I attack every sacred cow, and address every taboo in my search for the truth as a means of ending the current attack on western civilization – then that’s true. If you mean I am no longer a universalist – I never was. If you mean I ever denied the reality of human differences given the vast disparity in the size of the underclasses, and the vast evidence of racial competition in heterogeneous societies, or the failure of every heterogeneous society in history – I never did. If you mean by “propertarian” a system of measurement created by reducing all questions of social science to tests of property – I still am. If you mean I am a universal nationalist – I am. If you mean I have come to the conclusion that western civlization is demonstrably superior and articulated why in great detail -I have. If you mean I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the genetic differences between groups are insurmountable in a heterogeneous polity – then I have. I If you mean separatism is the only method of preserving that civlization because of demographic disparities – yes it does.If you mean I want other than the best for all other people – no it doesn’t. If you mean to suggest that there is any better way of life for all people without imposing costs upon others, than low power distance of many small nation states is the optimum human order – then you err.

    PREMISE: our differences in demand for commons can only be ameliorated by political separation, and our satisfaction for goods services and information can be satisfied by international trade. This is a purely empirical statement. I can find no evidence in history to counter it. “All People Demonstrate Kin Selection and Kin Preference. All heterogeneous groups self sort, and in proximity come into conflict. So separate and Carry Your Own Weight”

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 14:32:00 UTC

  • So when Trump said “Time to initiate P” what did he mean? 😉

    So when Trump said “Time to initiate P” what did he mean? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 13:49:00 UTC

  • RE: TEKWARS CLOWN WORD ON “SCIENCE” (more nitwit kantians) SCIENCE Science is ju

    RE: TEKWARS CLOWN WORD ON “SCIENCE”

    (more nitwit kantians)

    SCIENCE

    Science is just the application of law to the market for knowledge. Norms for the limit of normative behavior. Law for the limit of criminal behavior. Tradition for the intergenerational transfer of science, norms, and laws.

    KNOWING

    A paradigm of related ideas that permit one to comprehend possibilities, think, and act upon them. Knowing, the utility of that knowledge, the utility of that knowledge across increasing numbers, and the truth or falsehood of that knowledge are four different things:

    1-Personal Utility,

    2-Cooperative Scope of Utility between people,

    3-Utility in Resolving Conflicts Between Paradigms, and

    4-Limiting others from spreading harmful ways of knowing.

    Young men are concerned with the first two, because you have no meaningful responsibilities. Those of us with responsibilities for groups of people care about all four. This is no different from the moral bias of the left specializing in just care and proportionality, while conservatives hold a consistent across the spectrum including reciprocity, loyalty ,and purity.

    DEMAND FOR METHODS OF KNOWING

    Yes, we need a series of paradigms across the spectrum from the intuitive to rational to the calculative in order to satisfy the demands for decidability suitable for satisfying the demand for infallibility across the spectrum of abilities of different human beings of different genetics, ages, experiences, and training. That does not mean that the most precise system of measurement (paradigm) will not continuously provide higher resolution and greater falsification over the more intuitive. It will. It is better to say that it is useful for the best of us to learn the empathic (child), rational(young adult), and scientific (mature adult) languages.

    THE FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES OVER UTILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE AND HARMFUL KNOWLEDGE

    1. Yes, we can and do use almost any paradigm or paradigms to imagine possibilities.

    2. The means by which we come to an idea (hypothesis) has no bearing on the possibility, good or bad, truth or falsehood of it.

    3. The premises that such an idea must depend upon limit the deductions, inductions, abductions, and free associations that one develops from it.

    4. It’s that all arguments in all frames CAN be made commensurable by the same system of measurement.

    5. That system of measurement consists of what which we can testify to.

    6. Science is the discipline in which we test whether these are testifiable and as such whether they are false.

    7. There is no more parsimonious commensurable internally consistent externally correspondent and complete paradigm by which to test all human thought.

    8. It is this competition for coherence consistency correspondence and completeness that provides the test of whether propositions are comprehensible, undecidable, testifiable, a truth candidate, or false

    9. This market has and continues to continuously reorganize the paradigm we call science and the sciences.

    There is no other method of testifying about reality than science.

    10. That is the premise of science: testimony.

    Not the means of obtaining knowledge.

    The means of falsifying knowledge across contexts.

    AFTER GREAT INNOVATIONS IN PARADIGMS, THERE IS GREATER VALUE IN ELIMINATING ERROR THAN IDENTIFYING NEW TRUTHS

    This is the period we are in now. We are continuing to falsify the anti-Darwinan revolution by Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Friedan, etc.

    SCIENCE CANT END, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE CANT END, SO PARADIGMS CANT END

    1. Even if we discover the fundamental rules of the universe across the spectrum – even to thoughts, we can develop potentially infinite combinations of paradigms upon them. In other words the utility of science will shift from discovery of fundamental laws to the greater application of those laws.

    2. The spectrum of the most parsimonious paradigm shifts as opportunities for action shift.

    3. The set of narratives across the spectrum of abilities will gradually adapt to the seizure of those opportunities.

    4. We will always have empathic narratives, rational rules, and methods of calculation to satisfy the demands of people with lesser and greater ability, lesser and greater agency, and lesser and greater responsibility.

    KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED BY AGENCY

    At some point we cannot easily learn more without acting. At present we cannot afford to run tests in physics and medicine.

    And agency is limited by organization of energy.

    MATHEMATICS

    Mathematics (the logic of a positional names) is the simplest possible language (paradigm, logic, grammar, vocabulary, syntax) of constant relations. It has only one relation: position. Because it has only one possible constant relation, it is far less subject to error than all other languages.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 13:46:00 UTC

  • NO WE CANNOT RETURN TO COMMODITY MONEY A return to commodity money can’t be done

    NO WE CANNOT RETURN TO COMMODITY MONEY

    A return to commodity money can’t be done. It privileges investors at the expense of ordinary people, and managing the supply of money is too valuable for an economy. No economy can compete without it. And there are other vehicles for storing capital – including commodity money, real estate, commodities (how oil functions today). Commodity Money has value external to it being used as money. Currency only has value as commodity money substitute. Asking a country not to use currency (shares of stock in the economy) is as ridiculous as telling companies that they can’t issue public shares of stock, nor release additional shares of stock. Like all things, libertarian ideas were attempts to westernize jewish diasporic ethics of the pale that depended upon specializing in extractive usury, and using the proceeds to construct rent seeking, and baiting into hazard.

    (Falsification of Libertarian Dogma: “What right do you have to the appreciation of the purchasing power of a currency without contributing to the production of that value?” And “What right do you have to the preservation of the purchasing power of a currency?” And “Why does an lender have right to price stability at the expense of the rest of the marketplace?” Those are the three demands that drive the (((usury))) philosophy we call’ libertarianism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 08:01:00 UTC

  • “BYE BYE FED.” TRUMP DID IT. IT”S BEAUTIFUL. Like I said. “In the next crisis th

    “BYE BYE FED.” TRUMP DID IT. IT”S BEAUTIFUL.

    Like I said. “In the next crisis these solutions are deterministic”

    Like I said. “Idiots predict timing. But processes are deterministic.”

    FROM BLOOMBERG

    —“In just these past few weeks, the Fed has cut rates by 150 basis points to near zero and run through its entire 2008 crisis handbook. That wasn’t enough to calm markets, though — so the central bank also announced $1 trillion a day in repurchase agreements and unlimited quantitative easing, which includes a hard-to-understand $625 billion of bond buying a week going forward. At this rate, the Fed will own two-thirds of the Treasury market in a year.

    But it’s the alphabet soup of new programs that deserve special consideration, as they could have profound long-term consequences for the functioning of the Fed and the allocation of capital in financial markets. Specifically, these are:

    CPFF (Commercial Paper Funding Facility) – buying commercial paper from the issuer. PMCCF (Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility) – buying corporate bonds from the issuer. TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) – funding backstop for asset-backed securities. SMCCF (Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility) – buying corporate bonds and bond ETFs in the secondary market. MSBLP (Main Street Business Lending Program) – Details are to come, but it will lend to eligible small and medium-size businesses, complementing efforts by the Small Business Association.

    To put it bluntly, the Fed isn’t allowed to do any of this. The central bank is only allowed to purchase or lend against securities that have government guarantee. This includes Treasury securities, agency mortgage-backed securities and the debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. An argument can be made that can also include municipal securities, but nothing in the laundry list above.

    So how can they do this? The Fed will finance a special purpose vehicle (SPV) for each acronym to conduct these operations. The Treasury, using the Exchange Stabilization Fund, will make an equity investment in each SPV and be in a “first loss” position. What does this mean? In essence, the Treasury, not the Fed, is buying all these securities and backstopping of loans; the Fed is acting as banker and providing financing. The Fed hired BlackRock Inc. to purchase these securities and handle the administration of the SPVs on behalf of the owner, the Treasury.

    In other words, the federal government is nationalizing large swaths of the financial markets. The Fed is providing the money to do it. BlackRock will be doing the trades.

    This scheme essentially merges the Fed and Treasury into one organization. So, meet your new Fed chairman, Donald J. Trump.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 23:35:00 UTC

  • WHY IS CURT DOOLITTLE SO HOSTILE IN REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM INTO SOVEREIGNTARIA

    WHY IS CURT DOOLITTLE SO HOSTILE IN REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM INTO SOVEREIGNTARIANISM?

    —“UPB It’s built on non-contradiction. Making it’s epistemology rationalism; thereby ignoring: natural law, game theory, prisoner’s dilemma, etc.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“UPB is Kantianism (Hoppeanism) for fever-level IQs. It is the language of an adolescent just learning to venture beyond his mother’s purview. This has been his project from the outset (DEFOOing). He never completed the developmental arc. … Man requires information, not imperative.”—James Krieger

    —“I can only unite the libertarian, conservative, and religious if I restore responsibility of the militia of every able bodied man to bear the cost of the organized use of violence to enforce our demand for sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, excellence and beauty, jury and law, family and kin, commons and capitalization as the central objects of social organization and political policy. To do that we require an intellectual vanguard. The classical libertarians have always been our intellectual wing, the conservatives decidedly anti-intellectual, and the religious conservatives hostile to the intellectual. I have to deprive the libertarian intellectual class of false promise of freedom from the cost of organized violence in a universal militia of kin, and to together we must bear the cost of depriving the left of freedom from the cost of hyper-consumption and dysgenic reproduction and the hedonism of the individual’s maximization of consumption as the central object of policy and social organization. The left is cancerous growth of man on both this planet, mankind, man’s future, and the possibility of the transcendence of man into the gods we might yet be.”— Curt Doolittle

    Sovereignty = Responsibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 16:38:00 UTC

  • “Libertarians think opening borders would finally help them defend property righ

    —“Libertarians think opening borders would finally help them defend property rights when in reality it’d speed up the opening of their private property’s borders.”—Steve Pender

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 16:11:00 UTC