Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Curt Doolittle shared a memory

    Curt Doolittle shared a memory.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:20:00 UTC

  • WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE? I think people fought against homosexuality

    WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE?

    I think people fought against homosexuality for the following reasons:

    (a) marriage in public prohibits interference which causes high rates of male violence, often resulting in death, the consequences of which export vast cascading costs onto the polity – trust being one of the most important.

    (b) marriage in public asks warranty of non-interference in the marriage and family as a means of preventing the moral hazard of the public carrying the cost of broken families.

    (c) Homosexuality invokes a disgust response in many (very many) people, not the least of which because we do not want to increase ‘marginal cases’.

    (d) homosexuality is of negative evolutionary, familial, value other than labor, and so why does the public need to insure it by means of marriage?

    (e) Without offspring they could signal hyperconsumption more easily, and with two incomes they could signal hyperconsumption more easily

    (f) homosexuals by hyperconsumption, sexual signaling, promiscuity, have demonstrated precisely the public behaviors that we have spent thousands of years removing from the public – precisely so that we could limit risk of violating the marriage and family as means of limiting the export of costs.

    (g) It certainly appears that given all of us contain masculine and feminine traits, and that while in-utero homosexuality is merely a birth defect, various forms of mental illness can result from developmental issues such as bulimia, anorexia, sexual identity, issues. In other words, ‘gender preference’ appears to be, like anorexia and bulimia, a developmental disorder easily corrected by constant exposure to norms. (and therefore without loss of genetic persistence,)

    (h) Genetically (and economically) non-reproducing people who are capable of productivity and self financing of reproduction are dead weight on civilization.

    So externalities are the cause of marriage. homoxexuality does not require the institution of marriage: a corporation for the pooling of assets by which intergenerational reproduction, ‘financing’ and ‘insurance’ are provided.

    Instead homoseuality requires only the formation of a partnership, and universal power of attorney. This is the only legal content of the marriage.

    The question remains whether homosexuals can produced offspring in equal or not worse quality to hterosexuals and the money is against them. Not because some cannot. But because there are too many who cannot.

    So we are running an experiment. I have no idea how it will play out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:00:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT ‘REVOLUTION’? (important) The fact is that as a ph

    WHAT IS THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT ‘REVOLUTION’?

    (important)

    The fact is that as a philosopher I am not a ‘problem’. But the minute I start talking about operations then I become ‘a problem’. So I will just say that we don’t talk about fight club outside of fight club. That said, if we are successful (meaning me and the other thinkers around me, and the other leadership around us, and the extended movement beyond them), then both the threat will be real enough, and the solution possible enough, and the returns for the labor, working, middle, and upper middle class so substantial, that the ‘talking’ classes will have no choice. Not that they will not fight it. But that they will not be able to win. In the end, I am fairly certain that from the set of available choices I know the outcome that will result out of self interest by the government and the military. We will end up burning the financial sector, the advertising sector, the media, entertainment sector, and the academy, on a pyre of economic and legal disenfranchisement that it will be remembered as an economic version of the french revolution. And hopefully with the same durability in memory for all of history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 09:01:00 UTC

  • “WE JUST NEED A RELIGION AND WE ARE DONE ” by Joel Davis —“I’m just getting st

    “WE JUST NEED A RELIGION AND WE ARE DONE “

    by Joel Davis

    —“I’m just getting started. I have another piece on the relationship between religion, ritual, language, ethics and sociology that I’ve been formulating in the inspiration generated from my reading of Eric Gans’ work that I think has big potential when combined with Nietzschean aesthetics.

    We have a political ideology, an ethics, and now a philosophical school.

    We just need a religion and we’re done.”— Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:47:00 UTC

  • THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operati

    THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE.

    —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operationalizes Kant’s categorical imperative as a functional measurement of interpersonal relations.”— Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:42:00 UTC

  • THE PLAN —“So what’s the plan Curt?”—Rob McMullan The plan is, and always ha

    THE PLAN

    —“So what’s the plan Curt?”—Rob McMullan

    The plan is, and always has been, a ‘Bible’ of Natural Law –

    ‘The Book of the West’, beyond which none may tread, or death is the consequence 😉

    Plato failed. We don’t have to. We can succeed. 🙂

    De Monarchia: The Cult of Non Submission. The Scripture of Nobility. The Philosophy of Aristocracy. The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The Order of the Militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:39:00 UTC

  • THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM OF THE MONEY SUPPLY the problem of monetary supply is

    THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM OF THE MONEY SUPPLY

    the problem of monetary supply is created by (a) a single currency for all purposes, and (b) distribution through the financial system rather than consumers.

    Rather than targeting, I use changes in capital (capital-in-total) and sector-interest-rates. (My suspicion is that all we are doing today is spending down capital and calling it efficiency.)

    For example, we can regulate home loan interest separately from regulating car loan interest. We could supply money for purposes instead of regulating interest. This is the amazing property of digital money substitutes.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 08:29:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND TESTIMONIALISM: OPERATIONALIZING KANT (extremely important)

    PROPERTARIANISM AND TESTIMONIALISM: OPERATIONALIZING KANT

    (extremely important)

    by Joel Davis

    Kant’s epistemology can be broken down as a solution to the loss of a coherently functional conceptualization of our experience necessitated by adopting the extreme skepticism which emerges from Hume’s pure empiricism.

    Hume got so deep into empiricism that he rendered causality itself unknowable (as we merely sense variance over time, and impose the unfalsifiable concept of causal relations onto variance), Kant recognized the problem raised by Hume as pertaining to more than merely causality, but in fact to the concept of relative coherence itself.. On what basis can we empirically verify that the “thing-in-itself” is coherent? Kant then correctly realized that comprehensible experience can only emerge from conceptual coherence, thus necessitating the imposition of concepts like causality, the laws of logic and mathematics, and relative temporality and spatiality.

    Therefore, to Kant, we can not verify whether reality (the ‘thing-in-itself’) is coherent as we can’t perceive causal, logical, mathematical, temporal or spatial incoherence, thus we would impose coherence onto it to experience it anyway. However, this does not devalue rationality or empiricism, it merely articulates the function of experience – the categorization of perceived variance functions relative to conceptual/ideal definition (what Curt Doolittle describes as categorical consistency and scope consistency if done commensurably).

    Kant of course took hundreds of pages to say what I just said in a couple paragraphs, why? Because I think operationally.

    The best concept of ‘the truth’ we can generate emerges from operationalizing conceptual coherence by discovering functionally relative correspondence via the commensurable definition of experiential variance and convergence.

    That commensurablity emerges from measuring the temporal variance of sensory phenomena relative to abstract limits (what Curt Doolittle calls existential consistency).

    I also hold that just as Curt Doolittle’s epistemology operationalizes Kant’s epistemology as a functional measurement of thinking and speaking in maximum coherence (Testimonialism), Curt Doolittle’s ‘Natural Law of Reciprocity’ operationalizes Kant’s categorical imperative as a functional measurement of interpersonal relations. But, that piece of writing that will have to wait for when I have the time.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 07:26:00 UTC

  • Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we ar

    Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we are trustworthy. We are trustworthy either by nature(genetics) or training or both. It is increasingly obvious that it is BOTH. This is why other peoples cannot duplicate the western model. Our trust is a high tax. No other people will pay this tax other than perhaps the Japanese. Why: homogeneity.

    Once you figure it out you realize how much lying is going on under cosmopolitanism. Once we end financial parasitism our ability to exercise our creativity and intelligence and trust will multiply once again. Once we eliminate centralization of the state, our creativity and intelligence will multiply once again.

    Once we are no longer preyed upon our numbers will increase and we will multiply again.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:37:00 UTC

  • CORPORATIONS The reason for the corporation is to permit limited liability and f

    CORPORATIONS

    The reason for the corporation is to permit limited liability and fungibility of management and control. Like any organization that permits cooperation for gain without consumption of the commons produced thereby, the returns on corporations are higher than the returns on individual ownership. Scale makes a profound difference. Poor countries with low trust societies cannot form large corporations producing multiples of returns. But the income largely stays inside the corporations where it continues to produce returns. The problem is figuring out HOW to tax a corporation, since the state does not wish to kill the golden goose. Double taxation is the real issue. Corporations must either pay taxes OR distribute dividends that are taxed by the rate of individual income of the shareholders. (we do both today which is one of the very bad things we do.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:33:00 UTC