Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • You see. I made a tool. A weapon. Intellectual weaponry. How you use that weapon

    You see. I made a tool. A weapon. Intellectual weaponry. How you use that weapon is up to you. And you will see, that after people follow me for a while, and begin to understand how to use that tool, they are don’t act like sycophants at all. They may sound very similar, but they argue using this tool for different purposes in different frames, to pursue different tactics. And this is what I want. It’s like doing accounting. You can do propertarian accounting just as you can do monetary accounting. You can measure the sums of many different kinds of things and reduce it to some statement of gain or loss, or some change in the balance sheet. That’s what properatrianism lets you do.

    Now, in ADDITION to propertarianism and testimonialism, I ALSO advocate for the use of violence to restore sovereignty, markets in everything, and the production of AGENCY, so that we conduct TRANSCENDENCE of mankind over the centuries – and exit this ball of wet rock.

    And I know its easy to confuse the science with the preference.

    But they are independent things. You can construct a governmetn of any kind that you want to using propertarianism and testimonialism and natural law – as long as you do it truthfully.

    I just advocate the restoration of my people to our position as the drivers of innovation for humanity in the ancient and modern worlds.

    But I don’t conflate the science with the preference.

    Everyone who follows me does. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 12:54:00 UTC

  • western man is always better when smaller in number and better in quality. it is

    western man is always better when smaller in number and better in quality. it is our strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 11:58:00 UTC

  • WE NEED TO ACT – BUT WE ARE NOT ALL CAPABLE OF PAYING THE SAME COGNITIVE COSTS.

    WE NEED TO ACT – BUT WE ARE NOT ALL CAPABLE OF PAYING THE SAME COGNITIVE COSTS.

    we need to act. if we cannot understand. it does not help us act. we act with what we can understand. not everyone can handle low context thought. they require the savings provided by high context terms and norms. hence why it is so difficult to change state in a populace with uncomfortable truth and so easy with comforting lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 11:57:00 UTC

  • “How does that statement feel. yeah. that feels right”— that’s how most people

    —“How does that statement feel. yeah. that feels right”—

    that’s how most people ‘think’. Although ‘thinking’ is overstating it quite a bit.

    If your decisions require feeling to test them (introspection) then you dont know wtf you’re talking about.You’re just expressing how you feel using layers of obfuscation and excuse making.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 11:08:00 UTC

  • THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE Once you experience the epiphany th

    THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE

    Once you experience the epiphany that we live in an age of largely pseudoscientific discourse, changing only the terms from supernatural, to moral, to rational, and now to pseudoscientific, your understanding of the world will change so dramatically that you may (as I have) experience profound anger at those who invented and perpetuated the new pseudoscientific religion we are all the victims of – we are the wage and credit slaves of pseudoscience rather than religion.

    We replaced the rule of law reducible to experience that we can all judge, and the payment of taxes we can all observe with rule of finance and credit which is not – and is nothing but a vehicle for fraud.

    In other words -and get ready for this to shock you – we replaced the mysticism of religion with the promise of afterlife in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now, for the promise of retirement and the abandonment of want in our later lives in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now.

    We transitioned from the treatment of money and credit as beneath those who rule, and limited by rule of law, and moral hazard, and outsourcing it to ‘lower people of lesser character’, to abandoning rule of law that we can sense, perceive, and taxes we can sense and percieve, to the expropriation of everything we produce by those who use our inability to sense and percieve to defraud us.

    There is no secret to fiat money – it is merely shares in the corporation of the commons we call ‘the state’. There is no reason to require third parties to distribute shares – and there never was. And with the advent of fiat money (paper shares), credit money (promises of future paper shares), and digital money (the elimination of the need for paper to represent the shares) there is no reason whatsoever to preserve the ‘trick’ of making consumers pay for access to their own shares (as common shareholders) rather than forcing business, industry, banking, and finance, as well as the state, to fight with each other in order to obtain some portion of them.

    Moreover, there is no reason any of this process is not fully governable by rule of law, independent of human discretion, and forbidden by teh constitution, defended by the courts, and enforced by militia, and the army if necessary. And therefore fully transparent and free of deceit and parasitism upon the people.

    We will need to draw a lot of blood.

    Do a lot of killing.

    Do a lot of burning.

    And enact a few legislative changes.

    But in the end, the people who lie cheat and steal, will be deprived of that opportunity. And those who still live after our cleansing of their kind, will have to search for other useful means of surviving under the rule of natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:54:00 UTC

  • ***The vast majority of our arguments in the past century of modernity can be re

    ***The vast majority of our arguments in the past century of modernity can be reduced to poetry using pseudoscientific rather than moral, literary, or mythological verse.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:36:00 UTC

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM’S COMMENSURABILITY OF MEANING —“Curt: Why is linguistic com

    ON PROPERTARIANISM’S COMMENSURABILITY OF MEANING

    —“Curt: Why is linguistic commensurability most pertinent empirically? Is their evidence to suggest so or is this still purely hypothetical?”— Rik

    Curt Doolittle

    Well, let us take your sentence as an example:

    —“Why is linguistic commensurability most pertinent empirically?”—

    Translated:

    Why do people who desire to communicate and cooperate need the same, and therefore commensurable, definitions if they are to report upon their observations if we are to report without ignorance, error, bias, and deceit?

    Do ya see what I did there? I took all the words that LOOKED like you (people) understood what they mean, and I replaced them with what they mean in the consistent grammar of acting. Once I did that then the question answers itself.

    The vast majority of our arguments in modernity can be reduced to poetry using pseudoscientific rather than moral, literary, or mythological verse.

    I have tried to repair that fact with propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:35:00 UTC

  • A lot of language consists of suggestion. Education and literacy teach us a lot

    A lot of language consists of suggestion. Education and literacy teach us a lot of ideas and terms that we use like children do, under the pretense of comprehension of them.

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:31:00 UTC

  • “Proposition: Any institution or organization which does not hold the life of a

    —“Proposition: Any institution or organization which does not hold the life of a particular type of Man as its telos is doomed to the death of the soulless. Corrolary: Any instittution or organization which holds all life as its telos (universalist), will be functionally indistinguishable from that which holds no life as its telos.”— William Butchman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 09:55:00 UTC

  • THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT It is the nature of an auti

    THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT

    It is the nature of an autistic (deflationary, context-independent, norm independent) mind to break everything into the smallest possible constituent parts: where causality is determined (axiomatic or closed causality), and to find comprehensibility at that level of detail. Yet still recognize that normals cannot comprehend at that level of detail. And to be frustrated that no abstraction of that level of detail will convey the information present at that level of detail without the introduction of error.

    I have come to think of that level of detail as ‘context-free’ description; and to think of normie-levels of detail as ‘context-dependent’ levels of detail.

    So this is why, when I have an individual or group to talk to, I can listen to them a bit and determine their frames of reference – their ‘contexts’ – then I can reframe the argument for their context.

    What I am NOT good at (and you and others are much better at) is determining a NORMATIVE CONTEXT to use in lieu of the interpersonal context we obtain during discourse.

    So this is why I require such precise definitions: to create a categorically consistent, an internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially consistent, and scope(scale) limited, thereby creating a fully correspondent context.

    And this is why I take so much time and work so hard to produce so many series and lists, and so many aphorisms, that state both via positiva and via negativa such that balance and completeness are contained in a pithy statement of observation.

    The great Chinese philosophers (Confucius and Lao Tzu) probably failed for no other reason than Chinese is a high context low precision language. But they managed to create so many aphorisms and riddles to accomplish by suggestion that which cannot be stated in their language with precision free of context.

    Efficient communication requires context and suggestion and truthful communication requires their absence. Loading communicates one’s value attributions. Framing narrows normative context and can be used to justify one’s decisions or to deceive.

    Or very simply, it takes three points to test a line, a series to test a definition, the combination of via-positiva, and via-negativa assertions to test a statement, and a full accounting using all of the above to test an argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 09:44:00 UTC