Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman —“W

    HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY?

    William Butchman

    —“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:30:00 UTC

  • Have Given The Left Enough Rope. #Conservative #Libertarian #tlot #tcot #Trump @

    https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/845703358908391424/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=845703358908391424We Have Given The Left Enough Rope. #Conservative #Libertarian #tlot #tcot #Trump @MartianHoplite #NewRight https://t.co/XpkNiDRiox

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:26:00 UTC

  • DO WHAT YOU WERE BORN TO DO Killing is what we evolved to do – and we are the be

    DO WHAT YOU WERE BORN TO DO

    Killing is what we evolved to do – and we are the best at it: super predators. And hunting, sport, and soldiery are poor substitutes for the heady war of warrior kinsmen. There is no higher good, no higher achievement, no greater demonstration of your self and your people, your culture and your civilization, than the defeat, decimation, deprivation, and enslavement of your enemies, and the distribution of their women, their property, and their territory. We don’t need to shrink from the opportunity to war for our kin – but REVEL in it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:01:00 UTC

  • DEAR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A) Please come for me. Please give me even more credibil

    DEAR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    A) Please come for me. Please give me even more credibility, and expand my market dramatically.

    B) Please expand the opportunity for promoting discourse on rule of law and the solution to the next iteration of european governments.

    C) Please ensure that the income source necessary to fund any revolution (a foreign government) will provide for a revolution.

    Once you tried to destroy me procedurally, you made me an enemy, and I made it my mission to ensure that rule of law is restored, so that never again can a man be harmed by the arbitrary judgement of individuals prior to juridical review, under rule of law, under natural law, of universal standing, and universal applicability – without exception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 13:44:00 UTC

  • CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS Matt Mitchell —“Curt, is there

    CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS

    Matt Mitchell

    —“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think. But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances.

    So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs).

    So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument.

    Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them.

    The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight?

    Rule of law.

    So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible.

    😉

    Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad.

    ———–definition———–

    “Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 13:29:00 UTC

  • LET ME UNDER MINE YOUR HIGH MINDEDNESS IN POLITICAL ORDERS Social orders must ad

    LET ME UNDER MINE YOUR HIGH MINDEDNESS IN POLITICAL ORDERS

    Social orders must adapt to the conditions in which they function. All human beings seek predictability – a steady state – and it is normal for ascendent males to seek a steady state in which to prosper. But it is also rational for those who are uncompetitive to seek a steady state in which they do not need fight in the market for survival.

    Fascism = War

    Market Fascism = Peace

    Market Liberalism = Windfalls

    If you are seeking a steady state rather than to organize society according to its competitive needs, you are not in fact, seeking markets, but to circumvent the market – the market order. You are simply trying to do so at an inter-polity scale, rather than an intra-polity scale.

    Think about that before you claim the moral high ground and say we should organize society as such and such.

    We should organize society according to the market conditions in which it operates. And to do that requires training people to NOT require a steady state in order to function.

    So far, only the Singapore and Swiss models approach this strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 13:01:00 UTC

  • Fascism = War ‘Market Fascism’ = Peace Classical Liberalism = Windfalls

    Fascism = War

    ‘Market Fascism’ = Peace

    Classical Liberalism = Windfalls

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:53:00 UTC

  • FICTION VERSUS LAW (profoundly important) FICTION ( possibility – opportunity –

    FICTION VERSUS LAW

    (profoundly important)

    FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity )

    VS

    LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism )

    Of the following, which is fiction, which is law?

    A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

    B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang.

    But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates.

    PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:50:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism ha

    UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES

    @Eli

    I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.

    I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.

    I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.

    This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:45:00 UTC

  • THE TIME FOR COOPERATION (EQUALITY OF SOVEREIGNTY) IS PAST by Eli Harman Peterso

    THE TIME FOR COOPERATION (EQUALITY OF SOVEREIGNTY) IS PAST

    by Eli Harman

    Peterson is trying, Doolittle is trying, every conservative and libertarian has BEEN trying, for the last 50 years, to leave the door open to cooperation, coexistence, and compromise with the left. When they finally and inevitably fail to secure a good faith acceptance for their offer, we will be there, to do the other things. But the offer is necessary, because the inevitable refusal and betrayal are necessary, in order to legitimize what must be done. It will not be said that we didn’t give them enough chances to save themselves. We will give them too many. We already have.

    ( Curt Doolittle: Yes. The time for hope is past. My intentions are to provide a compromise: full reciprocity, thereby treating ‘the others’ (those who lack agency) as foreigners, with whom we settle differences by market cooperation. However, by advocating ‘market fascism’, and aristocratic rule, I’m advocating taking a parental (paternal) responsibility for the ‘others’, in the kindest sense, a domestication of them for profit, out of self-defense, in the middle of the spectrum, and their extermination at the end of the spectrum. My strategy is to simply state this truthfully. And prepare for war. And choose any of the three options that will be available to us in a state of war. I do not fear them. And there are consequences to exterminating them – although I am not sure all are bad. But to domesticate them for profit as we have done for millennia is a position I have a hard time arguing with. Market slavery is still slavery.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:23:00 UTC