Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “The British Empire and British Intelligence were the template for the American

    —“The British Empire and British Intelligence were the template for the American Empire and the CIA, which are pulling Western civilization and culture to the point of extinction.The Anglos should have never lost their German roots. That was the beginning of the end.”—Josh Jeppson

    I have slowly come to understand that as an anglo-american, Englishman, norman on one side, and breton on the other, that my intuitions that demand my rights as an Englishman, are rights of an anglo saxon, are rights of Germania, and rights of Aryan Europeans: reciprocity – or what we more romantically call Natural Law.

    And that America when founded was an anglo-saxon nation. A member of northern Europe and therefore of the civilization of greater Germania. And that sometime after the defeat of napoleon culminating with the parliament of Disraeli, the brits attempted to create a culture, a religion, of commercial greed at the expense of kin, culture. One that violated our ancient reciprocity.

    And by doing that the British adopted the dual ethics of the jews.

    And this caused a split between the individual responsibility and reciprocity of the germans as the means of spreading civilization. And the non-reciprocal ‘high mindedness’ of the jews was adopted by the british and still plagues the anglosphere today.

    Just as the Jews and British were motivated to adopt polyethical, virtue-signaling, moralism as their method of justifying their predation, the greed of the americans motivated them to acquire the british empire which they had so feared.

    British Aristocracy and what is left of us in American lesser aristocracy – those who follow our ancient ‘religion’ of incrementally expanding reciprocity – still practice the aristocratic ethos.

    But we are the minority – since we have let pandora out of the box: irreciprocity of the jews adopted by the british, inherited by the americans.

    There is no shortcut to natural law. And those who attempt it will be hated by all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 08:49:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 08:25:00 UTC

  • “So, is the “bottom line” of “Propertarianism” a distinction between “decidabili

    —“So, is the “bottom line” of “Propertarianism” a distinction between “decidability” and “meaning”? Is that the departure point?

    Can the antimony and dichotomy of “decidability” and “meaning” be understood as the relation(ship) between Being and non-Being?

    Your philosophy is ultimately grounded in Aristotle, is that accurate?

    “–Francisco Antonio

    Yes, in order to produce an amoral, scientific language of cooperation, all statements are reduced to the transfer of assets. In this way we advocate truth and transparency and voluntary exchange: reciprocity (the balance of both sides) just as we describe a balance sheet, or just as an equation is balanced.

    SERIES

    0) Identity (Correspondence / non-correspondence)

    1) Counting (correspondence balance, including identities),

    2) Mathematical balancing, (including ratios)

    3) Accounting balancing, (including market goods with prices)

    4) Property in toto balancing. (including common goods without)

    In my view I dont’ take philosophers very seriously. And I tend only to read sciences. The science I understand is the common law of sovereign men. but the common law is parsimonious. it tells us only how to decide. it does not provide us with what we desire in a PHILOSOPHY: what is GOOD. it tells us only what is bad, so that we may all select philosophical goods from a market for philosophical goods. But as I have articulated this law to require truthfulness, reciprocity, and beauty, in the provision of ‘shoulds’, this means philosophy is then the study of preferences WITHIN the limits of Natural Law. And this presents a problem for the pseudoscientists and pseudorationalist, but not for the essayist, the novelist, or necessarily the mythicist.

    So when you say, grounded in Aristotle, I would say that greek philosophy was an attempt to improve upon then current current law. and I see Aristotle as the non-conflationist – the proto-empiricist. that applied the law to matters commonly outside the law. This is how bacon also applies the law in the evolution of empiricism. and it is how I apply the law (via Hayek) in the evolution of testimonialism – which I think is the ‘complete’ version of the empirical or scientific tradition.

    My self I see my work as grounded in popper, Kuhn, and Hayek. Philosophers of science and of law.

    If we are to label Aristotle as the first “Deflationist” in the sense of “Deflationary Truth”, then that would make me an aristotelian.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 02:15:00 UTC

  • I wrote a very important if long piece the other day. it was one of my early dra

    I wrote a very important if long piece the other day. it was one of my early drafts. I was showing the relationship between the very simple three factor model of emotions, and the three factor model of incentives, and the five factor model that is commonly used in psychology. And I don’t think very many people noticed it.

    But if you have that model, property in toto, and the six dimensions to falsify under testimonialism, the intertemporal division of gender and cognitive labor, the three modes of coercion, the methods of communication from existential to supernatural, the use of common law for the purpose of incremental suppression, the transaction cost theory of government, and the use of truth to justify various group evolutionary strategies, our western use of sovereignty and the unavoidable production of markets in all walks of life, and therefore the necessity of markets in the production of commons and polities, then you have the major criteria – the framework, for explaining ALL human phenomenon in objective, amoral, rationally comparable terms.

    What I had not realized was how severely the animals in the pit drag the humans back down with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 22:21:00 UTC

  • The reason you can learn so much once you understand the basics of Propertariani

    The reason you can learn so much once you understand the basics of Propertarianism (which is really, The Natural Law of Cooperation)is that you have a universal and consistent MODEL and LANGUAGE for the analysis of human history, the comprehension of current events, and framework for future decisions.

    Even saying that doesn’t quite get it across. Because Natural Law is to society what the physical laws are to the physical sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 22:08:00 UTC

  • DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO. THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE

    DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO.

    THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE AVERAGE IQ IS: 106. MEANING THE 65TH PERCENTILE. MEANING THE (GENETIC) WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASSES.

    So quite differently from what the underclass supposes, they are dead military weight as well as dead political weight, as well as dead economic weight as well as dead social weight. As far as I can tell, below 95, you’re dead weight on humanity, and any value you have in the military, political, economic, and social organizations of society is simply displacing the young and ignorant, and the old and tired from fulfilling work in the service of self and others.

    sure, it’s possible to do menial labor, and not be a problem, but basically below 95, everyone is dead weight. Why?

    95 to learn by (costly) repetition – and use machines and equipment.

    105 to learn by instruction – and to repair machines – and speak ideas clearly.

    115 (college) to learn by self reading

    125 (graduate) to learn by self investigation

    135 to interpret and distill information for others to learn by.

    145 to innovate purely in ideas.

    Honestly I can’t see a lot of difference over 145 in practical terms, because at that point it seems that your discipline, general knowledge, and time devoted to innovation are more influential than additional intelligence. (although I can be wrong). For example, i can tell that Hayek and I are similar in many ways, and I can tell that Chomsky and Wittgenstein have superior verbal abilities (substantially) – but they were both wrong. And when I read the works of other people I think are very bright It seems to me that they have more discipline than I do. (and less autism). So what does that mean?

    From what I can see, there is no reason why we could not breed up to 125 median without encountering consequences I do not yet know how to deal with. But my observation of english history and jewish history is that the closer you get to 115 median, the closer you get to social, economic, political, and military nirvana so to speak. I am not sure that without technological enhancements we do much better than that with homo sapiens sapiens.

    —“the military is the greatest middle class redistribution system in America”— (forget his name at the moment)

    VIA SAILER:

    —“Following the latest John Kerry brouhaha, a reader asked what the average IQ of U.S. military personnel is. From table 2.8 of the is Department of Defense document, I estimate that the average for new enlisted men in 1998 was about 105.

    This would be in the 60th to 65th percentile compared to all the young people in America when the Armed Forces Qualification Test was normalized in 1980 on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth’s sample of 13,000 people ages 15-23. (This is the same enormous study that provides the data in Section 2 of The Bell Curve.)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 19:17:00 UTC

  • (It’s hard enough to toggle between programming, and writing natural law argumen

    (It’s hard enough to toggle between programming, and writing natural law arguments, and explaining them to reasonably intelligent people. But I’ve had to face too much stupid today, and so I need to go back to nice, clean, sane, coding for a while.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 14:25:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:56:00 UTC

  • I AM A CLASSIST BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST AND NO OTHER OPTION SURVIVES

    I AM A CLASSIST BECAUSE I AM A SCIENTIST AND NO OTHER OPTION SURVIVES.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:45:00 UTC

  • DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO. What is the IQ cutoff for enlis

    DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO.

    What is the IQ cutoff for enlisted men (the troops) in the US military service?

    THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE AVERAGE IQ IS: 106. MEANING THE 65TH PERCENTILE. MEANING THE (GENETIC) WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASSES.

    So quite differently from what the underclass supposes, they are dead military weight as well as dead political weight, as well as dead economic weight as well as dead social weight. As far as I can tell, below 95, you’re dead weight on humanity, and any value you have in the military, political, economic, and social organizations of society is simply displacing the young and ignorant, and the old and tired from fulfilling work in the service of self and others.

    sure, it’s possible to do menial labor, and not be a problem, but basically below 95, everyone is dead weight. Why?

    95 to learn by (costly) repetition – and use machines and equipment.

    105 to learn by instruction – and to repair machines – and speak ideas clearly.

    115 (college) to learn by self reading

    125 (graduate) to learn by self investigation

    135 to interpret and distill information for others to learn by.

    145 to innovate purely in ideas.

    Honestly I can’t see a lot of difference over 145 in practical terms, because at that point it seems that your discipline, general knowledge, and time devoted to innovation are more influential than additional intelligence. (although I can be wrong). For example, i can tell that Hayek and I are similar in many ways, and I can tell that Chomsky and Wittgenstein have superior verbal abilities (substantially) – but they were both wrong. And when I read the works of other people I think are very bright It seems to me that they have more discipline than I do. (and less autism). So what does that mean?

    From what I can see, there is no reason why we could not breed up to 125 median without encountering consequences I do not yet know how to deal with. But my observation of english history and jewish history is that the closer you get to 115 median, the closer you get to social, economic, political, and military nirvana so to speak. I am not sure that without technological enhancements we do much better than that with homo sapiens sapiens.

    —“the military is the greatest middle class redistribution system in America”— (forget his name at the moment)

    VIA SAILER:

    —“Following the latest John Kerry brouhaha, a reader asked what the average IQ of U.S. military personnel is. From table 2.8 of the is Department of Defense document, I estimate that the average for new enlisted men in 1998 was about 105.

    This would be in the 60th to 65th percentile compared to all the young people in America when the Armed Forces Qualification Test was normalized in 1980 on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth’s sample of 13,000 people ages 15-23. (This is the same enormous study that provides the data in Section 2 of The Bell Curve.)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 13:44:00 UTC