Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • LIES DO NOT REQUIRE INTENT (VIA POSITIVA) BUT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE (

    LIES DO NOT REQUIRE INTENT (VIA POSITIVA) BUT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE (VIA NEGATIVA).

    (important)

    —“Don’t lies require knowledge and intent? A better description in some cases might be: “Hey, that guy produced a false statement.””—

    I know this is a bit hard to grasp.

    There is a difference between a false statement about that which does not correspond to reality, and an immoral statement that causes an involuntary transfer. The first is false, the second is immoral (theft).

    PROPERTARIANISM’S INCREASE IN SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM BY WAY OF INFORMATION(SPEECH)

    I move agency from conscious intent to genetic bias, so that each of us is responsible for warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, overloading supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Just as we hold people accountable for physical impulses, emotional impulses, we can hold people accountable for intellectual impulses.

    You do not only lie by intent, but by failure to intentionally ensure you do not lie without intent on behalf of your genes.

    Just as, you must perform due diligence on what another tells you before relaying it in order to absolve yourself of conspiracy you must perform due diligence on what your genes and therefore your intuition convey to you before you spread it and are guilty of failure to perform due diligence.

    So yes, I position lying as a failure to ensure you are not lying (via negativa) instead of an intent to lie (via positiva) because I am attempting to incrementally suppress the most influential form of lying: using the anonymity and informational density of the modern world to commit fraud on political scales.

    SPECTRA:

    SUPPRESSION: Murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by disinformation, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war.

    DUE DILIGENCE: Due diligence in prevention of loss to Air, Water, Land, Monument, Built Capital, Genetic Capital, Institutional Capital, Normative Capital, Market for goods, services, and information.

    IN THE MARKET: Due diligence upon products brought to market in the commons.

    Due diligence upon services brought to market in the commons.

    Due diligence upon information brought to market in the commons

    So yes I am asking you and I and everyone else to increase the labor of policing one another’s actions yet again, just as we have incrementally asked one another to police one another’s actions every time we have incrementally suppressed another form of crime that we have identified by the observation of the parasitism performed by man.

    I hope this helps you understand my arguments.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 13:27:00 UTC

  • USE TRUE AND LAWFUL, NOT LEGITIMATE (updated)(important) LAWS are moral(true) or

    USE TRUE AND LAWFUL, NOT LEGITIMATE

    (updated)(important)

    LAWS are moral(true) or not(false). They are constructed correctly(truthfully) or not(falsely).

    CONTRACTS are moral or immoral, Lawful or non-Lawful (capital L=Law Proper, lower l=legislation/command).

    Contracts can be constructed by a moral process(Truthfully and Lawfully), or an immoral process (Deceitfully and UnLawfully).

    Legitimacy is a justificationary moral term, just as Divinely is a theological term. it is a way of ‘hedging’ blame avoidance. The english word arises from a legitimate child: born of lawfully married parents.

    The use of the term ‘legitimate’ (lawful, according to rules) evolved in the sense that the authorities have license to exercise violence, or that the construction of some contract or process. Ergo it means ‘moral license’. And from there to reflect the superiority of democratic opinion over natural law. So the term has been, like ‘liberal’ devolved into ‘by popular consent’.

    In other words, in common language, it’s used as a soft-deception that claims moral intuition rather than moral truths justify the exercise of the resulting obligations and rights.

    Hence why I use true/truthful and legal/lawful not ‘legitimate’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:44:00 UTC

  • YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION. A question itself can be based upon false p

    YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION.

    A question itself can be based upon false premises. So yes, a question can posit a falsehood, just as a statement can posit a falsehood.

    In fact, asking false questions is a conveniently deceptive means of stating falsehoods under the pretext of innocence. (The media does this all the time now – positing opinions, and statements, and arguments as questions as a means of escaping accountabiilty for their words: propagandizing).

    Whenever someone asks a question, first restate it as an assertion (statement), then simply test whether it is true or false. This will identify people who are engaged in deceptions.

    —“How do we prove everything is all just in our minds, or isn’t?”—

    This question is based upon a falsehood: the conflation of logical proof of internal consistency, with the falsification of alternatives leaving a theory that survives as a truth candidate.

    SPECTRUM:

    1) Associable: it is possible by free association to identify a pattern of similarity between two ideas.

    2) Reasonable: One constructs a route, or way, (wayfinding) within that system we call ‘reasonable’ to determine if an idea is reasonably conceivable without succumbing to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, and framing, or overloading, platonism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, or outright deceit.

    3) Rational: non contradictory. One tests a statement for non-contradiction.

    4) Proof: Logical Proof: One constructs a proof of internal consistency within an axiomatic system.

    5) Fact: Observable Fact: One constructs a theory of observation, in an attempt to posit a fact.

    6) Theory: Theoretical Truth: One constructs a theory of causality by external correspondence, and attempts to testify (promise, or speak) truthfully when describing it, by providing due diligence against its possible falsehoods.

    7) Law; A theoretical truth that has survived testing in the market for ideas within which the proposition is defined.

    9) Truth: ultimately most parsimonious description humanly possible given the limits specified in the conditions. (We do not know the first principles of the universe so we cannot yet state truths with any degree of reliability)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:37:00 UTC

  • THE HIERARCHY OF LIES – White Lie – gift a comfort – Grey Lie – obscure a guilt

    THE HIERARCHY OF LIES

    – White Lie – gift a comfort

    – Grey Lie – obscure a guilt

    – Black Lie – obtain a benefit

    – Evil Lie – cause a harm

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:24:00 UTC

  • “No one thinks for a single moment how consumer demand drives efficiency which d

    —“No one thinks for a single moment how consumer demand drives efficiency which drives automation and scaled consolidation which collapses manual industry. Together with a regressive tax scheme and fealty to the faith of trickle-down economics, and that’s what you get: all over.”—

    Yes. But just as heroin makes available incentives with profound consequences, fiat credit makes available incentives with profound consequences.

    And there is a huge difference between REMOVING a resource that produces profound consequences, and trying to convince people to BELIEVE in a general good and not to follow incentives.

    People don’t do that. They self report the moral high ground but they demonstrate a preference for pursuing the material incentives.

    This is why I say that adults talk about institutions and incentives, well intentioned people talk about punishments, and fools talk about ‘beliefs’.

    Remove the incentive.

    The incentive is credit.

    The solution is very firm borders, very firm citizenship, and high investment in the kinship commons.

    People follow incentives. we cannot cast moral judgement on other for their beliefs. We can only make illegal those actions which are criminal.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 11:16:00 UTC

  • physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    physics -> law-> philosophy,-> ideology, -> theology, -> fantasy -> insanity

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 11:01:00 UTC

  • “Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophi

    —“Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophical perspective?”— Nate

    I tend to use scientific language to make similar statements. For example, I would say that philosophy consists in the use of reason to provide us with a means decidability.

    But that the means of decidability requires a premise, and that premise is ‘an outcome’ or outputs. So given any set of inputs how can we produce a given set of outputs? And whereas in the physical world we are limited by the resources, methods of transformation, and time available. But our methods of transformation are either true or false. In the world of preferences, we are instead most limited in our ability to convince others to prefer what we choose to prefer. And unfortunately, nearly unlimited in the methods by which we can use deception to obtain their agreement upon such a preference.

    Yet, if we use reason to provide us decidability in truthful testimony proper, we can provide decidability across domains, whether they be matters of the physical, personal, and social. Or whether they be matters of limits, preferences or truths.

    I can’t say enough that I don’t take philosophy seriously, and that I don’t read it at all. I actually have come to the conclusion that philosophy as practiced is as harmful as theology.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 10:53:00 UTC

  • “I’ve been saying for a while now “pathological altruism” is not a trait of Arya

    –“I’ve been saying for a while now “pathological altruism” is not a trait of Aryans. It’s a fraudulent virtue signal by the bourgeoisie, attempting to appear like the nobility above them in status, but not having the resources to corroborate that false status signal.”—Josh Jeppson

    Yeah, But it’s so pervasive it’s got to be more than JUST class. I think the behavior is the result of Bourgeoise class interests (everyone is a potential customer), Puritanism (the puritan ethic), Christianity (universalism), and Feminism (or simply the enfranchisement of women – acting as a multiplier on all the above.) So perhaps I see it more as ‘as we raise the volume of the female, we will see evidence of consumption and the commercial exploitation of women’s desire for consumption).

    So of the spectrum of ‘bourgeoise’ influences, I see Fiat Money + Female Enfranchisement as conflationary: merging the market and the state(excellences, capital, limits) overly so, where you see the merchant class as responsible.

    But I feel it’s (a) demilitarization/demasculination of the western male, as much as (b) the rise of the bourgeoise’s influence due to the increase in their economic influence, to (c) the enfransisement of women as peers instead of competitors, and (d) the use of fiat money to enable enfranchised women to work and consume, and (e) the consumption of taxes by putting woman to work and then taxing all their income from the family unit, thereby committing genocide by credit.

    So while consumer values … is that the best description? (is that the same thing as bourgeoise values, or are we talking about the fact that only someone with bourgeoise values would open up government under the ‘ruse’ of equality?).

    hmm…

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 05:43:00 UTC

  • ARE MORAL CODES MORAL? Q&A: —“Are moral codes moral?”—Fredrick George Welfar

    ARE MORAL CODES MORAL?

    Q&A: —“Are moral codes moral?”—Fredrick George Welfare

    A difference between normative, descriptive, and necessary ethics.

    NEGATIVA: Necessary ethics are moral (true),

    EXISTENTIAL: Descriptive (how they are practiced) exist.

    POSITIVA: Normative ethics (how we imagine they should be practiced).(theoretical)

    This terminology is confusing because existential ethics are in evidence as ‘norms’, and normative ethics are not those that are practiced as norms, but the study of what should perhaps be practiced as norms. I prefer “Necessary, Descriptive, and Theoretical.”

    To make mattes worse, existing ethical systems (norms) consist of portfolio of various ‘contracts’, any provision of which my be immoral but in concert, when practiced produce moral ends (or not). The same goes for the combination of moral provisions, can produce immoral ends (although this is harder.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 05:39:00 UTC

  • THE CORPSE WE CALL NEW ENGLAND My experience living in New England is that moral

    THE CORPSE WE CALL NEW ENGLAND

    My experience living in New England is that moral responsibility is something people feign but never practice. Not that people are necessarily immoral, but that they leave morality entirely up to the individual without taking responsibility for one another.

    There is nothing left here. It’s a desiccated carcass devoid of moral moisture, by a long drought of self congratulatory puritans trading asceticism for socialism in search for even higher-minded virtue signals with which to express their authoritarianism.

    The civic society of the town-square imported from ‘little England’, gradually dissipated to the dry utopian winds along with investment, culture, aesthetics, optimism, by the crushing weight of importing working classes, rising soviet influences, followed by industrial flight. Then, having failed to enthrall the common man, trading up again, and importing underclass immigrants, rising postmodern influences, followed by white flight. As if repeating past failures might lead to different outcomes. Asceticism, socialism, and postmodernism are just excuses for high minded, authoritarian, rule which produces genetic, cultural, economic, and intellectual wastelands. The market creates, authority destroys.

    Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Danbury are right behind Baltimore and Detroit, with a glimpse of Oakland frequently visible on the horizon through the skeletons of industrial, cultural, and genetic remains.

    The Big Sort Continues. The Foundry continues to throw good money after bad. The Heartland pleads for reason. The South waits out the fall. The mid atlantic bleeds them dry. And coastal Techno-eco-topia creates the illusion that there is hope.

    This was once the most beautiful place on earth to live.

    But Puritan and Jewish authoritarianism laid waste to the eden we had made here.

    Curt Doolittle

    (and yes, I am a son of puritan founders)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-20 22:37:00 UTC