Source: Facebook

  • JUDGING A BOOK ON DANGER BY ITS COVER —“From looks you don’t look like a dange

    JUDGING A BOOK ON DANGER BY ITS COVER

    —“From looks you don’t look like a dangerous person at all, mr. Doolittle.”—- Anon.

    Well. let us test your perception.

    There are different categories of ‘dangerous’: 1v1 dangerous, 1v2 dangerous, 1v3 dangerous , up to 1v1000’s, and 1v1000000’s dangerous. Only simpletons LOOK dangerous – because 1v1 dangerous is so easily defeated by numbers.

    But let’s look at REALLY dangerous:

    Rousseau didn’t look dangerous

    Napoleon didn’t look dangerous.

    Marx didn’t look dangerous

    Lenin didn’t look dangerous

    Hitler didn’t look dangerous

    Mao didn’t look dangerous

    Looking dangerous means you’re “small-time dangerous”.

    If you want to get into the big time, you have to BE dangerous. And big time dangerous isn’t visible at all.

    We all have a wealth of violence. Some of us are soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, majors, generals, and theorists of violence. Only grunts need to look dangerous. Only grunts need to be 1v1 dangerous. The rest of us need to THINK dangerously.

    (That said i held a knife at my father’s throat to stop the violence. Only reason he died from alcoholism and obesity. )


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 07:26:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Sanguine (@SanguineEmpiric): We exchanged transcendence for signalling

    Retweeted Sanguine (@SanguineEmpiric):

    We exchanged transcendence for signalling over sets of commodities with the assistance of volatility.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 05:01:00 UTC

  • Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux): Two terrorists

    https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/802480714960818176/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=802809694133821440Retweeted Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux):

    Two terrorists. https://t.co/4a9Bv1KSPe


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 04:42:00 UTC

  • We aren’t asking for permission We aren’t asking for forgiveness. We’re demandin

    We aren’t asking for permission

    We aren’t asking for forgiveness.

    We’re demanding compliance.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 18:30:00 UTC

  • The Central Problem of Religion is Cost. In my work, I have found, that the cent

    The Central Problem of Religion is Cost.

    In my work, I have found, that the central problem of religion, that is solved by the imaginary device of all knowing gods, is very difficult to replace in a wide distribution: a normal population. This is in no small part to differences in abilities of the classes, no small part to differences in needs of the classes, and in no small part to the differences in the costs of each form of education of the classes.

    FUNCTIONS

    1) Truthfulness: an all knowing god makes it harder to lie to one’s self and therefore to others.

    2) Mindfulness: Monotheistic Prayer, Buddhist meditation, Japanese Ritual, Stoic Discipline

    3) Extension of Kinship Trust Beyond Kin: Church/temple submission of self in emotional, intellectual, and status-signal safety, invokes the pack’s response.

    4) Feast and Festival: provides the pack’s feast-response in relative safety.

    5) Replication of Group Evolutionary Strategy: All religions contain an value judgments that produce a competitive evolutionary strategy (either moral or immoral) including a method of resistance to change. Ritual and myth transfer these strategies across generations, tribes, clans, families, and classes.

    6) The west is unique in that our mythos are not conflated into a single corpus but reflect the three possible means of coercion, and the three classes that specialize in those forms of coercion:

    – Force/Avoidance of Punishment – Military, Legislation , Rule

    – Trade/Gain or Loss of Opportunity – Commerce and Contract Law

    – Gossip/Ostracization from Insurance – Religion and Cultural Law

    Of these methods Stoicism is the least false and most utilitarian. Shitoism is the next, buddhism the next, and the monotheistic religions are largely comprised entirely of falsehoods that serve the purpose of trust building at lower cost of education, training, and practice.

    By and large the Greek and Roman methods were superior in that they held the most promise of least falsehood. But they evolved for a mixed martial managerial class and ‘slave’ clerical and laboring classes. As the population of underclasses expanded under the empire, just as we have recently seen under the american empire, standards are lowered in education, law, politics, and religion to assist in the management of expanding underclasses.

    The question is, can we train large underclasses in expensive methods of truthful tools of compensating for post-tribal life, or will we see the expansion of false religions with little room for variation as a cheaper method of ruling large underclass populations. Or will we discover some newer method of ruling large underclass populations.

    We europeans, and anglos in particular, forget that we have been misled for centuries. We are members of a very old civilization that has systematically hung or starved large numbers of our underclasses for millennia, leaving nearly all modern europeans as descendants of the middle genetic class. And in addition we’ve had over five hundred years if not a thousand, training a middle class to imitate the aristocracy.

    The reason that the warmer climates are populated by failed states, is that they have not been able to reduce the scale of their underclasses such that the local means of production can be used to create a voluntary organization of production (economy), sufficient to drag the people out of ignorance, disease, and poverty.

    One of the principle problems is that trustworthiness declines with abilities, as does the ability to trust. this lack of trust impedes the spread of risk taking. For this reason, there is a relatively low limit to the further compression of the world’s relative poverty in countries where the scale of the underclass is prohibitively costly.

    What this all means is that while we replaced the greek and roman religions with lower cost religions for the expanding underclasses, with more deceitful religious dogmas. And while various europeans countered with the anglo empirical and continental moral enlightenments a millennia later in various countries and forms. And while the Cosmopolitan Jews countered with a new pseudoscientific ‘secular’ religion (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Adorno+, Cantor-Keynes, Strauss, Rand/Rothbard), and while we are in the midst of countering their pseudoscientific religion thanks to late 20th century genetic and cognitive science, it seems as though we are no closer to reforming our education so that we neither teach cosmopolitan pseudoscience, or continental pseudo-rationalism, or the anglo fallacy of the possibility of an aristocracy of everyone.

    We cannot extinguish the lies of the great religions without providing a means of creating the necessary behaviors that religions have provided.

    Sure, its fraudulent product, but it does the job, with extraordinarily damaging external consequences.

    That doesn’t mean atheism is a replacement. It means we have failed to find one other than to look back to stoicism. (I mean, the church of TED is another bastion of pseudoscience, that is very popular with the educated left. But it is very hard to sit through most of that nonsense without feeling as offended as the secularists feel about the mystics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 17:05:00 UTC

  • I love the little gems in russian. Lie = “lghat” (quite hard to pronounce – but

    I love the little gems in russian.

    Lie = “lghat” (quite hard to pronounce – but sounds like hot)

    F-k = “blghat” (again, sounds like blot)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 16:10:00 UTC

  • Government, like children, should be rarely seen, and seldom heard. (medieval or

    Government, like children, should be rarely seen, and seldom heard.

    (medieval origin, old when first recorded.: Augustinian clergyman, circa 1450: “Hyt ys old Englysch sawe: A mayde schuld be seen, but not herd.”)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 15:47:00 UTC

  • repeating) (by Moritz Bierling)

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/11/26/the-west-discovered-the-only-scalable-solution/(worth repeating) (by Moritz Bierling)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 15:38:00 UTC

  • NONE OF US IS EQUAL (second draft) We are unequal. We grant each other the prete

    NONE OF US IS EQUAL

    (second draft)

    We are unequal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover the truth, through discourse and debate, that is free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. We grant each other equal access to the market, by the equality of money and prices, because we all buy entry into the market by forgoing opportunities for violence, theft, and fraud, despite our differences in wealth. It is through these three equalities of opportunity that we cooperate despite our inequalities of interest, ability, value to one another, and wealth. But we are in no way equal.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:23:00 UTC

  • WE ARE ALL WORKING ON THE SAME PROBLEM (from elsewhere, for NNT) – We are all ma

    WE ARE ALL WORKING ON THE SAME PROBLEM

    (from elsewhere, for NNT)

    – We are all making the same point, I’m just providing the full implications – the full framework. I don’t have the metric. I am not sure we have the means of collecting enough data to discover it.

    – Taleb’s making the same point, he just looking for the metric rather than the framework. But his work so far is close enough: the cost of discovering the point of demarcation is so expensive that it cancels the value of the opportunity, and requires then that we demand warranty of the distributor of the information.

    – Wolfram’s making the same point, he just hasn’t put it into the full context.

    – Mantelbrot was making the same point, he just couldn’t generalize it. Yes, there exist sets of operations in all systems of operations that survive (prevent entropy).

    – Minsky makes the same point but he doesn’t understand the implications.Yes, programming (tests of existential possibility) is a new method of human thought, just as were calculus, geometry, algebra, and accounting.

    – Mises was making the same point but he didn’t understand the model or context. Instead he tried to create a pseudoscience by conflating logic and science.

    – Poincare was making the same point but couldn’t generalize it – he just knew it was ‘wrong’.

    – Brouwer was making the same point, it’s just not a strong criticism of ordinary mathematics which is already operationally constrained. It’s Brouwer that did most of the heavy lifting, even if he could not, correct Cantor’s re-platonism of mathematics.

    – Bridgman was making the same point, and he was reasonably successful, but didn’t understand the enormity of it. He will seem prescient once we discover the basic operations of the natural universe.

    THE ORIGIN OF SCIENCE IS THE COMMON LAW

    The history of western reason, from the early indo europeans, to Aristotle’s invention of reason, to bacon’s invention of empiricism, to Popper and Hayek’s incomplete test of ‘existential possibility’, is derived from the study of the common, germanic, european, indo-european, law of sovereign men. Science is a byproduct of the common law.

    The philosophers of the 20th century failed to solve the problem of defining science as a set of warranties of due diligence for each dimension of reality, against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.

    The 20th century, as Hayek posited, will be remembered in history, as the second attempt to christianize the west: this time by pseudoscience, pseudorationism, mathematical platonism, and outright deceit.

    And the list of all of us above is but part of the many who have intuited but until now, failed, to defeat the conquest of our civilization by pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, mathematical platonism, propaganda and deceit.

    For reasons that are obvious in retrospect, it is those of us who have tried to construct models in software that have come to our various conclusions.

    Tests of Constant Relations:

    1) Categorical Consistency (identity consistency)

    2) Internal Consistency (logical consistency)

    3) Empirical Consistency (external correspondence)

    4) Existential Consistency (operational definitions)

    5) Cooperative Consistency (voluntary exchanges)

    6) Scope Consistency (Parsimony, Limits, and Full Accounting)

    If we perform due diligence in these six dimensions, and we enforce involuntary warranty on financial, economic, political speech, then it will be very hard to engage in, publish, or propagandize falsehoods by which we rely on error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudo rationalism, mathematical platonism, pseudoscience, propaganda and deceit.

    And, without stretching our imaginations, it is likely that the consequences of the suppression of the century of pseudoscience, will yield as great a benefit to mankind as the suppression of mysticism by empiricism, that rescued the west from its dark age.

    I hope this provokes a bit of thought.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 14:12:00 UTC