Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “The adaptation – excessive resistance to killing other humans – is that humans

    —“The adaptation – excessive resistance to killing other humans – is that humans are dangerous predators that retaliate at high cost to themselves, whereas other creatures do not retaliate at high cost to themselves, they simply avoid taking the risk again. So we evolved for rational reasons, to both retaliate and to avoid retaliation. So it is retaliation humans fear regarding each other, and not regarding beasts. Most creatures flee losses, but humans and chimps reinforce losses purely for defensive reasons.”— Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:36:00 UTC

  • “This is a problem of extending in group loyalty to all humans. Human genes are

    —“This is a problem of extending in group loyalty to all humans. Human genes are only valuable should they be closely related to your own or at least not destructive to your own.

    As an emotionally relatable example the cockroach works well. I kill the roach not because I hate the roach, I kill it not for the sake of killing but because it poses some danger to me. I kill the rabbits in my garden not for any hatred of rabbits but because they are destructive to my ends. I kill the deer not because I enjoy hurting it but because it is made of food.

    But when we get to those who posses human genes or even humanish form (dicks out for Harambe) there is something in the human mind, whether genetic or memetic I’m not sure, that is repulsed by killing. It may be that this trait was adaptive in that any costs imposed on me by others are less than the costs imposed by the results of humans not being repulsed by killing other humans, even those unrelated to them.”— Ben B. Rodríguez

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:32:00 UTC

  • GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK (more on heroism and the west) A good c

    GOOD CRITICS HELP YOU PRODUCE GREAT WORK

    (more on heroism and the west)

    A good critic is a precious thing. I love good criticism. I make most of my progress on tough issues because I’m challenged by good critics. And unfortunately, good critics are rare. Frank Lovell, Ayelam Valentine Agaliba, Josh Jeppson, Adam Voight, Bruce (I forget his name), and a few others have been particularly influential in providing criticism that was deep enough that I was able to make progress using it.

    Josh has been pushing me very hard for over a year on Aryanism and has clearly sensed it from an individual rather than social point of view (conceptual grammar so to speak).

    I have an ‘impersonal’ view of Aryanism – or all social orders for that matter. I think more in production, costs, logistics, and strategy like general, or a governor, than in the tactics, and rewards, and experiences of a warrior. So I tend to think of the resources necessary to conduct war using training and technology, rather than the inspiration of the individuals who do the fighting. I would rather give them material confidence in weapons, and strategy, than inspiration on the field. I am not a fan of poetic speech. A soldier who has material confidence does not need inspiration if he thinks he will win. And it is the abilty to win without inspiration that I seek to provide.

    But that doesn’t mean that don’t recognize truth in criticisms.

    And it wasn’t until last night that Josh voiced his criticism in a way that I could sleep on it a bit, and convert it to ‘scientific’ language.

    And while Axial-Age epistemology (the social order of power at the time), and the various concepts of truth therein are probably the first differentiators between the intellectual traditions of cultures and civilizations, I think the normative channeling of dominance that results from that social order in the axial age, is an insight that can help explain far more about various civilizations than can truth alone.

    Heroism is interesting in that it trains us from birth, not to suppress dominance but to channel it toward commons-producing ends. This individual competition for dominance by positive means is what produces over time the high trust society, in the same way it produced a high trust warrior ruling-class that we call ‘Aryanism’.

    i suspect that if I do the research (which might be expensive or time-consuming) that testimonial martial truth(bearing a cost) and heroism(bearing a cost), and dominance (demonstrating superiority empirically) produce a market for excellence in all walks of life. And that this market ‘calculates’ excellence, and is the CAUSE of our interest in economic markets that ‘calculate’ excellences as well.

    i will continue to work with this for a while. But the central insight that Truth, Heroism, and Dominance Markets calculate faster than the alternative social orders, fits well with my prior arguments that common law calculates suppression of parasitism faster, and that markets calculate innovations faster, and that frequent small wars calculate innovations faster, and that many small nations calculate innovations faster.

    And that the reason for the rapid advancement of the west in the ancient and modern worlds has been that we simply ‘calculate'(adapt and innovate) faster. And so it is not impressive if “china got there first’ so to speak, simply because they started first. The question is rather, what model will continually outpace all other models in innovation regardless of wealth and regardless of population size.

    And I think that is the answer to western civilization.

    We are not first we are fastest.

    Dominance, Sovereignty, Heroism, Truth, Voluntary Militia: The only possible institutions under that set of values are markets. And markets like cavalry that makes choices, are faster than footsoldiers that follow orders.

    it’s that simple.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:21:00 UTC

  • JOSH AND CURT ON ARYIANISM’S USE OF DOMINANCE AND HEROISM (important concept) (w

    JOSH AND CURT ON ARYIANISM’S USE OF DOMINANCE AND HEROISM

    (important concept) (western civilization)

    —“You will not find some emotional appeal for heroism therein. Heroism is not mere emotionalism, but a state of deep detachment, the sovereign psychology.”— Josh.

    Thats dominance, not heroism. That’s Excellence as an expression of dominance.

    Heroism cannot exist without a commons to benefit from the hero.

    It may be true that heroism is merely the reward for dominance on behalf of the tribe.

    It may be true that heroic status is merely compensation for breaking the ingroup moral bias against what would otherwise be interpreted as ‘dangerous’ displays of dominance. In other words, it may be true that heroism is a means of insuring the dominant that they will be free of retribution by ingroup members, by reversing the prohibition on dominance.

    It may be excuse making by the population as a means of defense against dangerous displays of dominance.

    You might be correct in that its dominance not heroism that inspires, and heroic status is merely a reward.

    You might be correct in that heroism provides training for the young in the appropriate uses of dominance. (This is my interpretation).

    In this sense your statement is correct: That we seek to be free of the evolutionary norm that inhibits our desire for alpha dominance, and that heroism is a normative institution that justifies the mature, and incentivizes the young, and limits abuses to those that benefit the commons (ingroup members).

    But you cannot conflate heroism, with dominance as you have done above.

    So since dominance exists in all cultures, but only the west has constructed a (universal) heroic society, where the incentive to apply dominance is constantly rewarded, and heroism is a pedagogical means of channeling it to good uses, and punishing it for bad uses, then I think we can come to agreement.

    I guess in this sense, the heroic tradition is our central ‘teaching’. “Your dominance is an asset to the tribe so long as it is channeled for the tribe’s benefit. And if we channel all our men’s dominance rather than suppress it, then we are concentrating a scarce and valuable resource into a constant evolutionary cycle.

    This plays into the argument that we develop faster than the rest because we do not seek to limit our people by limiting what they can do, only limiting what they cannot do. Most tribes do the opposite: they create rules of repetitive conduct (for stupid creatures) that focus effort in static directions, rather than focusing efforts of men in innovative and creative directions.

    So through heroism (training for competition) and through dominance, and reward for ‘good cunning’ and punishment for ‘bad cunning’, and through the enfranchisement of all who will fight, we create a constant stream of predators at-the-ready in constant competition with one another, producing constant innovations in war, politics, industry, family, craft, and arts.

    And this is why heroism (encouraging the mastery of dominance) is so effective a strategy: it creates a market (calculator) for excellence in dominance.

    It just took me overnight to think it through. I knew you were not so much wrong as not using the right language because conflation is natural to you, but if we agree that heroism is value/virtue that we train so that we do not need to suppress dominance, but instead, FOCUS dominance, so that we are a more competitive ‘tribe’ then I think we can agree that almost all men of ability seek to excercise their dominance just as much as a beautiful woman seeks to exercise hers so to speak.

    If you had not written this post I would not have been able to put this question into words, so yet again, I have to thank you for your insights and criticism, which over the past few years has been extremely helpful and influential.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:53:00 UTC

  • “They will rally against us with the criticism of ‘dehumanization’ when we can c

    —“They will rally against us with the criticism of ‘dehumanization’ when we can consistently return the criticism with ‘romanticism and pseudoscience’: in other words – you’re just lazy. Confusing conviction with convenience. We are confused. We don’t conflate. We’re men of the west. They are the enemy because they are predatory parasitic animals, and animals need us to domesticate them to make the world safe for Humans.”—Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:31:00 UTC

  • ORDER IN COMMUNICATION Chaos (non-identity) Identity (existence) Tautology(neces

    ORDER IN COMMUNICATION

    Chaos (non-identity)

    Identity (existence)

    Tautology(necessity),

    Proof(possibility),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(narrative/meaningful)

    Daydreaming -stream of consicusness – (free association )

    COSTS OF TRUTH

    Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:

    1) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    3) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    OPERATIONALIZED (by Moritz Bierling)

    1) I recognize that when I try to form a connection between these concepts (follow this recipe), I can make it work.

    2) I recognize that when I think about this recipe, I feel good about my ability to make this connection mentally (follow the sequence/relation).

    3) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, I benefit sufficiently to outweigh the cost of the action.

    4) I recognize that when I do the thing this recipe tells me to, others react negatively to my action and therefore costs me something.

    5) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) I recognize that when I use this recipe, I can resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) I recognize that this recipe works for everyone at all times under all circumstances.

    8) I recognize that this recipe describes completely the thing it produces.

    EXPLANATION (by Moritz Bierling)

    “Recipes unlock opportunities of varying size with respect to the acquisition of energy at lower cost than the actor following the recipe expends, and recipes require the actor applying them to expend different amounts of energy depending on their complexity and the number of steps they contain, and we call those recipes more true that contain fewer errors, and those recipes resulting in the highest energy yield while requiring the least amount of steps we call of high utility.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 08:30:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 20:56:00 UTC

  • If Trump wins we buy time. If Clinton Wins We Start A War

    If Trump wins we buy time. If Clinton Wins We Start A War.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 15:28:00 UTC

  • Do I understand correctly? That Russia Today (RT) bank accounts have been siezed

    Do I understand correctly? That Russia Today (RT) bank accounts have been siezed and closed?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 15:24:00 UTC

  • REVIEW OF THE PAST CENTURY 18-28 postwar up-and-down rapid recession and boom. 2

    REVIEW OF THE PAST CENTURY

    18-28 postwar up-and-down rapid recession and boom.

    29-39 the economy destroyed and the ongoing depression.

    40-46 the war years converted the economy.

    50’s-62 were …. celebratory. American war-dividend. And evolved into majority white collar, majority home owning, and majority car driving, and majority appliance owning.

    63-72 a catastrophe – the proles ascended postwar consuming it. spread of ‘great society’, destruction of the black family followed by white, immigration act, all the socialist programs…

    73-78 depressing decline as the 60’s played out.

    80’s once again celebratory as we ended socialism reascended

    90’s absurd as we reaped the benefits the fall of world communism and technology

    2001-2002 a shock as we overplayed our hand.

    2003-2007 comfortable but cautious.

    2008-2016 (obama) a lost decade.

    In the 80’s we might have been spoiled, but we weren’t losers like the 60’s and 70’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 15:01:00 UTC