One if the reasons you see people in our movement criticize moral mythologies – even those of our own people – is because truth leads to exchange : cooperation and trade. Whereas deceit simple provides cover for the perpetuation of immoral arrangements.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 11:05:00 UTC
http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/760836902144671745/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=760836902144671745The enlightenment thinkers were all wrong. Man is rational, not moral or immoral. #tlot #tcot #altright #nrx https://t.co/uccCggMniW
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 09:57:00 UTC
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthe-stone&_r=0ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE.
Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension;
Say, like:
-> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) ->
And like:
-> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion ->
We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like:
-> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism
We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality:
1 – categorical consistency (identity)
2 – internal consistency (logic)
3 – external consistency (empiricism)
4 – existential possibility (operationalism)
5 – rational possibility (morality)
6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony)
So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline:
“My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.”
If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in:
1 – error
2 – bias
3 – wishful thinking
4 – suggestion
5 – overloading
6 – obscurantism
7 – pseudoscience
8 – deceit
Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood.
That is the best that we can do.
And this is what it means to “Testify”.
And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 09:46:00 UTC
http://smb.guru/interview-with-curt-doolittle/MY INTERVIEW WITH Andriy Voloshyn ON SMB GURU
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 06:37:00 UTC
(Nit: terminological advice in argumentation: Avoid “true” and “pure” and “real” – all are “no true Scotsman” arguments that belie lack of understanding of causality. Some choices: “equalitarian democracy”, “majoritarian democracy”, “monpoly democracy”, or some other variation that describes the cause as the use of equal votes yet unequal distribution of interests and ability in the population. The original English model granted a house for each class monarchy, nobility, middle class, and the church as an agent for women and the poor. this allowed us to create a market for the construction of commons between the classes rather than democracy. the error in the classical liberal model was in emerging middle class concentrating power in the parliament rather than continuing the model and expanding the parliament rather than adding new houses. This culminated in the enfranchisement of labor, then women, which if in separate houses would have preserved the use of government as a market, rather than as a ruling body. – Cheers )
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 04:13:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 04:03:00 UTC
POLITICAL MODELS AS RELIGIONS: STEADY-STATE FALLACY
***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty.
We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another.
But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer.
Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.***
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 03:06:00 UTC
(political identity outside of the steady state fallacy)
QUESTION: “What are you, a fascist, a republican, a libertarian, an anarchist?”
ANSWER: “I’m whatever’s necessary in the current environment to create and maintain liberty, my civilization, and my people.” — Carlos Clark
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 02:55:00 UTC
(follow his advice)
—“I am truly drawing my line from here on out. Western civilization, liberty, and my people, are too important not to.”— John Hicks
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 02:47:00 UTC
Turkey thinks the USA tried to stage the coup. Um. What have we done right lately that you remember? Ok? Seriously.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 16:33:00 UTC