Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • What did feminists expect? That if they imposed their will, we would not respond

    What did feminists expect? That if they imposed their will, we would not respond by imposing ours?

    You want progressivism? Great. We want fascism. And we fight, while you talk. So who is stronger?

    So can now we go back to natural law, rule of law, the family, and houses where we trade in the production of commons?

    Marriage was a mutual compromise, and gender differences in interest resolved in the family, while economic differences between families resolved by the creating of commons in the parliament.

    Feminism seeks to end the compromise, so why would men not abandon their contribution to the compromise as well?

    Lets just get back to trade and compromise. OK?

    Otherwise we just let the Islamists have at you, or return to aggressive paternalism. It’s not like you could stop it.

    Thanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 07:23:00 UTC

  • SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW As one of the principle philosophers of what libe

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW

    As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”….

    … I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.

    Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.

    The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.

    What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.

    Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.

    The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.

    The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.

    1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.

    2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.

    3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.

    4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.

    5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.

    6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.

    7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.

    Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.

    WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?

    Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.

    1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)

    In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.

    In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.

    2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors)

    The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.

    The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the

    3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors)

    The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.

    In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.

    4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)

    In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.

    We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.

    We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.

    THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE

    The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to)

    The Caste System (which is evolving in south america)

    The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china)

    The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism)

    In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.

    Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.

    There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.

    This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.

    Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.

    And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 07:21:00 UTC

  • GETS ON BOARD WITH THE REASON —The neofascist reaction, the force behind Trump

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/donald_trump_is_going_to_win_this_is_why_hillary_clinton_cant_defeat_what_trump_represents/SALON GETS ON BOARD WITH THE REASON

    —The neofascist reaction, the force behind Trump, has come about because of the extreme disembeddedness of the economy from social relations. The neoliberal economy has become pure abstraction; as has the market, as has the state, there is no reality to any of these things the way we have classically understood them. Americans, like people everywhere rising up against neoliberal globalization (in Britain, for example, this takes the form of Brexit, or exit from the European Union), want a return of social relations, or embeddedness, to the economy.—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 06:28:00 UTC

  • We must contain the parasitism of women just as aggressively as we must contain

    We must contain the parasitism of women just as aggressively as we must contain the parasitism of men.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 06:26:00 UTC

  • THIS ARTICLE A DISINGENUOUS JOURNALISTIC JUSTIFICATIONISM WITH A HEAVY DOSE OF P

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article79165287.html#fmpIS THIS ARTICLE A DISINGENUOUS JOURNALISTIC JUSTIFICATIONISM WITH A HEAVY DOSE OF PSYCHOLOGISM THROWN IN FOR EXTRA MEASURE?

    People don’t like or trust the Clintons

    1) Hillary-care vs Obama-care. We still hold her responsible for the first failure as much as we will soon hold Obama accountable for the second: imposing controls on our largest industry against the will of the voters.

    2) Clinton-era devolution of the military. Against the will of the voters.

    3) Dead Soldiers. Did we say “Dead Soldiers?” Did we say lying about dead soldiers? Against the will of the voters.

    4) The Clinton Foundation’s behavior. (I have personal experience – they lied and stole 2M from my company)

    5) Tolerating a husband’s serial-sex-predator problems. And not honestly addressing it.

    6) “More of the Same Policy” instead of the end of empire-under-the-rubric of-globalism.

    7) Racial and Minority Pandering in an era where the parties represent racial divides.

    8) The most scandalous presidency on record – and she covered for it.

    9) Taking credit for 1990’s economy which was entirely the result of the end of world socialism and the universal adoption of consumer capitalism.

    10) Did we say ‘flagrant disregard for the rule of law, and a failure to come clean, apologize, and correct the behavior”.

    11) Total absence of any creativity, innovation, policy, to address the current world and domestic stresses.

    12) The backing of wall street, which is no longer providing a necessary function of distributing physical currency, or marshaling hard-money-credit in an economy of digital currency created from the issuance of shares in the economy: what we call fiat money.

    13) The boomers killed america. She’s a typical lower middle class boomer social climber, and she bears every unlikeable property of her generation.

    Our rule of law is sacred. Our Truthfulness in speech is sacred. Our military and our soldiers are sacred. Our marriages and our families are sacred. And the presidency functions as the sacred moral steward of the country. But, what does sacred mean? It means that no matter what good we wish to achieve in private or the commons we may not violate those rules in achieving it – because our ability to create those commons

    She has no respect for the sacred. And so we have no respect for her.

    She’s a professional pandering, Boomer politician. A product of the postmodern anti-scientific, ant-rational, anti-moral generation.

    She represents all that is sick with our nation.

    Of course she is not trusted, disliked, and by some, openly despised.

    Because she’s deserving of it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-24 05:23:00 UTC

  • EVOLVING PAST ASPIE I have many aspie traits. But I have evolved around those th

    EVOLVING PAST ASPIE

    I have many aspie traits. But I have evolved around those that determine preferences. I simply cannot evolve beyond those of perception – I cannot choose to be more empathic any more than another can choose not to be color blind.

    In person I come across as socially competent. But it was hard won. Mostly by listening and trying to understand.

    We all desire the world to speak to us in our terms. But this is just exporting the cost of understanding into others – theft.

    Seek to understand, not to agree, and not to be understood.

    I suppose that my advice to aspie friends is to take advantage of your gift which insulates you from the pressure of empathy and norms, by pursuing truth.

    It is logical that we sound self centered to others because we have no empathic method of comparison and judgement. Only appeal to our own methods of comparison and judgement. So we say “I would” or “I do” too often for normals.

    But despite our lack of empathy, we display the same desire for human contact and interaction as do normals.

    But the way to obtain that human interaction is to work hard to understand others. And mention the self only in our internal voice.

    You see. Autism eliminates the sense of self. We struggle to know ourselves as hard as we struggle to know others.

    But in practice we can only come to understand ourselves by understanding others. Otherwise we are attempting to draw water from a dry well.

    Our function in the division of perception and cognition is to detect error, and when possible provide correction.

    But our gift comes at the expense of emotional maturity.

    So it is best to think of our objectives in life as the struggle to understand and communicate with the same level of effort that normals use in their struggle to insulate their thoughts from normative, emotional and cognitive biases.

    When we meet in the middle and exchange information, together we have greater understanding than either of us can have in our own.

    Revel in your gift. But recognize that as a minority norms and education are constructed for normals. And so we must find a way of educating ourselves without the vast institutional structures that normals have to assist them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 22:22:00 UTC

  • One cannot buy indulgences from either the church to enter heaven, or academy to

    One cannot buy indulgences from either the church to enter heaven, or academy to enter the upper middle class. Sorry. #libertarian #newright

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 15:19:00 UTC

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘pro

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCES

    Humans regulate each other by the behavior we call ‘property’. AI’s that do also will readily simulate human behavior.

    Choices require a means of decidability. Property is the only decidable value that is calculable(rational)+cooperative.

    All human moral intuitions are reducible to prohibitions on imposition against various inventories (property).

    Ergo, any AI algorithm requires decidability, and one that may not violate such impositions will produce moral actions.

    Humans suffer from pre-cooperative impulses for survival that are non rational for an AI to develop unless by design.

    Ledgers (~blockchains) are necessary for AI’s to gain access to external actions, access regulated by non AI algorithms.

    But that said, I have seen nothing that even vaguely approaches AI. Only systems that process discreet data faster that can – and give us the illusion of intelligence by doing so.

    Ai’s, like mathematical axioms, produce deterministic consequences that appear ‘magical’ to us. But AI exists in fact rather than illusion, if and only if the algorithms are capable of free-association followed by Introspective regression-testing for falsehood (survival of possibility).

    Consciousness is produced by the (brief) memory of continuous comparison of changes in state, perceived by continuous searching of memories. The thing we call ‘mind’ is just a bag of emotions that react to changes in state of property-in-toto, and use (very) short term memory to accumulate emotions and associate them with those memories.

    I’ve been working on this problem since the early 80’s and our lack of progress is still a problem of hardware.

    That said, an intelligence will always merely fool us.

    Anything intelligent in the sense we mean it, will compete with us the way other creatures compete with us.

    And that is the last thing we want to bring into this world.

    Ergo, an assertion that the first law of decidability is that property-in-toto may not be violated – no involuntary cost may be imposed by action or inaction against property in toto.

    Ergo, an assertion that the second law of decidability is that any agent capable of choice or action, must be monitored by a non-sentient moral agent that prohibits the cognizance of, or action upon, any cost that wold be imposed involuntarily against property in toto.

    This agent can cause analogy to pain (cost) upon any concept or action that would prohibit the calculation (use of) that memory or concept that imposes cost, and prohibit entirely action that would impose an involuntary cost.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 12:00:00 UTC

  • “Some of the ideas under consideration could be “revolutionary,” Clovis said. Pr

    http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/05/donald_trump_s_campaign_co_chair_reveals_his_higher_education_plans.htmlhttp://www.slate.com/…/donald_trump_s_campaign_co_chair_rev…

    “Some of the ideas under consideration could be “revolutionary,” Clovis said. Proposals currently being prepared would upend the current system of student loans, force all colleges to share the risk of such loans and make it harder for those wanting to major in the liberal arts at non-elite institutions to obtain loans. “

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 10:17:00 UTC

  • (review) Probably your best paper yet. No criticisms. Subject near and dear to m

    (review)

    Probably your best paper yet. No criticisms. Subject near and dear to my heart.

    -Unwanted, Thoughts-

    “Ought” is a moral term, that we have appropriated for use in probability. Where probability has altered the declarative nature of the english language significantly since it’s origins in 16th century, but more extensively since the development of statistics in the 19th and 20th centuries. So much so that most stuttering and rephrasing in English is almost always reducible to an attempt to convert english declarative speech, into political and probabilistic speech.

    Application of the principle of Probability outside of closed axiomatic systems falls under the Ludic fallacy, just as justification falls under the Ludic fallacy. Man-made systems may be constructed axiomatically, but very little in nature is so closed.

    The most important error, or oversight, or ‘missing concept’ in popper’s thought is cost. Just as the most significant error, oversight, or missing concept in western philosophy for 2500 years has been cost.

    For, it is not that we ought to do what is probable, any more than we ought to do what is justifiable. it is that we ought to do what we can ascertain will provide us with the greatest return, at the lowest, cost, in the shortest, time, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest risk.

    Popper’s two anchors – critical preference and critical rationalism – ignore the problems of decidability, cost, and action. And he never conducted any research on whether his logical statement was empirically true, or he might have discovered that it wasn’t true.

    That is because there is a very high correlation between taking the least cost route to experimental discovery, and discovery – for obvious reasons: the the universe out of necessity operates by this same axiom. Only man delays action in order to amplify returns. Nature seizes all available opportunity.

    So, my view is that Popper didn’t understand physics (although he did understand the calculus thoroughly), just as mises did not understand either science, or mathematics. And that Poincare, Popper, Mises, Brouwer, Bridgman and Hayek – and I can group Einstein in this list – were all victims of the same 2500 year old bad habit in philosophy of avoiding the consideration of cost, because not only is it difficult (See Pareto) to obtain sufficient data, but it was considered Gauche in most of history for learned men to soil their hands, words, and minds with the sin of cost: reality.

    So in summary, I kept wanting to interject “but…” when reading your otherwise excellent paper. Because I think you illustrate the point but do not answer the failure of the philosophy of the social sciences on one end – to consider cost – and the failure of economics on the other end – the failure to fully account for genetic, normative and institutional costs.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-23 08:12:00 UTC