Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION SUBTLETIES ‘The’ is pronounced in two ways, depending upon

    ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION SUBTLETIES

    ‘The’ is pronounced in two ways, depending upon the first sound of the word that follows it. It is pronounced as /tha/ when followed by a consonant sound, and as /thi/ when followed by a vowel sound. This is a rule of English pronunciation.

    Eg: He got into the(/tha/) car.

    He got into the(/thi/) auto.

    This is a wonderful example of how pronunciation evolves to eliminate the work involved in phonetic transitions. Russian is so hard for me because the pronunciation is in the top of the throat rather than the top of the mouth and center of the tongue, so strange Russian consonant transitions are comfortable for Russian speakers, and almost impossible to comprehend for english speakers. We use our tongues to transition between phonemes in precisely the opposite way.

    All of us will sound chinese in the end. That’s the laziest set of transitions we have evolved so far. From clicks and clucks to singing in 200k years.

    (first paragraph from Quora, for my ukrainian friends)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 06:05:00 UTC

  • TRADITIONALISTS. YOU WILL FAIL. BUT WE CAN STILL SUCCEED. Conservatism, has fail

    https://www.traditionalright.com/a-critical-evaluation-of-the-new-right/NO TRADITIONALISTS. YOU WILL FAIL. BUT WE CAN STILL SUCCEED.

    Conservatism, has failed because the enlightenment fallacy of an aristocracy of everyone could never come into being. Darwin put an end to it. We tried to turn our ancient aristocratic ethics into social science, but the european civil war exterminated Germany, where all our conservative aristocratic thought originated. Then the left created a pseudoscience to replace religion (Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Heidegger). And the neo-Puritains created pseudo-morality(victimism, feminism, progressivism, propaganda, relativism, and individualism).

    Since then, we have failed to convert our institutions, traditions, myths and rituals, into a rational and scientific set of arguments. Every single libertarian and conservative movement has failed. The only progress we have made is in producing our own propaganda systems (think tanks, radio-stations, network news, and web sites). And from these we still maintain power.

    I am working very hard to complete the neo-reactionary movement, and to convert our ancient traditions into a rational and scientific set of arguments.

    And I will tell you, with absolute certainty, that the reason for our western success – our rate of evolution compared to each competing civilization – is due to our discovery of testimonial truth, our near total requirement for truth telling, the jury, independent judiciary, common law, rule of law, and the heroic literature. And that the only value the church added, and still continues to add, is in breaking family and tribal bonds by prohibiting inbreeding (cousin marriage), and extending private property rights to women, and in threatening the aristocracy with revolution if they resist natural law (rule of law, property rights), and the invention of the university.

    And that aside from those four functions, the church has been a negative force for us. Because it is the destructive christian universalist sentiments that have been used by the neo-puritans (the christian left), and the socialists (the jewish left), via academy, school, state, and media, to sway us to suicidal self destruction using propaganda. (The west’s original religion is Stoicism – an action oriented equivalent of an inaction-oriented buddhism. and it is very close to what is practiced in secular Germany today.)

    The answer is not to restore myth and mysticism. They have conquered us with comforting lies to our less able. It is not up to us to learn to lie, or to restore lying by analogy as well. That is counter to the reason the west excelled compared to all other civilizations: truth telling.

    Our only chance for our western civilization to survive is to restore its original premise: heroism, truth telling, the jury, the common (organic) law, independent judiciary, universal standing, property rights, and to institute the physical, normative, and informational commons as property all are required to, and able to defend. Our origins are in Athens and Sparta, London and Koenigsberg, not Jerusalem and babylon.

    One need not ‘believe’ in law. One need only let law and truth telling do its work. One need not lie using mysticism. Truth, property and law are enough. One does not need foreign myths. Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Hayek, and the thousands of other heroes in the western cannon are enough.

    Because, Truth is enough.

    If we only will use violence to demand it.

    Aristocracy uses organized violence to prohibit tyranny, not deceit and consensus.

    There is no more truthful action than violence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 05:51:00 UTC

  • MY JOB AS A PHILOSOPHER. YOUR JOB AS ADVOCATE. Johannes writes: —“…negativit

    MY JOB AS A PHILOSOPHER. YOUR JOB AS ADVOCATE.

    Johannes writes:

    —“…negativity (and negative definitions) are useful only for so long…”—

    Yeah… I get it though.

    I usually say “Arguments against something are not arguments in favor of something.” To act, we need something to act in favor of: a solution.

    **I’m arguing in favor of the positive expression as property rights, of the negative prohibition against parasitism, for the purpose of constructing a post-democratic political order, in which we conduct personal (private) and political (commons) exchanges,, that are mutually desired, mutually productive and free of parasitism. In effect, Im advocating moral government.***

    I just didn’t realize when I started out that I was going to fix a 2500 year old problem in philosophy: what does truth mean, and what is this problem of epistemology? I spent the first part of 2013 trying to figure out if I had to solve these problems or not, and it has taken me two additional years of work to do so.

    My original hypothesis on the structure of moral government hasn’t changed. My ability to articulate the necessity of such a thing, and to defend it has changed. And that is largely due to solving (completing) the failed or incomplete Operational project of the 20th century. And by consequence, gaining an understanding of the vast conspiracy of deceit conducted by the left, and the total failure of the right to develop a scientific statement of its position.

    The reason the right has failed is democracy is predicated on the assumption that all want to join the aristocracy: an equalitarian of aristocracy of everyone. This is demonstrably false. We see that the world cannot bear meritocracy. It only lightly bears truth. And whenever possible people preserve all the cheating that is possible: it is so much easier that providing material value.

    I know what I must do first, and that is a bit of science. I am working on the science. Meaning: the truthful expression of philosophy, including metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. One can write popular science only after the science is done. And all science is negative. All true statements are prohibitive. All utilitarian, and therefore theoretical statements are positive. Evolution helped us act, but it did not prepare us for science. As such truth is often counter-intuitive.

    That is one of the revolutions we just went through.

    Anyway. To save the west requires science, solution, advocacy in that order. My job is the science and solution. And everyone else’s job is advocacy.Roman is very adamant. And I’m sticking with his advice.

    Philosophers invent, teachers teach, students implement, everyone else responds.

    I’m doing my job. And i’m doing it with TRANSPARENCY, right out in the open like craftsman on the street – for all who are interested to see.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 05:15:00 UTC

  • THE OPERATIONAL REVOLUTION (important piece) One can describe events subjectivel

    THE OPERATIONAL REVOLUTION

    (important piece)

    One can describe events subjectively (how we feel about them). One can describe them objectively (how we observe others), and one can describe them operationally (by the actions taken).

    One of the methods of overloading, framing, and loading is to describe a process subjectively. Hence why physical scientists write operationally, why mathematics requires the test of intuitionism, and why psychology requires the test of Operationism; and why in economics (cooperation), we write in human actions.

    The chief innovation of the left was to legitimize the pseudoscience of psychology for the purpose of loading, framing, and overloading. Postmodernism and propaganda are the ultimate achievement of the technology of ‘lying’.

    – If we see myth as an attempt to convey truths. We can see monotheism as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – if we see reason as an attempt to convey truths. We can see philosophy as the organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see empiricism as an attempt to convey truths, we can see rational philosophy as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see the darwinian scientific revolution as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the psueudoscientific revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing, and overloading.

    – If we see the logical revolution (analytic philosophY) as an attempt to convey truths, we can see the postmodern revolution as an organized development of lying by loading, framing and overloading.

    – If we see the (Failed) operational revolution:

    – intuitionism in mathematics

    – operationalism in physics

    – strict construction in law.

    – operationism in psychology.

    – praxeology in economics.

    – e-prime in language

    – performative truth in philosophy

    we can also see the the development of the academy since its seizure by the left, public intellectuals prior to the conservative 1980 movement, the media prior to the fox news and drudgereport movement, as a means of preventing the completion of the operational revolution.

    We are defending truth but liars compete with us. They compete with us because we tolerate their competition. Lying and parasitism and immorality in all its forms are just thefts from the commons.

    PROPERTARIANISM

    I can fix all of this even if I cannot alone, distribute the technology for defeating liars. The only means of defeat is the common law, the informational commons, universal standing, and the mandate for warranty of all public speech.

    They will simply invent a new method of lying. However, we will have the tools to constrain them for centuries I suspect.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 04:40:00 UTC

  • AVOIDING THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC: NORMS The term is “Norm”. The basis of all moral

    AVOIDING THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC: NORMS

    The term is “Norm”.

    The basis of all moral intuition is the evolutionary requirement that cooperation is only beneficial if it is non-parasitic and mutually productive. So we prohibit free riding (parasitism) on the one hand, and mandate payment of insurance (charity) on the other, and within very near kin, we sacrifice.

    From this simple and necessary instinct, all moral (cooperative) norms evolve.

    Manners (signaling potential), ethics (interpersonal prohibitions), moral (anonymous prohibitions), Myths and Rituals (intergenerational transmission) evolve.

    Meanwhile we compete using signals. If we are successful in universalism we develop castes, if we are successful in familialism we develop families. In no case do we develop equality except within caste or family.

    We evolved cooperation. So cooperation must be more valuable than predation. It is only more valuable (for the strong) if it is non-parasitic and productive. For the weak, parasitism is a necessary evolutionary strategy. But status signals can be bought cheaply in times of asymmetric prosperity. And we can see the 20th century as an experiment in signals.

    Painful. Rational. Scientific.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 03:58:00 UTC

  • Happy Birthday!!!

    Happy Birthday!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 03:31:00 UTC

  • Happy Birthday Sweetie!!!

    Happy Birthday Sweetie!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 03:31:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.quora.com/Why-were-all-the-polls-in-the-2015-UK-general-election-so-different-from-the-results/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=1

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 04:42:00 UTC

  • NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPO

    NATE SILVER TELLS US SOMETHING WE KNOW: POLLS MANUFACTURE OPINION AND THEIR REPORTING IS HIGHLY BIASED.

    —“[We fail to comprehend what Nate is telling us:] the same tools and models that allowed him to do good forecasting can be used for forensic purposes. And forensically, they’re telling him there was systematic bias by the polling firms.”—

    What he is really saying is that polling firms are GETTING BETTER at manufacturing opinion and INSERTING MORE BIAS in their results.

    What he is going to tell us next, is who biases their polls.

    —“The fault, Silver claimed, was with the polling: “It’s becoming increasingly clear that pre-election polls underestimated how well Conservatives would do and overestimated Labour’s result,” the statistician guru wrote in the wee hours of the morning. (He also overestimated the Liberal Democrats’ result by roughly 20 seats).

    But the problem went beyond the UK. “The World May Have A Polling Problem,” Silver asserted. “In fact, it’s become harder to find an election in which the polls did all that well.” Silver went on to cite four examples where the polls had failed to provide an accurate forecast of the election outcome: the Scottish independence referendum, the 2014 U.S. midterms, the Israeli legislative elections, and even the 2012 U.S. presidential election, where “Obama beat the final polling averages by about 3 points nationwide.”

    “[T]here are lots of reasons to worry about the state of the polling industry,” Silver concluded, citing a range of factors. “There may be more difficult times ahead for the polling industry.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 04:35:00 UTC

  • Conservative EPISTEMOLOGY is one of anti-hubris: a prohibition on consensus buil

    Conservative EPISTEMOLOGY is one of anti-hubris: a prohibition on consensus building, and an emphasis on demonstrated evidence in SOCIAL MATTERS. It is a form of skepticism. Or in critical rationalism, we would say ‘criticism’, and therefore ‘scientific’.

    Progressive EPISTEMOLOGY is one of consensus-building where intentions rather than outcomes matter. It is a form of optimism

    The reason being is that progressivism does not seek truth but to expand numbers regardless of quality, where conservatism seeks truth to minimize their numbers and maximize quality.

    Or, the feminine progressive strategy and the masculine conservative strategy.

    We have no idea what we are doing, we just justify our intuitions. Underneath it is all reproductive instincts and nothing else.

    So conservatives use rational, arational and irrational means to cause us to act scientifically, while progressives use rational, arational, and irrational means to cause us to act unscientifically – as an extended organization wherein each of us has only fragmentary knowledge.

    This is quite profound really.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-09 04:07:00 UTC