Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE NATIONAL SOCIALISM QUESTION. IT WON THE 20TH RIGHT? I know history is curren

    THE NATIONAL SOCIALISM QUESTION. IT WON THE 20TH RIGHT?

    I know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now.

    My problem with supporting the NS political program is limited to the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time.

    So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top?

    NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians …

    … who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet …

    … but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization.

    There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents.

    But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector.

    This problem is easily rectified.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 17:21:00 UTC

  • WE (EUROPEAN MEN) MUST STOP MAKING THIS MISTAKE: WE MUST STOP THINKING, WISHING,

    WE (EUROPEAN MEN) MUST STOP MAKING THIS MISTAKE: WE MUST STOP THINKING, WISHING, OR HOPING THAT OTHER GROUPS (INCLUDING OUR OWN WOMEN) ARE LIKE US.

    by @[100024151412040:2048:John Mark]

    This mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all.

    WE ARE UNIQUE.Updated Oct 1, 2019, 4:03 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 16:03:00 UTC

  • TRAINING THE MORAL INTUITION I suppose that like many people, you assume man is

    TRAINING THE MORAL INTUITION

    I suppose that like many people, you assume man is moral, rather than amoral – merely choosing between the moral and immoral as incentives provide.

    We can in fact read others intentions and incentives. We could not cooperate on means or ends otherwise.

    However history says that such reading of intentions and incentives creates moral behavior, and trains moral intuition – not that moral behavior is intuitive. It’s not. Only reading of intentions and incentives.

    As anyone who has raised young children finds rather obvious.

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 15:12:00 UTC

  • ECONOMY MOVING AS PREDICTED. 😉 Told ya so. Perfect Storm. western demographics,

    ECONOMY MOVING AS PREDICTED. 😉

    Told ya so. Perfect Storm. western demographics, world economy, world power rebalancing, … like clockwork. Only major prediction I’ve gotten wrong so far is china. Everything else is right on cycle. I can’t predict anything past ‘the event’ but I know it will be a very different world. And it will be favelas and urban slums with a few upper class islands, and a dark age or a renaissance of the west after a century and a half of fighting the second attempted dark age.

    And all of it is fixable by changing the financial system.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 14:38:00 UTC

  • Yep. Where did that come from do you think?Updated Oct 1, 2019, 2:09 PM

    Yep. Where did that come from do you think?Updated Oct 1, 2019, 2:09 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 14:09:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC ADVICE AND THE PUBLIC Economics has been a cudgel for justifying a mora

    ECONOMIC ADVICE AND THE PUBLIC

    Economics has been a cudgel for justifying a moral bias, not a science to which we must conform our moral intuitions. Libertarians are largely advocating free riding on the commons just as much as socialist advocate free riding upon the private sector.

    No economic proposition is decidable by either libertarian or socialist without first solving the question of the distribution of a mixed economy, since only mixed economies can survive competition in the market for polities.

    The answer of course is just rule of law by reciprocity and that we track investments by the polity in returns and prevent the public from privatizing public gains, just as much as we prevent the public from socializing private gains.

    In other words, it’s largely a problem of record keeping and accounting.

    The problem is everyone has an interests in maintaining the lie, and maintaining chaos in the public who resorts to petty moralizing out of ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 13:08:00 UTC

  • COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM

    Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’.

    Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’.

    Example:

    Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil

    constant relations:

    1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative

    2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest

    3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.)

    Most sophistry in philosophy consists of:

    1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence;

    3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon;

    4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms.

    You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms.

    Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

    ORIGINS

    Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics.

    Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority.

    The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 11:55:00 UTC

  • Q: HOW CAN VIOLENCE BE RECIPROCAL (MORAL)? —“How can violence be reciprocal?”-

    Q: HOW CAN VIOLENCE BE RECIPROCAL (MORAL)?

    —“How can violence be reciprocal?”—Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.

    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.

    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.

    COUNSEL:

    Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions.

    Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’.

    Most sophistry in philosophy consists of using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; using the verb to be rather than the means of existence; conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms.

    You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms.

    Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 11:38:00 UTC

  • IS THE STATE MORAL? —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion

    IS THE STATE MORAL?

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local …

    … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption …

    … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by …

    … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in.

    The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense.

    Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts …

    … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt.

    So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through …

    … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers.

    This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress …

    … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them.

    In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity …

    … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons.

    Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff.

    Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, …

    … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it.

    I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste.

    That’s why no one has or does.

    I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior …

    … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 10:43:00 UTC

  • WHAT YOU’RE MISSING Western ethics (reciprocity) are scientific. And always have

    WHAT YOU’RE MISSING

    Western ethics (reciprocity) are scientific. And always have been. For 5000 years. That is why we invented reason and science. We applied our law to everything.

    That’s it really.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 00:38:00 UTC