Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • ZERO TOLERANCE. THE WHITE LAW IS ABSOLUTE – INCLUDING IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH

    ZERO TOLERANCE. THE WHITE LAW IS ABSOLUTE – INCLUDING IN JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.

    —“… but the church did [x good thing], right?”—

    (Regarding the prohibition on cousin marriage)

    Oh yeah. Sure. But the reason they did so was to break up the great aristocratic families, so that they in turn could appropriate their land incrementally and cheaply. Which led to half the capital in europe being dead assets of rent seekers against the interests of our people. So it’s not that the church was doing good. It’s that it produced a good by doing an evil. Even then, it’s the corporation under manorialism that produced the good since we were an homogenous peoples in europe along atlantic, germanic, finnic, southern, and slavic lines: the children of the Aryan Conquest of Europe.

    Again, deflating the church into Content Taught (ideas), Method of Teaching (sophism (ABRAHAMISM)), and Governance by Teachers (action), and Consequences (externalities) – as a governor the church consisted of men who governed reasonably well.

    A broken clock is right twice a day. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did good things as well, marxists, postmodernists, and feminists each contributed at least one non-bad idea. Jews and Gypsies did things that weren’t entirely destructive or evil.

    They church was terrible for western civilization compared to the greco-roman civilization. The church was imposed by violence upon our people via an underclass revolt started by the jews (justifiably), and as an act of war by the underclass old europeans (remains of the greek empire). Hellenic greece was european until Alexander’s conquest infected us – and him. But there is and was nothing western about the eastern empire. There was and is nothing european about the church. The uniqueness of western civilization is our natural religion, natural law, law of nature, law of men, and markets in everything that rose from them. Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Natural Law and Markets In Everything, producing truthful speech, reason, logic, empiricism, science, and now – Testimonialism (complete science).

    So no, I do not look at the great evil that is the semitic revolt and conquest of our people by that plague we call the abrahamic cults, as a replacement for our ancient unique order that is the envy of all humanity. I do not ‘forgive’ a dark age, the destruction of the great civilizations, and a billion deaths.

    I have one purpose: to rediscover, write down for eternity, that which is uniquely ours, which has dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of all it’s primitivism – including that ocean of semitic evils – and to exterminate every remnant of those evils from our people, lands, histories, and even memories – if not (with the help of the far east (our only peers)) from this earth.

    Is that clear enough?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 11:48:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 11:03:00 UTC

  • NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS (repost) a) legit criticisms of my work,

    NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS

    (repost)

    a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not.

    It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism.

    The correct criticisms of my work are:

    1 – it’s not published (while it’s all up on line, it’s not in book format, or edited, or published, so fellow professionals can’t justly criticize it – that’s true).

    2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.)

    3 – The propertarian project consists of multiple components. I conflate (not on purpose) (a) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with (b) political advocacy (market government) with (c) the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism.

    4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. I will work on that after the technical work is done.

    5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it *is* actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.

    6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision.

    7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst.

    But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.

    And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions.

    Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context.

    In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 08:02:00 UTC

  • THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE 1 – A POST ————————– THIS TITLE MEANS I WROT

    THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE

    1 – A POST

    ————————–

    THIS TITLE MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT

    (this cues you to important stuff)

    And this is the body text here.

    Particularly if I break it into paragraphs.

    ––“this is quoting someone else”––

    —this is quoting myself—

    … this

    … … is a

    … … … series that you might want to learn.

    |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition

    SUBHEADING

    And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content.

    Signature Line

    I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’.

    2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH

    ————————–

    this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination.

    3 – A PERSONAL OPINION

    ————————–

    (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.)

    4 – A DIARY ENTRY

    ————————–

    (diary entry)

    this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

    5 — ON STYLE

    ————————–

    Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords.

    Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions).

    Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.

    Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques.

    Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions.

    Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations.

    Wordy Prose.

    – Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY.

    – Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY.

    – Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY.

    – Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY.

    – Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY.

    Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?

    Well, it’s going to be wordy.

    ===========================

    Closing:

    I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 07:59:00 UTC

  • ON STYLE Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords. Cap

    ON STYLE

    Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords.

    Capitals for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”.

    Parentheticals to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.

    Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques.

    Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions.

    Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations.

    Wordy Prose.

    – Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY.

    – Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY.

    – Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY.

    – Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY.

    – Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY.

    Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?

    Well, it’s going to be wordy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 07:53:00 UTC

  • ART: THE CRAFTING OF THE COMMONS (Information Association) 1. Craftsmanship (Cra

    ART: THE CRAFTING OF THE COMMONS

    (Information Association)

    1. Craftsmanship (Craft) (Physical information)

    … Materials

    … Technology

    … Skill

    2. Design (Design) (Sensory information)

    … Pattern (Sensory Aesthetics, Order)

    … Depth (Complexity, Hand of man)

    … Decoration (form vs function)

    3. Content (Art) (Meaningful information)

    … Capturing

    … … Utility vs

    … … the Experience, vs

    … … the Moment, Time, or Era (good and bad) vs

    … … the Culture or Civilization, (good and bad) vs

    … … the Eternal Condition of Mankind

    … ie: Value Judgements

    And

    4. Beauty (The Presence of Resources)

    … Intention to Make Art (Investment in the commons)

    … Hand (Time) of Man, Degree of Investment

    … Scale (decoration to monument)

    … Scarcity, Uniqueness, “One-ness”.

    … Innovation (Mastery)

    … Signal Value

    And

    Measurement by Triangulation

    And

    … Literature

    … The Play

    … Movies

    … Music

    … Crafts

    … Fashion (technically a craft)

    … Painting, Print, (2d)

    … Sculpture, (3d)

    … Architecture (4d)

    … Monuments (5d)

    And

    … You. You and your experiences.

    Like reading text, the content you experience is a combination of your memories, with the art. ( Opera is an acquired taste. )

    —“Is this a breakdown of why art is not merely subjective?”—

    Yes. Like many things our ‘taste’ consists of personal associations (subjective) to objective measures. We can measure the quality of art. “Your taste is a measure of you, not art.” So like vocabulary, or manners, or style, or other opinion, we retain some constant values, but learn to improve our taste: a skill.

    PHYSICS IN EVERYTHING = ECONOMICS IN EVERYTHING

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 20:21:00 UTC

  • “I would love to see EMJ destroy you in a debate.”— Twittiot Who is EMJ?

    —“I would love to see EMJ destroy you in a debate.”— Twittiot

    Who is EMJ?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 19:57:00 UTC

  • WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY? —“Curt; Are you opposed to slavery?”— Um. “Opposed” is a

    WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY?

    —“Curt; Are you opposed to slavery?”—

    Um. “Opposed” is an opinion. My opinion is irrelevant. My job is the Law. This is how I understand The Law:

    If you mean voluntary or indentured servitude in its many forms, then no, it’s within the law. It’s just a contract. In fact I would advocate for its restoration since it’s just a good way of absorbing labor and taking good care of our people who are less able. I mean, room, clothing, board, healthcare is expensive enough and paying someone to maintain a household unnecessarily isn’t good. There are plenty of people for whom household management is not a preference but a burden.

    If you mean civic-slavery (military service) then of course I advocate it – and I don’t think militaries can function otherwise.

    If you mean prisoner-slavery (putting prisoners to work on the commons) then yes, of course, I advocate as much of it as possible. On the other hand the law recommends a return to as much capital punishment as possible.

    But If you mean chattel slavery (what most people think of) the Law would say that it is always harmful to your people and their genome (unless you sterilize them), it is is too expensive for the meagre returns, and it violates the one law, with which we must force those able to transcend to do so, rather than leave them as undomesticated wild animals so to speak.

    In general, chattel slavery is bad. It’s worse if its with aliens. It’s much worse if it’s with devolutionary aliens. And it’s much, much worse if it’s common whatsoever. The externalities are some of the worst possible.

    Slavery was an agrarian utility that is no longer of any utility.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 19:29:00 UTC

  • EMOTIONS TELL US SOMETHING. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT, USEFUL, OR

    EMOTIONS TELL US SOMETHING. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT, USEFUL, OR WISE.

    —“Hatred Is also Scarce resource to be acted upon.”–Jaromír Miškovský

    Well, that’s not true. Like all emotions, the emotion of hatred tells you something. Hatred tells you that you must invest heavily in eliminating a threat to you and yours. It is the instinct for Altruistic (costly) Punishment taken to its limits.

    On the other hand, it causes you to think very poorly, and act foolishly.

    So:

    Turn rage to hatred,

    hatred to anger,

    anger to resolution,

    resolution to conviction,

    conviction to investigation,

    investigation to plan,

    plan to action,

    action to completion.

    Hate, Like Fear, Weakens the Mind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 19:08:00 UTC

  • “Yeah, a problem with current schools and universities is that they don’t teach

    —“Yeah, a problem with current schools and universities is that they don’t teach children about who they are and what their ancestry is, and a law as a natural set of rules protecting the lineage, not some arbitrary game.”—Igor Rogov

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-28 18:55:00 UTC