Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • I Don”t Do Hate and Don”t Need To

    Oct 19, 2019, 7:12 PM I don’t, we don’t, need to ‘hate’ anyone under rule of law of reciprocity, truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in matters public, and voluntary association and disassociation by any means at all. The left can’t succeed without lying for ir-reciprocity, and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities, and are left with merely grouping together in localities where they can create local law and norm suited to their wants – they can’t infect the rest of society, polity, nation, and civilization. They’re in both physical, economic, political, and ideological ghettos we call ‘cities’.

  • I Don”t Do Hate and Don”t Need To

    Oct 19, 2019, 7:12 PM I don’t, we don’t, need to ‘hate’ anyone under rule of law of reciprocity, truthful and reciprocal speech to the public in matters public, and voluntary association and disassociation by any means at all. The left can’t succeed without lying for ir-reciprocity, and sowing discord between genders, classes, and identities, and are left with merely grouping together in localities where they can create local law and norm suited to their wants – they can’t infect the rest of society, polity, nation, and civilization. They’re in both physical, economic, political, and ideological ghettos we call ‘cities’.

  • Economic Influences on Today’s Art World

    Oct 21, 2019, 2:44 PM 1) spaces are now general purpose rather than designed for function. This makes them less amenable to artistic treatment because they have to be ‘resold’. 2) Postwar materials (steel, glass, and panel products) are not amenable to organic arts, and it’s organic arts that constitute the majority of the western thematic tradition – particularly the human form. 3) Architectural software is .. great for engineering and tradesmen but tends to produce ‘sh-tty’ attempts at imitating Lloyd Wright – to mid century, as if the Craftsman never happened. But at least soviet concrete brutalism is done. Fk. Great for government buildings. Sh-t for the artwork they decorated it with. 4) Hollywood is a black hole for the arts, because it’s possible to make money at it on and off, while keeping ‘other jobs’ going. 5) Camera first, large printers second and Digital third has eliminated much of the handicraft that went into the production of durable arts. 6) Decoration will fit anywhere but “Art” (meaning, craftsmanship, materials) has been successfully undermined by the marxist-pomo-feminist tradition, and intentional deprivation of citizens from education in the heroic tradition – replaced with the victim tradition has made high art impossible or unmarketable. 7) The economics of producing inventory vs the percent of sales is such that, say, if you want to produce 200k of income for a gallery and 60K of income for yourself, you have to do the math on how much time and materials you can put into each work. So at an average of 10k per piece, that means 20ps must sell, that means no less than five galleries, that means 40 pcs in inventory at all times. And that’s only so many days or weeks per piece. Most people produce a production line, and use it to finance their artwork. (I know art jewelry, print and panting the best.) Scale up to sculpture then to play, then to film, and down to print and farther down to photo and farther down to posters and kitch but the general math is the same -just like every other biz. There is a reason single digits of artists make a living, and instead work to fund their art hobby that generates lunch money.

  • Economic Influences on Today’s Art World

    Oct 21, 2019, 2:44 PM 1) spaces are now general purpose rather than designed for function. This makes them less amenable to artistic treatment because they have to be ‘resold’. 2) Postwar materials (steel, glass, and panel products) are not amenable to organic arts, and it’s organic arts that constitute the majority of the western thematic tradition – particularly the human form. 3) Architectural software is .. great for engineering and tradesmen but tends to produce ‘sh-tty’ attempts at imitating Lloyd Wright – to mid century, as if the Craftsman never happened. But at least soviet concrete brutalism is done. Fk. Great for government buildings. Sh-t for the artwork they decorated it with. 4) Hollywood is a black hole for the arts, because it’s possible to make money at it on and off, while keeping ‘other jobs’ going. 5) Camera first, large printers second and Digital third has eliminated much of the handicraft that went into the production of durable arts. 6) Decoration will fit anywhere but “Art” (meaning, craftsmanship, materials) has been successfully undermined by the marxist-pomo-feminist tradition, and intentional deprivation of citizens from education in the heroic tradition – replaced with the victim tradition has made high art impossible or unmarketable. 7) The economics of producing inventory vs the percent of sales is such that, say, if you want to produce 200k of income for a gallery and 60K of income for yourself, you have to do the math on how much time and materials you can put into each work. So at an average of 10k per piece, that means 20ps must sell, that means no less than five galleries, that means 40 pcs in inventory at all times. And that’s only so many days or weeks per piece. Most people produce a production line, and use it to finance their artwork. (I know art jewelry, print and panting the best.) Scale up to sculpture then to play, then to film, and down to print and farther down to photo and farther down to posters and kitch but the general math is the same -just like every other biz. There is a reason single digits of artists make a living, and instead work to fund their art hobby that generates lunch money.

  • “Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?”

    Oct 21, 2019, 5:21 PM

    —“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others. Edit

  • “Q: How Is Your Concept of Reciprocity Different from The Common-Law Concept of Contract?”

    Oct 21, 2019, 5:21 PM

    —“… … One Law to Rule Them All … One Law to Find Them … One Law to Bring Them All … And into Reciprocity Bind Them.

    … The Natural Law of Reciprocity: Heroism, Excellence, … Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Testimonial Truth, Jury, Markets … in Everything, and the Transcendence of Man into … the Gods we Imagined…. … —“

    —Hi Curt, how is your concept of reciprocity different from the common-law concept of contract?”–Direct Democracy UK @directdemocrac7

    Long version I don’t want to get into right now. Short version: 1) CL-Contract within a polity within the common law tradition of findings, regulation, legislation command. P-contract, constitution, govt, and polity within the law of reciprocity, and all acts are contracts only. 2) P-contract requires strict construction from P-Reciprocity, including all findings, contracts, regulation, legislation and command. 3) P-Law: No disintermediation of the people from matters of the commons, no insulation of judges, govt, state from suit. (Think Class Action). 4) P-Law: property defined by demonstrated interest (bearing a cost or opportunity cost in order to obtain an interest) regardless of its constitution – so institutions, traditions etc are commons defensible in court. ie: no state consumption of cultural commons. 5) P-Law: most important is the formal articulation of Truthful (Testimonial speech) across the entire spectrum of human knowledge, and the extension of involuntary warranty from good and service to speech in matters of the commons to the public. 6) Part 5 above eradicates pseudoscience-innumeracy, sophism-idealism, and supernaturalism-occult, and in particular the Abrahamic technique of Undermining civilization used in Marxism(class), Feminism(gender), Postmodernism(identity), and denialism(truth) in public speech… 7) … including education, academy, media, state, financial, commercial, advertising, sectors, and prohibits any religion violating natural law and christian ethics (both of which are scientifically stated). Meaning that anyone attempting to undermine western civ is liable. 8) The net result is preserving free truthful and reciprocal speech while prohibiting false and irreciprocal speech, and restoring the via-negativa market of the law, to mirror the via positiva market for goods, services, information, whether private or common. 9) You might think passing tests of truthful speech in court regardless of the context is difficult but once you understand the P-method and particularly the grammars it isn’t hard at all. It’s a checklist. And every item in the checklist is testable before a jury. 10) Anyway, those are the primary differences, and they end creative legislation, creative regulation, creative adjudication, sloppy authoring of all of the above, and they end the entire marxist, postmodern, feminist, effort to repeat the destruction of the ancient world, here. Notes: Imagine if every reporter, entertainer, politician, public intellectual, academic, teacher, is liable for the truth and reciprocity of every syllable. As usual the courts will go thru twenty years of building a body of findings as court, findings, and people adapt. Notes continued: But imagine how much less discord, false promise, virtue signaling, defamation, propagandizing, de-financialization, de-politicization, academic ‘cleansing’ will occur when speech must be true and reciprocal. Notes continued: Along with the economic changes I’ve proposed, the middle class will be restored, the immigrant cities isolated, and people will self sort to preference, instead of competing by falsehood deceit and false promise for political power to oppress others. Edit

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers

  • Um. I Think You’re Confused About Property and Commons and The Evolution of Each

    Oct 21, 2019, 8:54 PM How food, forests, and people are connected, in 10 charts grist.org

    —“Commons are for high-input, savage hunter-gatherers. Deconstruction of the commons via recognition of private property is the first step to civilisation.”— Jonathan Besler

    Um. Well, not quite the argument you’re making. European Hunter gatherers either did not produce fixed commons (hunting grounds, grazing grounds, farms) before they competed with settled peoples, only after they competed with herding peoples, or settled peoples. All people hae always produced normative institutional commons: Norms, traditions, myths, manners, customs, and even property respect itself are commons. The central problem for settled people has been the gradual conversion from familial property to individual property, that followed the increase in the division of labor, and the development of inheritance, and the devotion of surplus to the incremental production of commons (defense, granaries(ex:africa), buildings(south america), walls(mesopotamia), grazing lands(caucuses, steppe), farming lands(anatolia), walkways(britain), bridges(asia), water transport (mesopotamia) ). The excess productivity of the flood river valleys when irrigated made possible the conquest of, taxation of, and centralization of proceeds of production in administrative(clerical) and martial (military) classes, in exchange for suppression of local rent seeking, corruption, and exposure to brigandry. Europe was unable to centralize as such until the conquest of other peoples under agrarianism, and the expansion of mediterranean trade. Europe lacks the flood river valleys and warm climate and so production was distributed, power, distributed, and evolved only in parallel with trade. Even the english, the most corporate of european peoples still maintained intergenerational familial property (land, animals, house) until the early modern period. The jews maintained serial marriage until the late middle ages, and the irish until the 1800’s, and slavery, polygamy, and child marriage, and paternal ownership of property are still practiced in developing countries. The distribution of decidability upon the scope and interest in property evolves with the division of labor, just as it did with women in this century. The distribution of decidability in conflict over demonstrated interests determines property. As property increases in atomization, free riding of all kinds is incrementally eradicated. This pushes people into all four directions: decrease in consumption, increases in productivity, innovation in production, or innovation in parasitism. The population always seeks means of externalization of loss, privatization of commons, free riding, parasitism, and predation, so the law must keep pace with innovations in The individual is the most rapid means of adapting to constriction of consumption. The market for goods services and information is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of production. The market for suppression of free riding, parasitism and predation is the most rapid means of adapting to the expansion of parasitism. The common law is the most rapid means of suppressing innovations in the parasitism by the immediate expansion of the suppression of innovations in parasitism, by the first case adjudicated. It requires no further institutional support other than communication between judges. The principle difference P-adds is that ALL demonstrated interests of all kinds and require strict construction of judgements (findings), contracts (agreements), regulations (insurance against non-resitutability), legislation (contracts of the commons) and command (military dictate in cases of duress). And it prevents ir-reciprocal and untruthful (untestimonial) speech in matter of the commons to the commons. This means sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, and truthful speech, and no more marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, as well as no more judaism and islam or any other religion contrary to the natural law of reciprocity and testimonial truth. Cheers

  • Setting Expectations on “the Book”

    Oct 22, 2019, 11:13 AM I have multiple books at different stages of completion: 1) Essays selected by Michael and Alessandro, 2) Sovereignty which is the reformation of libertarianism, that I pulled out of the main book to shorten it, and 3) Whatever I end up calling the main book – I keep changing the title. 4) The Constitution which itself will be somewhere between a pamphlet and a book; And a fifth 5) which is closer to secular religion that I don’t expect to finish for a decade or more (assuming i live to finish it). Plus 6) We’re producing the Courses that teach the method, and apply it – because two things happened: I got stuck and needed to write the courseware to provide a foundation for the audience and distill it down to something digestible; and secondly, it was clear that we would need an overview. The reason is that my main book, which is extremely detailed, full of disambiguations into series and operational language is much more like Keynes’ General Theory (Math) than Marx’s Capital (lies), and on the scope of Heidegger’s attempt at inverting noun and verb, Kant’s attempt at secular theology, Hobbes/Locke/Smith/Hume success at realism and empiricism, and Democritus/Aristotle’s success at naturalism and reason. In other words, just as Aristotle created reason and naturalism, the British Enlightenment created empiricism and realism, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell(et all), Spencer, created science and the precursor to operationalism, I’m at the end of the operationalist stream thanks to Hayek (distributed knowledge, law as falsification), Popper (Knowledge, falsification) , Brouwer, Bridgman, Poincare (operationalism as falsification); Turing, the analytics (operational logic as falsification), Chomsky (continuous recursion) and Mandelbrot(operationalism at scale); And updated with what we’ve learned from cognitive science (language and the language facility, experimental psychology, the study of the brain’s functional areas, and neurology that facilitates them.) What does this mean? The Book is not going to reduce all of the Doolittle’s Propertarian Project of rendering the group strategy of western civlization into a formal logic and law to compete with the semitic abrahamic books of deceit, into common language prose – just the opposite. It is a book for other thought leaders, and would be critics. When the constitution is done (it isn’t, and john’s right to pressure me to work on it) that will be, as I understand it, the ‘short version’ of everything in a language everyone can – with effort – understand. And then if necessary refer to the big book for further explanation and study (think of it as a reference work). The Constitution – which is a template for the construction of ALL human polities regardless of distribution of decision making and returns on gains, is the culmination of the work. The Preface to the Constitution “The White Law” will explain the law beyond which none may tread without incurring retaliation by european men. At present we are trying to get Bill and the other guys (i don’t want to commit them by naming them) to teach. But they must have a course or two to teach. This requires I finish my work on the Foundations course and Bill finish his (ePrime-operational prose and more), and I put both of our new content contributions into the book, then finish editing it (which is difficult because it’s technical work). I have to repeat this notice regularly but each time I add a bit of detail. Part of my strategy was to create demand for the work by working in public. However, I want to perform due diligence against misrepresentation by frequently setting expectations, particularly of newbies, that if you want some sophomoric ideology to promote under democracy this isn’t it and I wouldn’t do it. This is the natural law under which men agree NOT to engage in conquest, predation, enserfement, enslavement, or extermination – and any violation by any excuse whatsoever will simply justify that action. In other words, this strategy, this work, this law, this constitution, is a via-negativa argument for cooperation. It is not the benefits of cooperating without parasitism. It is that the only reason not to prey upon is if we engage in full reciprocity – productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated interests of one another’s ingroups. This is european civilization with teeth. Curt Doolittle

  • Setting Expectations on “the Book”

    Oct 22, 2019, 11:13 AM I have multiple books at different stages of completion: 1) Essays selected by Michael and Alessandro, 2) Sovereignty which is the reformation of libertarianism, that I pulled out of the main book to shorten it, and 3) Whatever I end up calling the main book – I keep changing the title. 4) The Constitution which itself will be somewhere between a pamphlet and a book; And a fifth 5) which is closer to secular religion that I don’t expect to finish for a decade or more (assuming i live to finish it). Plus 6) We’re producing the Courses that teach the method, and apply it – because two things happened: I got stuck and needed to write the courseware to provide a foundation for the audience and distill it down to something digestible; and secondly, it was clear that we would need an overview. The reason is that my main book, which is extremely detailed, full of disambiguations into series and operational language is much more like Keynes’ General Theory (Math) than Marx’s Capital (lies), and on the scope of Heidegger’s attempt at inverting noun and verb, Kant’s attempt at secular theology, Hobbes/Locke/Smith/Hume success at realism and empiricism, and Democritus/Aristotle’s success at naturalism and reason. In other words, just as Aristotle created reason and naturalism, the British Enlightenment created empiricism and realism, Darwin, Menger, Maxwell(et all), Spencer, created science and the precursor to operationalism, I’m at the end of the operationalist stream thanks to Hayek (distributed knowledge, law as falsification), Popper (Knowledge, falsification) , Brouwer, Bridgman, Poincare (operationalism as falsification); Turing, the analytics (operational logic as falsification), Chomsky (continuous recursion) and Mandelbrot(operationalism at scale); And updated with what we’ve learned from cognitive science (language and the language facility, experimental psychology, the study of the brain’s functional areas, and neurology that facilitates them.) What does this mean? The Book is not going to reduce all of the Doolittle’s Propertarian Project of rendering the group strategy of western civlization into a formal logic and law to compete with the semitic abrahamic books of deceit, into common language prose – just the opposite. It is a book for other thought leaders, and would be critics. When the constitution is done (it isn’t, and john’s right to pressure me to work on it) that will be, as I understand it, the ‘short version’ of everything in a language everyone can – with effort – understand. And then if necessary refer to the big book for further explanation and study (think of it as a reference work). The Constitution – which is a template for the construction of ALL human polities regardless of distribution of decision making and returns on gains, is the culmination of the work. The Preface to the Constitution “The White Law” will explain the law beyond which none may tread without incurring retaliation by european men. At present we are trying to get Bill and the other guys (i don’t want to commit them by naming them) to teach. But they must have a course or two to teach. This requires I finish my work on the Foundations course and Bill finish his (ePrime-operational prose and more), and I put both of our new content contributions into the book, then finish editing it (which is difficult because it’s technical work). I have to repeat this notice regularly but each time I add a bit of detail. Part of my strategy was to create demand for the work by working in public. However, I want to perform due diligence against misrepresentation by frequently setting expectations, particularly of newbies, that if you want some sophomoric ideology to promote under democracy this isn’t it and I wouldn’t do it. This is the natural law under which men agree NOT to engage in conquest, predation, enserfement, enslavement, or extermination – and any violation by any excuse whatsoever will simply justify that action. In other words, this strategy, this work, this law, this constitution, is a via-negativa argument for cooperation. It is not the benefits of cooperating without parasitism. It is that the only reason not to prey upon is if we engage in full reciprocity – productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of demonstrated interests free of imposition of costs by externality upon the demonstrated interests of one another’s ingroups. This is european civilization with teeth. Curt Doolittle