Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Definition of Morality, Moral

    (core)

    Morality = Reciprocity

    Reciprocity = limiting our display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality to the action, and warrantied within the limits of the actors’ capacity for restitution, between those who demonstrate, promise, imply, or expect exchange of reciprocity. As far as I know, that is the logical, empirical, biologically necessary, genetically necessary and complete definition of morality, for conscious beings, and there are no cases under which the definition fails. Some people will try to conflate the moral and the good, where good consists of an additional investment in addition to not violating reciprocity – but this demands involuntary transfer from others, and violates reciprocity. Some people will try to demand involuntary exchange of a promise of reciprocity from those who do not offer it – but an enemy is nothing more than an enemy who will not engage in reciprocity. Some people will argue this is a binary condition rather than an agreement, under which we match their level of reciprocity and irreciprocity. But while we seek perfect reciprocity, we rarely obtain it. In international trade and in politics we all but never obtain reciprocity, instead we exchange selective reciprocities and irreciprocities within our tolerance for continued cooperation, boycott, or war. Some people will try to demand reciprocity in war between groups, between whom the exchange of reciprocity has been withdrawn, but this demand violates reciprocity. Humans demonstrate the minimum morality that they can get away with without provoking altruistic punishment from others. Humans possess extraordinary abilities of accounting for debts and credits with others, our relative status, status differences, and the tendency of people to engage in moral or immoral behavior.

  • Definition of Morality, Moral

    (core)

    Morality = Reciprocity

    Reciprocity = limiting our display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality to the action, and warrantied within the limits of the actors’ capacity for restitution, between those who demonstrate, promise, imply, or expect exchange of reciprocity. As far as I know, that is the logical, empirical, biologically necessary, genetically necessary and complete definition of morality, for conscious beings, and there are no cases under which the definition fails. Some people will try to conflate the moral and the good, where good consists of an additional investment in addition to not violating reciprocity – but this demands involuntary transfer from others, and violates reciprocity. Some people will try to demand involuntary exchange of a promise of reciprocity from those who do not offer it – but an enemy is nothing more than an enemy who will not engage in reciprocity. Some people will argue this is a binary condition rather than an agreement, under which we match their level of reciprocity and irreciprocity. But while we seek perfect reciprocity, we rarely obtain it. In international trade and in politics we all but never obtain reciprocity, instead we exchange selective reciprocities and irreciprocities within our tolerance for continued cooperation, boycott, or war. Some people will try to demand reciprocity in war between groups, between whom the exchange of reciprocity has been withdrawn, but this demand violates reciprocity. Humans demonstrate the minimum morality that they can get away with without provoking altruistic punishment from others. Humans possess extraordinary abilities of accounting for debts and credits with others, our relative status, status differences, and the tendency of people to engage in moral or immoral behavior.

  • “Is Public Epistemology In Decline?”

    I’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the Chinese way of life.

  • “Is Public Epistemology In Decline?”

    I’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the Chinese way of life.

  • Advocacy of Capitalism to Destroy National Solidarity

    by Predmetsky Rosenborg Marx advocated capitalism as a necessary prerequisite to socialism because it would destroy national solidarity as a means of setting the stage for international working class solidarity. As far back as Bakunin, you see him arguing that “communism” would consist of an avowedly marxist elite deciding they like capitalism after all and keeping the money for themselves. Props to Scott De Warren for pointing this out earlier

    The Capitalism vs Socialism vs Marxism axis is of course the antithesis of the european rule-of-law(no discretion) vs rule-by-legislation (contractual discretion) vs rule by command(authoritarian discretion) axis.   Under european rule of law we produce nation states practicing rule of law that limit capitalism’s externalities. Under Jewish capitalism, we produced globalism that does not limit capitalisms externalities – but profits from it. Under jewish communism we produce globalism that does not limit internalities – it is purely despotic. There are two questions.  (a) the organization of decision making: rule of law (markets), legislation(markets and commons), or command(commons or extraction),  (b) the use of proceeds: retention (reinvestment), commons production (reinvestment in commons), or redistribution (consumption and dysgenia)    

  • Advocacy of Capitalism to Destroy National Solidarity

    by Predmetsky Rosenborg Marx advocated capitalism as a necessary prerequisite to socialism because it would destroy national solidarity as a means of setting the stage for international working class solidarity. As far back as Bakunin, you see him arguing that “communism” would consist of an avowedly marxist elite deciding they like capitalism after all and keeping the money for themselves. Props to Scott De Warren for pointing this out earlier

    The Capitalism vs Socialism vs Marxism axis is of course the antithesis of the european rule-of-law(no discretion) vs rule-by-legislation (contractual discretion) vs rule by command(authoritarian discretion) axis.   Under european rule of law we produce nation states practicing rule of law that limit capitalism’s externalities. Under Jewish capitalism, we produced globalism that does not limit capitalisms externalities – but profits from it. Under jewish communism we produce globalism that does not limit internalities – it is purely despotic. There are two questions.  (a) the organization of decision making: rule of law (markets), legislation(markets and commons), or command(commons or extraction),  (b) the use of proceeds: retention (reinvestment), commons production (reinvestment in commons), or redistribution (consumption and dysgenia)    

  • “Shrilling” (vs Shrill, Shrew, Scold)

    |Shrilling| Counter-Signaling -> Outraging -> Shrilling -> ShriekingShrilling : hbd science-denialism, feminism, postmodernism, marxism, inappropriate theism. shrill (n.) 1a: having or emitting a sharp high-pitched tone or sound 1b: accompanied by sharp high-pitched sounds or cries 2: having a sharp or vivid effect on the senses 3: PIERCING, STRIDENT, INTEMPERATE shrew, shrewish (adj.) “peevish, malignant, clamorous, spiteful, vexatious, turbulent woman” [Johnson] is late 14c., from earlier sense of “spiteful person” (male or female), mid-13c.,late 14c., “wicked, malignant,” from shrew + -ish. Of women, “malignant and scolding,” from 1560s. Related: Shrewishly; shrewishness. scold (n.) mid-12c., “person of ribald speech,” later “person fond of abusive language” (c. 1300), especially a shrewish woman [Johnson defines it as “A clamourous, rude, mean, low, foul-mouthed woman”], from Old Norse skald “poet” (see skald). The sense evolution might reflect the fact that Germanic poets (like their Celtic counterparts) were famously feared for their ability to lampoon and mock (as in skaldskapr “poetry,” also, in Icelandic law books, “libel in verse”).  

  • “Shrilling” (vs Shrill, Shrew, Scold)

    |Shrilling| Counter-Signaling -> Outraging -> Shrilling -> ShriekingShrilling : hbd science-denialism, feminism, postmodernism, marxism, inappropriate theism. shrill (n.) 1a: having or emitting a sharp high-pitched tone or sound 1b: accompanied by sharp high-pitched sounds or cries 2: having a sharp or vivid effect on the senses 3: PIERCING, STRIDENT, INTEMPERATE shrew, shrewish (adj.) “peevish, malignant, clamorous, spiteful, vexatious, turbulent woman” [Johnson] is late 14c., from earlier sense of “spiteful person” (male or female), mid-13c.,late 14c., “wicked, malignant,” from shrew + -ish. Of women, “malignant and scolding,” from 1560s. Related: Shrewishly; shrewishness. scold (n.) mid-12c., “person of ribald speech,” later “person fond of abusive language” (c. 1300), especially a shrewish woman [Johnson defines it as “A clamourous, rude, mean, low, foul-mouthed woman”], from Old Norse skald “poet” (see skald). The sense evolution might reflect the fact that Germanic poets (like their Celtic counterparts) were famously feared for their ability to lampoon and mock (as in skaldskapr “poetry,” also, in Icelandic law books, “libel in verse”).  

  • Full-Accounting Fixes the “isms”

    by Luke Weinhagen . Communism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of community interactions. Capitalism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of capital interactions. Parasites use both to extract value from our common interests at the discount available due to their suppression of full-accounting. The solution… full-accounting.

  • Full-Accounting Fixes the “isms”

    by Luke Weinhagen . Communism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of community interactions. Capitalism, as it has been practiced, has functioned to keep full-accounting out of capital interactions. Parasites use both to extract value from our common interests at the discount available due to their suppression of full-accounting. The solution… full-accounting.