Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Continentalism, Nationalism, State Capitalism.

    October 28th, 2018 9:24 AM CONTINENTALISM, NATIONALISM, STATE CAPITALISM. [O]ne world government, monopoly, authoritarian communism vs continentalism, nationalism, state capitalism. Why is that a difficult choice, versus empires or one-empire of world government? India for Indians, Europa-America-Australia for Europeans, “Semitica” for Semites, Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, South America for South Americans and Amerindians, Pacifica for Pacificans. Why this arrangement under many nation states is other than optimum is extremely difficult to understand. We could all build walls and be at peace with one another. Good fences and good walls make good neighbors. There is no ‘human right’ to access the civilization of European people. Our ancestors worked very hard to eliminate the ‘familialism and tribalism’ of the other civilizations. Only the Europeans (Atlantic-Germanic-Slavs), and the East Asians Han-Korean-Japanese) have achieved it. And only the hindus have produced as ‘kind’ a social order despite the burden of their demographics. The chinese have chip on their shoulder due to the century of embarrassment. The africans need nothing but time and defense against the horrors of islam. and all of us need defense against the horrors of Semitica – expansionary islamism. Only the west is ‘naive’ and trusting (Foolish) enough not to defend herself from conquest.

  • We All Stand on The Shoulders of Others

    October 28th, 2018 9:06 AM DON’T SELL YOURSELF SHORT. WE ALL STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF OTHERS WHO DID WORK ON OUR BEHALF

    —“Great another video of me realizing I’m a god damn chimp”— Nick Mallar

    [D]on’t sell yourself short. I’m radical outlier who has spent a lot of time – a lifetime – learning how to understand and explain these ideas. Most of us can’t afford it, and lack the ability to focus on a single process for that length of time. As Einstein said, it’s not that he was exceptionally smart, but that he just spent more time on the problem than anyone else. IMO i’m the beneficiary of a point in time where we desperately need a solution to current intellectual problems, and a lot of people have done a lot of work I depend upon, and I have the internet and search engines making me and my generation the first people to be able to synthesize that much information from so many different fields. if you can UNDERSTAND what I’m saying, then you are no chimp at all. There is no need for you to duplicate my efforts. Just USE THE RESULT. (Now for the people that DONT understand what I’m saying, we just have to limit the damage that they can do to the rest of us. 😉 )

  • Operations (real) vs Sets (ideal)

    October 28th, 2018 8:43 AM AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    [Y]es it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • What we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique

    October 28th, 2018 7:58 PM THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION

    —“Gerard’t Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.”—

  • —“Curt, Will You Take on The Physics Community Too?”—

    October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    [I]’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL. The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error. So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons. Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea. Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

  • Conservatism Understood

    October 28th, 2018 4:35 PM

    —“Currently, who are the best right wing philosophers/thinkers? I’m a leftist, and I believe that it’s important to challenge the beliefs you hold, so I’m mostly looking for authors/public speakers that’ll give me something worthwhile to engage with.”— Quora User

    (repost, for educational value) CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD

    1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital.

    2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).

    3. A Conservative requires empirical results – and where empirical fails, the traditional is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality.

    4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.

    5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly noble families.

    6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.

    7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.

    The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science. As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008. 1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity 2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary. 3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism. 4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production. 5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse. 6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.** DOMESTICATION Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics. CONSERVATIVES Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media. This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.) AUTHORS TO READ Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen. (The essayists are nonsense) Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions. READING LIST Propertarianism’s Reading List (https://propertarianinstitute.com/reading-list/). My reading list (above) contains most of the science we’ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • They Traded Beating European Colonization for Keeping out The Muslims. This Wasn’t a Bad Decision.

    October 28th, 2018 4:29 PM [C]hina had little effect on the catastrophe of the abrahamic dark age created by the jews christians and muslims. The battle between masculine eugenic aristocracy, and feminine dysgenic equality continues its 3500 year cycle. China built a wall. They traded beating european colonization for keeping out the muslims. This wasn’t a bad decision.

  • Why and How Pilpul Functions as A Means of Deception.

    October 28th, 2018 2:27 PM WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION.

    —“(((They))) win by creating false dichotomies; the use of language is very important.”—Mirjana Bilić

    [T]heir technique of Pilpul: They use an element of truth to create a false dichotomy and therefore frame the question by suggestion, and obscure the solution due to anchoring. We are always vulnerable to anchoring. Because we are vulnerable to anchoring we are vulnerable to framing. Because we are vulnerable to framing we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism. Because we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism we are vulnerable to influence. If we are provided for incentive to justify that influence we can be controlled – by BLOCKING our OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVATION for seeking truth. The three abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all produce recursive ignorance cue to BLOCKING our search for truth. This is how PILPUL is used to deceive, and why math, logic, science, economics, law and testimonial truth are such an important defense. A lie (incentive), a half truth, a False dichotomy (choice). Low trust people simply dont’ go beyond the tangible. High trust people do. Our asset of high trust in constructing the commons which produce such outsized returns compared to other peoples. But our trust( suspension of disbelief), and vulnerability to anchoring, suggestion, and obscurantism make our ordinary folk easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, and preyed upon.

  • More From My Portfolio of CEO Responses

    October 28th, 2018 2:20 PM [M]ore From My Portfolio of CEO Responses 1) “You’re right. We should do that. Are you volunteering to get it done?” 2) “Really? I have simple means of testing demonstrated preference: He who does, chooses. He who doesn’t, doesn’t.” 3) “Really, now you don’t understand why I did that? Why do you think I would do that” (Silly reason follows.) “Actually, here is why I did it ….” (Stunned) (Teaching Moment Succeeded). 4) “Great idea. Given that we must, and do, at all times make use of all available capital, What should we not do in order to pay for doing that?” Teaching People to fish never ends. Why? They actually want someone to catch the fish for them.

  • What we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique

    October 28th, 2018 7:58 PM THIS WOULD BE MY PRESUMPTION

    —“Gerard’t Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results. To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales. It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain. One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.”—