Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Fascism In The Great Game Of Rock Paper Scissors

    –Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture– The Communist threat was enormous.

    Given the asymmetric value of oppy.costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive. So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs. And fascism was an answer to acting early. A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism. But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*. One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out. There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war. Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture. Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world. And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks. Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace. Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent. Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism. That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure. Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons. Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory. And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive.

  • Fascism In The Great Game Of Rock Paper Scissors

    –Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture– The Communist threat was enormous.

    Given the asymmetric value of oppy.costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive. So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs. And fascism was an answer to acting early. A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism. But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*. One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out. There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war. Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture. Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world. And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks. Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace. Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent. Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism. That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure. Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons. Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory. And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive.

  • Taleb vs Doolittle: Demanding Skin-in-the-Game vs Involuntary Warranty

    Nassim Taleb and I are working on the same problem, which we identified by similar means: designing models. He was inspired when he designed financial risk models, and I was inspired when I designed artificial intelligences for games in anticipation of the kind of warfare we are seeing emerge today. I work bottom up (operationally), and Taleb works top-down (statistically). But this is the same problem from two ends of the spectrum. (He publishes books on the mass market to make money, I build software and companies for a limited number of partners and customers.) I want to find the mechanism and he wants to quantify the effect. But we are looking for the same thing. What is it? Computers are useful in increasing our perceptions. The game of Life is an interesting software experiment in that if you vary the rate (time) you see different patterns emerge. If you vary the scale you see different patterns emerge. But in the end, these patterns, while they appear relatively random at slow (operationally observable) rates, turn out to be highly deterministic at faster ( consequentially observable) rates. And this single experimental game tells us a lot about the human mind’s limits of perception. We see what we can, and the longer we observe the more consequential the patterns are that emerge, and the more deterministic is any system we observe. We have all heard how few behaviors ants have but what kind of complexity emerges from it. During a vacation in southern Oregon one year I observed ducks for a few days as a way of distracting myself from business stress. Ducks are not smart like crows. They have just a few behaviors (intuitions is perhaps a better word). And their apparent complexities emerge from just those few behaviors. But if you watch them long enough you see machines that do about four or five things. And that’s all. So, there is some limit to our perception underneath man’s behavior that is ascertainable: the metrics of human thought. And I would suggestion without reservation that this research program is at least – if more – profoundly important than the research program into the physical structure of the universe. This mathematics is achievable, but we don’t yet know how to go about it. And I am pretty certain that it’s a data collection problem: until we have vastly more data about our selves we probably cannot determine it. (emphasis on probably). We may solve it by analogy with artificial intelligence. Or we may not. I suspect that we will. We will develop a unit of cognition wherein x information is required for every IQ point in order to create a bridge between one substantive network of relations and another. But Taleb and I issue the same warning – although I think I have an institutional solution that can be implemented as formal policy and he has an informative narrative but no solution – as yet. Although his paper last year that shows just how extraordinarily large our information must be once we start getting into outliers. We both use some version of ‘skin in the game’ as a guardianship against wishful thinking and cognitive bias. I use the legal term warranty and he uses the financial street name ‘skin in the game’ But the idea is the same. In Taleb’s case, I think he is more concerned with stupidity and hubris as we have seen in the statistical (non-operational) financialization of our economy. Whereas I am more concerned with deception, as we have seen in the conversion of the social sciences to statistical pseudosciences in every field: psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and (as I have extended the scope of political theory) to group evolutionary strategy. But whether top down or bottom up, statistical or pseudoscientific, skin in the game or warranty, hubris or deceit, the problem remains the same: It is too easy for people in modernity to rely on pseudoscience in order to execute deceptions that cause us to consume every form of capital, from the genetic, to the normative, to the ethical and moral, to the informational (knowledge itself), to the institutional, to built capital, to portable capital, to money, to accounts, to the territorial, and destroying civilization, and in particular the uniqueness of western civilization in the process. So to assert our ( Taleb and I) argument more directly: given that these people have put no skin in the game, and provided no warranty, but that we can impose upon them the warranty against their will for their malfeasance, what form of restitution shall we extract from them? Territorial, physical, institutional, traditional, informational, normative, and genetic? How do we demand restitution for what they have done? How would you balance the accounts plus provide such incentive under rule of law that this would never happen again? As for the Great Wars – all debts are paid. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Taleb vs Doolittle: Demanding Skin-in-the-Game vs Involuntary Warranty

    Nassim Taleb and I are working on the same problem, which we identified by similar means: designing models. He was inspired when he designed financial risk models, and I was inspired when I designed artificial intelligences for games in anticipation of the kind of warfare we are seeing emerge today. I work bottom up (operationally), and Taleb works top-down (statistically). But this is the same problem from two ends of the spectrum. (He publishes books on the mass market to make money, I build software and companies for a limited number of partners and customers.) I want to find the mechanism and he wants to quantify the effect. But we are looking for the same thing. What is it? Computers are useful in increasing our perceptions. The game of Life is an interesting software experiment in that if you vary the rate (time) you see different patterns emerge. If you vary the scale you see different patterns emerge. But in the end, these patterns, while they appear relatively random at slow (operationally observable) rates, turn out to be highly deterministic at faster ( consequentially observable) rates. And this single experimental game tells us a lot about the human mind’s limits of perception. We see what we can, and the longer we observe the more consequential the patterns are that emerge, and the more deterministic is any system we observe. We have all heard how few behaviors ants have but what kind of complexity emerges from it. During a vacation in southern Oregon one year I observed ducks for a few days as a way of distracting myself from business stress. Ducks are not smart like crows. They have just a few behaviors (intuitions is perhaps a better word). And their apparent complexities emerge from just those few behaviors. But if you watch them long enough you see machines that do about four or five things. And that’s all. So, there is some limit to our perception underneath man’s behavior that is ascertainable: the metrics of human thought. And I would suggestion without reservation that this research program is at least – if more – profoundly important than the research program into the physical structure of the universe. This mathematics is achievable, but we don’t yet know how to go about it. And I am pretty certain that it’s a data collection problem: until we have vastly more data about our selves we probably cannot determine it. (emphasis on probably). We may solve it by analogy with artificial intelligence. Or we may not. I suspect that we will. We will develop a unit of cognition wherein x information is required for every IQ point in order to create a bridge between one substantive network of relations and another. But Taleb and I issue the same warning – although I think I have an institutional solution that can be implemented as formal policy and he has an informative narrative but no solution – as yet. Although his paper last year that shows just how extraordinarily large our information must be once we start getting into outliers. We both use some version of ‘skin in the game’ as a guardianship against wishful thinking and cognitive bias. I use the legal term warranty and he uses the financial street name ‘skin in the game’ But the idea is the same. In Taleb’s case, I think he is more concerned with stupidity and hubris as we have seen in the statistical (non-operational) financialization of our economy. Whereas I am more concerned with deception, as we have seen in the conversion of the social sciences to statistical pseudosciences in every field: psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and (as I have extended the scope of political theory) to group evolutionary strategy. But whether top down or bottom up, statistical or pseudoscientific, skin in the game or warranty, hubris or deceit, the problem remains the same: It is too easy for people in modernity to rely on pseudoscience in order to execute deceptions that cause us to consume every form of capital, from the genetic, to the normative, to the ethical and moral, to the informational (knowledge itself), to the institutional, to built capital, to portable capital, to money, to accounts, to the territorial, and destroying civilization, and in particular the uniqueness of western civilization in the process. So to assert our ( Taleb and I) argument more directly: given that these people have put no skin in the game, and provided no warranty, but that we can impose upon them the warranty against their will for their malfeasance, what form of restitution shall we extract from them? Territorial, physical, institutional, traditional, informational, normative, and genetic? How do we demand restitution for what they have done? How would you balance the accounts plus provide such incentive under rule of law that this would never happen again? As for the Great Wars – all debts are paid. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Age of Transformation

    During the Age of Transformation (Karen Armstrong, Marijia Gimbutas) the military strategy the group used to resist or conquer out-groups determined, and set in mental stone: in myth, tradition, law, literature, norm and value, the consequential metaphysics (assumptions and values) of each civilization. And they survive to this day. In no small part because we have exercised the eugenic or dysgenic values in each of those eras, and to no small degree bred for adaptation to those strategies. Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese Armies in the river plains European warrior aristocracy and its militias. Steppe tribal raiders. Diasporic traders and wandering herdsmen, gypsies, and pirates. What we are apparently afraid to face, is that the long term de-civilizing consequences that have led to India and the muslim world, and africa, and now to south america can also be brought here to the upper lattitudes because of our use of fossil fuel heating and air conditioning. Demographic distributions matter more than excellences. No genius can reorganize a society of these imbalances without a return to either working class command economies, or it’s predecessor slavery. It’s simple math. They are too relatively unproductive to generate a concentration of wealth necessary for a voluntary organization of production (capitalism) to create marginal (decidable and influential) differences in reward necessary to form the various networks of hierarchies that as a collective can survive competition. Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. Man and Woman were domesticated, like every other feral animal, through a continuous process of eugenics that suppressed the lower class reproduction and redistributed reproduction upward, while at the same time increasing the scope of parasitic prohibitions that we call laws, and incrementally forcing everyone into productive activities in order to survive. We sent to war, hung, or starved the rest.

  • The Age of Transformation

    During the Age of Transformation (Karen Armstrong, Marijia Gimbutas) the military strategy the group used to resist or conquer out-groups determined, and set in mental stone: in myth, tradition, law, literature, norm and value, the consequential metaphysics (assumptions and values) of each civilization. And they survive to this day. In no small part because we have exercised the eugenic or dysgenic values in each of those eras, and to no small degree bred for adaptation to those strategies. Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese Armies in the river plains European warrior aristocracy and its militias. Steppe tribal raiders. Diasporic traders and wandering herdsmen, gypsies, and pirates. What we are apparently afraid to face, is that the long term de-civilizing consequences that have led to India and the muslim world, and africa, and now to south america can also be brought here to the upper lattitudes because of our use of fossil fuel heating and air conditioning. Demographic distributions matter more than excellences. No genius can reorganize a society of these imbalances without a return to either working class command economies, or it’s predecessor slavery. It’s simple math. They are too relatively unproductive to generate a concentration of wealth necessary for a voluntary organization of production (capitalism) to create marginal (decidable and influential) differences in reward necessary to form the various networks of hierarchies that as a collective can survive competition. Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. Man and Woman were domesticated, like every other feral animal, through a continuous process of eugenics that suppressed the lower class reproduction and redistributed reproduction upward, while at the same time increasing the scope of parasitic prohibitions that we call laws, and incrementally forcing everyone into productive activities in order to survive. We sent to war, hung, or starved the rest.

  • THIS KIND OF PERSON. —“Blokhin was one of the most vile human beings in histor

    THIS KIND OF PERSON.

    —“Blokhin was one of the most vile human beings in history. He was a Soviet officer during World War Two. After Russia and Germany carved up Poland at the start of the war, about 10,000 Polish officers were sent to an internment camp in the Katyn forest. Blokhin then eliminated most of them. He not only gave the orders but also personally carried out the executions, every night for 28 consecutive days.

    Prisoners were led to a basement chamber, where Blokhin waited for them. His leather executioner’s gear: Long gloves, a butcher’s apron, and a hat. Without a trial, a sentence, or any official procedure, guards held down each prisoner while Blokhin shot him in the back of the head. Guards then removed the body, hosed down the floor, and led in the next victim. Blokhin killed one POW every three minutes. It’s the most prolific and efficient mass murder by a single person in world history.

    Stalin decorated Blokhin for his work. He lived through the war into the 1950s, falling out of favor after Stalin’s death. He suffered from depression and alcoholism, and died in 1955. The official cause was suicide. When the mass graves were discovered in the Katyn forest in 1943, Russia blamed the Nazis, only admitting guilt in 1990. Neither Blokhin nor anyone else was ever brought to trial for the massacre.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 12:29:00 UTC

  • Why are you propagandising advocacy of violence?

    Why are you propagandising advocacy of violence?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 13:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778941920110321668

    Reply addressees: @lemonadeag @leaveitout @FebV57 @LibertarianQn @AC360 @seanhannity @BretBaier @ncnaacp

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778849051085119488

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778849051085119488

  • Equate job violence with wilful violence?

    Equate job violence with wilful violence?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 12:58:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778941660281667584

    Reply addressees: @lemonadeag @simple_visions @leaveitout @FebV57 @LibertarianQn @AC360 @seanhannity @BretBaier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778850471465267201

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778850471465267201

  • Revolutions In Strategic Context

    Aug 13, 2016 12:18pm Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one in the country has the power to do it. And the only external group willing to use power to do it, will just make it worse (Russians). Even though the optimum people to do it are their genetic siblings right next door (Poland). And other peoples (the Americans, Canadians, and Germans) have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it. (yes really). Ukraine’s problem is a Jewish-libertarian’s dream: about 40 oligarchs (rich people) who range from men of commercial achievement and character, to Russian ex-gangsters, to families that control judicial corruption, to jews looking to restore Ukraine to their undeclared homeland. Very few people know how to fix the United States of America. But because of our arms, our traditions of legal revolt, and culture of aristocratic martial tradition, we have the ability and power to enact that change. We just need to have the will to do it. But because of that same culture we need a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means of revolt, in order to execute our will. Now, every major revolution in the anglo world (anglo-saxon-contractualism) has occurred in no small part, because of expansion of the methods of communication and innovations in technology. We have the ability to communicate and coordinate vast numbers of people that no prior era has ever imagined. Washington had nothing at all but pocket change, character, and some helpful propagandists who used the printing press. Stalin did what he did and had nothing on par with the tools we have at our disposal. Mao did what he did, and he nad nothing on part with the tools we have at our disposal. Napoleon had a lot more going for him than we do. Cromwell had more at his disposal than we do. But whether one is inside the government or outside the government, it does not matter if one has a set of demands, a plan of transition, a means of raising the cost of the status quo through insurrection, a small minority of males willing to risk life and limb, and a communication system capable of distributing information, tactics, and strategy to participants. The world has never been so fragile and in such great transition as it is today – or at least, it has not since the Marxist (Jewish) enlightenment inspired the lower classes to seek power as much as the empirical (anglo) enlightenment inspired the middle classes to seek power. But the difference today is that we cannot, under duress, return to the farm. THere are but a few days of food water and energy in the pipline, and in a momentum economy, like a momentum stock market, the system is increasingly vulnerable to shocks. (Thank your Keynesians for their efforts at ‘balanced equilibrium, rather than your Classical Liberals, for their “changes in capital”). We can more easily fix america than any group ever chose to fix any nation in history. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute (I have no idea where I am at the moment)