Curt Doolittle

Theme: Commons

  • Russian Language Like Many Can’t Fully Translate English Ideas

    Feb 2, 2020, 6:52 PM (context: how propertarianism is difficult to translate because the anglo saxon conversion of family bias to commons bias and common ownership never occurred elsehwere.)

    —“Has Russia always been that way? Or did they have a “golden age” so to speak where either the language was different, the ideas were different, or both?”—Bradley Morgan

    Every language retains embellishments and scars, every literature and culture embellishments and scars, and every people’s self imiage retains embellishments and scars. Russia emerged into modernity behind the rest of christendom simply because (a) distance from the core of commerce, (b) missing out on early adaptation to returns on atlantic trade, the renaissance, the british empirical revolution, the reformation, the continental enlightenment, and (c) having the legacy of mongol conquest, and (d) a long history of serfdom – the boyars were far worse than european feudal lords, and nothing close to west germanic (anglo-scandianvian) free men. In other words, they were just more removed from the center of the european restoration after the exit of the semitic dark ages. And Russian Literature was and remains the high point of literature in Christendom. And it occurred partly – as did germany – in response to the terrors of france (napoleon’s conquests). There was nothing wrong with Russia that the first world war did not create. It had nowhere near the problems of say Italy. And was closest to following the german unification. Germany at the time included most of what we consider Poland. And german influence was across the entire holy roman empire other than France and Spain. Russia had used her new freedoms to replace the mongols and conquer all of Eurasia from the borders of eastern Europe to Canada, and if they hadn’t been stopped (wrongly) by the British they would have retaken Constantinople from the turks and reversed all the costs of the dark ages. The problems of Russia, like the problems of Germay, like the present problem in america, is the result of the jewish bolshevik seizure of power in the unstable period at the end of WW1. The Russian language is part of the slavic family of languages that is indeed indo european but went through a strange phonetic rotation, which I am not skilled enough to explain but was the result of moving the glottal sounds backward and then due to that cost, losing the soft vowels, leading to counter- intuitive pairs of consonants without interstitial vowels we expect in wester civilization. The structure of Russian language (a category iv language – meaning hard to learn) does not require word order organization like english, and still relies on many (many) suffixes that can be overwhelming. However, this means there is as great an art in manipulating the russian language to all softs of parallels and suggestions and subtle meanings as there is an art of doing the same with our huge english vocabulary. And much of russian humor is dependent upon those who are cunning with their language in this form. It is also very… beautiful … in that it’s still a heroic language, a language of people on the farm, who are dependent upon community, who will suffer anything and survive, and are very proud of their heroism of endurance . So this is why Russian literature and culture is ‘deep’ Because it is deep. As deep as americans are shallow.

  • Russian Language Like Many Can’t Fully Translate English Ideas

    Feb 2, 2020, 6:52 PM (context: how propertarianism is difficult to translate because the anglo saxon conversion of family bias to commons bias and common ownership never occurred elsehwere.)

    —“Has Russia always been that way? Or did they have a “golden age” so to speak where either the language was different, the ideas were different, or both?”—Bradley Morgan

    Every language retains embellishments and scars, every literature and culture embellishments and scars, and every people’s self imiage retains embellishments and scars. Russia emerged into modernity behind the rest of christendom simply because (a) distance from the core of commerce, (b) missing out on early adaptation to returns on atlantic trade, the renaissance, the british empirical revolution, the reformation, the continental enlightenment, and (c) having the legacy of mongol conquest, and (d) a long history of serfdom – the boyars were far worse than european feudal lords, and nothing close to west germanic (anglo-scandianvian) free men. In other words, they were just more removed from the center of the european restoration after the exit of the semitic dark ages. And Russian Literature was and remains the high point of literature in Christendom. And it occurred partly – as did germany – in response to the terrors of france (napoleon’s conquests). There was nothing wrong with Russia that the first world war did not create. It had nowhere near the problems of say Italy. And was closest to following the german unification. Germany at the time included most of what we consider Poland. And german influence was across the entire holy roman empire other than France and Spain. Russia had used her new freedoms to replace the mongols and conquer all of Eurasia from the borders of eastern Europe to Canada, and if they hadn’t been stopped (wrongly) by the British they would have retaken Constantinople from the turks and reversed all the costs of the dark ages. The problems of Russia, like the problems of Germay, like the present problem in america, is the result of the jewish bolshevik seizure of power in the unstable period at the end of WW1. The Russian language is part of the slavic family of languages that is indeed indo european but went through a strange phonetic rotation, which I am not skilled enough to explain but was the result of moving the glottal sounds backward and then due to that cost, losing the soft vowels, leading to counter- intuitive pairs of consonants without interstitial vowels we expect in wester civilization. The structure of Russian language (a category iv language – meaning hard to learn) does not require word order organization like english, and still relies on many (many) suffixes that can be overwhelming. However, this means there is as great an art in manipulating the russian language to all softs of parallels and suggestions and subtle meanings as there is an art of doing the same with our huge english vocabulary. And much of russian humor is dependent upon those who are cunning with their language in this form. It is also very… beautiful … in that it’s still a heroic language, a language of people on the farm, who are dependent upon community, who will suffer anything and survive, and are very proud of their heroism of endurance . So this is why Russian literature and culture is ‘deep’ Because it is deep. As deep as americans are shallow.

  • Production of What?

    Feb 6, 2020, 7:34 AM Commons, Goods, Services, Information, and Incentives. The problem demarcation between scientists that supply information and ‘intellectuals’ that provide incentives unbound by science: truth and reciprocity. |PRODUCTION| Commons > Consumption: Goods > Services > Information > Incentives Are there any good intellectuals? Or are they all priests selling false promise baiting the people into hazard?

  • Production of What?

    Feb 6, 2020, 7:34 AM Commons, Goods, Services, Information, and Incentives. The problem demarcation between scientists that supply information and ‘intellectuals’ that provide incentives unbound by science: truth and reciprocity. |PRODUCTION| Commons > Consumption: Goods > Services > Information > Incentives Are there any good intellectuals? Or are they all priests selling false promise baiting the people into hazard?

  • Another Common Property

    Mar 31, 2020, 3:47 PM

    —“Axioms”, like “First principles”, are a common property. You can not define them without the concept “we”. It is a contradiction to build an ideology that denies commons on a foundation of commons. This foundation is what libertarianism scavenges from ideologies that invest in and defend those properties.”—by Luke Weinhagen

  • Another Common Property

    Mar 31, 2020, 3:47 PM

    —“Axioms”, like “First principles”, are a common property. You can not define them without the concept “we”. It is a contradiction to build an ideology that denies commons on a foundation of commons. This foundation is what libertarianism scavenges from ideologies that invest in and defend those properties.”—by Luke Weinhagen

  • Moral Defense of The Informational Commons

    Apr 5, 2020, 12:55 PM by Tim Kay (well done)) Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others. Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly. You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of. I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence. In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement. I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it. Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?

  • Moral Defense of The Informational Commons

    Apr 5, 2020, 12:55 PM by Tim Kay (well done)) Making an argument is a service to the intellectual commons (or to put it better, it’s at least not imposing a cost on the commons). Failure to do so imposes a cost of maintaining the intellectual commons onto others. Reciprocity demands mutual norm maintenance, which is violated by GSRRM. The reason GSRRM is permissible in self-defence, and commons-defence, is that it is a) reciprocal, but more importantly b) like violence, no means of achieving one’s ends is off the table, but it must be directed responsibly. You can’t extirpate GSRRM anymore than you can violence (working with nature not against) but you can make a proportional response which returns the favour of costs against reputation. Individuals of this type whose arguments (such that they are) amount to ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use GSRRM yourself’ need to understand the answer is: yes, sort of. I retain all means necessary to defend myself and the commons, whether it be shaming, or violence. In light of the point about violence one may then say ‘you just want a more technical excuse to use violence’ and we can better see the nature of that statement. I say: no, we want a more technical reason NOT to use it. Because using it is the default. Why should I not use all means necessary in self-defence, when you’re effectively stealing from me and others?

  • Without the Militia Men Will Not Own the Commons.

    Apr 21, 2020, 7:40 AM The problem is getting the rest of the world into middle class manners, ethics, morals, and values. We can only do that if the self, the family, and the commons are equally valued and defended regardless of class. The minute you give up on your other classes you give up on the commons. The same is true for heterogeneity. Create conflict between groups and we give up on the commons, and devolve to self and family.

    —“There are more books published in Spanish in any one year than there have been in the entire history of Arab publishing.”—

    Feminine, present, experiential civilization. There are very few arab intellectuals. Those few, say some version of the same thing “we live in our emotions not in our reason, we can read but we are still illiterate, we have freedom but no discipline.” This is the problem with ritual-cultures. it’s extremely successful at solving the problem of social insecurity (mindfulness). It only solves part of the problem and amplifies the rest by making agency impossible. Same for fundamentalism in christianity: it makes wonderful citizens and families – perhaps the best in the world – and prepares people for commercial society – but at the cost of needing a parental martial empirical aristocracy to defend, rule, and govern them. One of the reasons the french lost to the english was the combination of their effeminacy and excessive faith – the same excessive effeminacy and faith that they demonstrate today. (although you have to read letters from the period prior to agincourt to see how faith-insane they were.) The hindus remain caste-and-family, on the effeminate side, and socially lazy and irresponsible – so they are wonderful people lacking the hostility of the muslims, but can’t end familial corruption endemic in the society, nor do they have the military like the west and china to enforce policy so that a non-corrupt bureaucracy can evolve. I don’t complain about the chinese and koreans other than their women are as spoiled and hyper-consumptive and civilization destroying as western women and their males are further gone than western men because they were further gone in the first place. The upper middle and lower upper classes around the world are all the same. This is because we are not lacking in competitive ability, or dependent upon equally ignorant or uncompetitive peers for information and opinion. Without the militia men WILL NOT OWN THE COMMONS. From there, everything falls apart.

  • Without the Militia Men Will Not Own the Commons.

    Apr 21, 2020, 7:40 AM The problem is getting the rest of the world into middle class manners, ethics, morals, and values. We can only do that if the self, the family, and the commons are equally valued and defended regardless of class. The minute you give up on your other classes you give up on the commons. The same is true for heterogeneity. Create conflict between groups and we give up on the commons, and devolve to self and family.

    —“There are more books published in Spanish in any one year than there have been in the entire history of Arab publishing.”—

    Feminine, present, experiential civilization. There are very few arab intellectuals. Those few, say some version of the same thing “we live in our emotions not in our reason, we can read but we are still illiterate, we have freedom but no discipline.” This is the problem with ritual-cultures. it’s extremely successful at solving the problem of social insecurity (mindfulness). It only solves part of the problem and amplifies the rest by making agency impossible. Same for fundamentalism in christianity: it makes wonderful citizens and families – perhaps the best in the world – and prepares people for commercial society – but at the cost of needing a parental martial empirical aristocracy to defend, rule, and govern them. One of the reasons the french lost to the english was the combination of their effeminacy and excessive faith – the same excessive effeminacy and faith that they demonstrate today. (although you have to read letters from the period prior to agincourt to see how faith-insane they were.) The hindus remain caste-and-family, on the effeminate side, and socially lazy and irresponsible – so they are wonderful people lacking the hostility of the muslims, but can’t end familial corruption endemic in the society, nor do they have the military like the west and china to enforce policy so that a non-corrupt bureaucracy can evolve. I don’t complain about the chinese and koreans other than their women are as spoiled and hyper-consumptive and civilization destroying as western women and their males are further gone than western men because they were further gone in the first place. The upper middle and lower upper classes around the world are all the same. This is because we are not lacking in competitive ability, or dependent upon equally ignorant or uncompetitive peers for information and opinion. Without the militia men WILL NOT OWN THE COMMONS. From there, everything falls apart.