Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • We Didn’t Domesticate the R’s (Enough). But We Can.

    WE DIDN’T DOMESTICATE THE R-SELECTORS. BUT WE CAN. Well, I’m not anti-genetics, I’m anti-falsehood, anti-deception, and anti-dysgenia. But when I tell people that “all Jews are female” J mean to suggest that just as we western men are the intellectual advocates of scientific k-selection, jews are the intellectual advocates of the pseudoscientific r-selection. And that is the role Jews play in intellectual history – before we domesticate them as we had begun to prior to the second world war and the invasion of eastern European and Russian jews. Our lesson is that we insufficiently domesticated both our women and our jews, by extending the license for free speech we gave to other warriors (enfranchised males) to women and jews, without maintaining the THREAT that we maintained with enfranchised: violence.

    Had we put jews and women to the duel, maintained the punishment for deception in the commons, maintained libel, maintained slander, and never adopted tolerance for their ridiculousness, we would not have lost our civilization. I’d prefer to live in a world with women and jews. I’d just prefer that we don’t let them destroy the civilization that makes possible the liberty of women and jews to think, speak, and act ridiculous and against our interests. (That’s probably quotable)

  • We Didn’t Domesticate the R’s (Enough). But We Can.

    WE DIDN’T DOMESTICATE THE R-SELECTORS. BUT WE CAN. Well, I’m not anti-genetics, I’m anti-falsehood, anti-deception, and anti-dysgenia. But when I tell people that “all Jews are female” J mean to suggest that just as we western men are the intellectual advocates of scientific k-selection, jews are the intellectual advocates of the pseudoscientific r-selection. And that is the role Jews play in intellectual history – before we domesticate them as we had begun to prior to the second world war and the invasion of eastern European and Russian jews. Our lesson is that we insufficiently domesticated both our women and our jews, by extending the license for free speech we gave to other warriors (enfranchised males) to women and jews, without maintaining the THREAT that we maintained with enfranchised: violence.

    Had we put jews and women to the duel, maintained the punishment for deception in the commons, maintained libel, maintained slander, and never adopted tolerance for their ridiculousness, we would not have lost our civilization. I’d prefer to live in a world with women and jews. I’d just prefer that we don’t let them destroy the civilization that makes possible the liberty of women and jews to think, speak, and act ridiculous and against our interests. (That’s probably quotable)

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • The Fifth Wave Of Anti-Aristocratic Religion (Lies)

    THE JEWISH COSMOPOLITAN UTOPIAN PROGRAM IS THE FIFTH WAVE OF ANTI-ARISTOCRATIC RELIGION (LIES) 1 – the Zoroastrian Reaction (The creation of religion in response to the development of the Aryanism (heroism). 2 – The Jewish Reaction (the creation of Judaism in imitation of Egyptian monotheism as a means of claiming property upon the departure of the Persians and enforcing solidarity against them.)

    3 – The Christian reaction (the creation of Christianity in response to the roman conquest, moral law, and greek reason – the weaponization of the underclasses) 4 – The Muslim Reaction (the weaponization of reproduction) 5 – The Cosmopolitan Reaction (the replacement of mysticism with pseudoscience- Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt). ALL THESE MOVEMENTS HAVE RESISTED OUR DOMESTICATION OF MAN AND HIS TRANSCENDENCE It’s not just ourselves we must save. It’s humanity.

  • The Fifth Wave Of Anti-Aristocratic Religion (Lies)

    THE JEWISH COSMOPOLITAN UTOPIAN PROGRAM IS THE FIFTH WAVE OF ANTI-ARISTOCRATIC RELIGION (LIES) 1 – the Zoroastrian Reaction (The creation of religion in response to the development of the Aryanism (heroism). 2 – The Jewish Reaction (the creation of Judaism in imitation of Egyptian monotheism as a means of claiming property upon the departure of the Persians and enforcing solidarity against them.)

    3 – The Christian reaction (the creation of Christianity in response to the roman conquest, moral law, and greek reason – the weaponization of the underclasses) 4 – The Muslim Reaction (the weaponization of reproduction) 5 – The Cosmopolitan Reaction (the replacement of mysticism with pseudoscience- Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt). ALL THESE MOVEMENTS HAVE RESISTED OUR DOMESTICATION OF MAN AND HIS TRANSCENDENCE It’s not just ourselves we must save. It’s humanity.

  • The Truth Is Visible In Jesus’ Mythos

    THE TRUTH IS VISIBLE IN JESUS’ MYTHOS Jesus told us to love one another. He did not teach us to lie. But he was raised in a culture of myths and lies. And the language of mythology and lies was the only language of persuasion available to him. If he knew greek, he had not – like most primitive people’s – yet learned Greek reason. And if he did know of greek reason, it’s quite possible he saw it as a threat, since it was the language of government and contract, not the language of the slaves, fishermen, herders, and farmers. We tend to forget that his people at that point in time were the equivalent of the Brazilian favelas, north American ghettos, Arab hinterlands, and Indian slums. So Jesus spoke in the form of persuasion available to him: myth and lie, and probably in the language he was raised with: Aramaic. And under the influence of the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish totalitarian fairy tales we call the old testament. If you compare those authoritarian fairy tales to , Aesop’s Fables, Anglo, Scandinavian, Germanic, and Slavic Fairy Tales, the Geek and Roman Myths, the Arthurian Legends, the Germanic Niebelugelied, the Illiad and the Odyssey,, the Carolingian Saga, and Whig History (the continuous evolution of Europa), you will see the difference between the heroic man competing with the gods to sit among them, and the submissive man under a tyrannical god’s authority, producing the cultures of stagnation, and anti-science, and pervasive deceit. Why? The difference between many competing tribes in the fertile crescent with the concentration of wealth in the industrialization of the river valleys, and many homogenous tribes in the Eurasian forests and plains, limited to relatively small individual manors and farms. So Jesus he asked us to love one another the only way that he knew how, with the only appeal to truth and authority he know how, in the only language he knew how to use. His advice was that if we unified with love we could resist the aristocracy – that the solution to authoritarianism whether eastern totalitarian and immoral, or western contractual and moral, was to love each other, and to resist them. We cannot blame the people in prior eras for lacking the persuasive technologies that we invented after they passed. In each era we do the best that we can with the tools available to us. Yet with the luxury of our current knowledge, we can restate his very simple teachings from his ancient primitive language, from his ancient mysticism, from his ancient authoritarianism, from the language of deception, into the current language. 1) Treat others as you yourself would be treated. Treat no other as you would not wish to be treated yourself. There is no law above the two sides of this moral coin. 2) Reserve time to commune with your neighbors and contemplate how you may do this. 3) Impose no costs upon those things that others have labored to obtain, because it will provoke retaliation by others, and this will harm all of us. In case we need reminding, this refers to: – The life, body, offspring, mates, and relations of others. – The property that others have obtained by discovery, production or trade, from those things justly discovered, produced, and traded. – The norms, traditions, laws, and institutions of others so long as they do not violate these rules. – Speak the truth at all times, no matter the consequence. – Neither act, coerce others to act, nor even think of these things. – Show charity to those who need it to the limit of your ability, without violating these rules. – In total: treat all others as your family – and we all shall become one. One family. Not in our imaginations, but in practice. Out of many we shall become one.

  • The Truth Is Visible In Jesus’ Mythos

    THE TRUTH IS VISIBLE IN JESUS’ MYTHOS Jesus told us to love one another. He did not teach us to lie. But he was raised in a culture of myths and lies. And the language of mythology and lies was the only language of persuasion available to him. If he knew greek, he had not – like most primitive people’s – yet learned Greek reason. And if he did know of greek reason, it’s quite possible he saw it as a threat, since it was the language of government and contract, not the language of the slaves, fishermen, herders, and farmers. We tend to forget that his people at that point in time were the equivalent of the Brazilian favelas, north American ghettos, Arab hinterlands, and Indian slums. So Jesus spoke in the form of persuasion available to him: myth and lie, and probably in the language he was raised with: Aramaic. And under the influence of the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish totalitarian fairy tales we call the old testament. If you compare those authoritarian fairy tales to , Aesop’s Fables, Anglo, Scandinavian, Germanic, and Slavic Fairy Tales, the Geek and Roman Myths, the Arthurian Legends, the Germanic Niebelugelied, the Illiad and the Odyssey,, the Carolingian Saga, and Whig History (the continuous evolution of Europa), you will see the difference between the heroic man competing with the gods to sit among them, and the submissive man under a tyrannical god’s authority, producing the cultures of stagnation, and anti-science, and pervasive deceit. Why? The difference between many competing tribes in the fertile crescent with the concentration of wealth in the industrialization of the river valleys, and many homogenous tribes in the Eurasian forests and plains, limited to relatively small individual manors and farms. So Jesus he asked us to love one another the only way that he knew how, with the only appeal to truth and authority he know how, in the only language he knew how to use. His advice was that if we unified with love we could resist the aristocracy – that the solution to authoritarianism whether eastern totalitarian and immoral, or western contractual and moral, was to love each other, and to resist them. We cannot blame the people in prior eras for lacking the persuasive technologies that we invented after they passed. In each era we do the best that we can with the tools available to us. Yet with the luxury of our current knowledge, we can restate his very simple teachings from his ancient primitive language, from his ancient mysticism, from his ancient authoritarianism, from the language of deception, into the current language. 1) Treat others as you yourself would be treated. Treat no other as you would not wish to be treated yourself. There is no law above the two sides of this moral coin. 2) Reserve time to commune with your neighbors and contemplate how you may do this. 3) Impose no costs upon those things that others have labored to obtain, because it will provoke retaliation by others, and this will harm all of us. In case we need reminding, this refers to: – The life, body, offspring, mates, and relations of others. – The property that others have obtained by discovery, production or trade, from those things justly discovered, produced, and traded. – The norms, traditions, laws, and institutions of others so long as they do not violate these rules. – Speak the truth at all times, no matter the consequence. – Neither act, coerce others to act, nor even think of these things. – Show charity to those who need it to the limit of your ability, without violating these rules. – In total: treat all others as your family – and we all shall become one. One family. Not in our imaginations, but in practice. Out of many we shall become one.

  • We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit

    —“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks

    In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • We Can Create a Perfect Government For Opposing Propaganda and Deceit

    —“Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable.”— Curt Doolittle —“There is no such thing as a “perfect” government – and many Classical Liberals (such a the Old Whig Edmund Burke) supported the old British Constitution as the best thing available.”— Paul Marks

    In the context a “perfect storm” and “perfect opposition” convey the meaning I intend them to: ‘sufficient coincidence of causes”. Aside…. I am not sure that’s an argument. It certainly isn’t a criticism of anything I said in the post above. Are you one of those people that confuses meaning as existential and open to deduction rather than normative and not? We can test normative meaning as we test any hypothesis, and by comparing it to like terms reduce normative meaning to what can only refer to necessary meaning. We can use allegory to inform, as long as we do not use allegory for consequent deductions. Now, next, let’s do a little analysis here. First, it really doesn’t matter what anyone in the past thought. The question is whether a government can in fact calculate and decide, producing optimum ends – and whether we choose deliberately eugenic, market eugenic, market dysgenic, or deliberately dysgenic criteria of ultimate decidability. (Because all competitions in the choice of political commons are reducible to eugenic or dysgenic strategies. (just as all questions of ethics are reducible to violence or not; just as all questions of personal choice are reducible to suicide or not.) Just as prices and incentives cannot be produced in combination by any other means, nash equilibrium cannot be produced by other means than voluntary exchanges. (Yet both Keynes and Rawls rely upon individual discretion under the assumption of Pareto optimums). Now this is a simple problem of the possibility of possessing such knowledge. We cannot produce prices and incentives by aggregate means and we cannot produce commons and satisfaction by aggregate means. So it is possible to produce an optimum government and a perfect opposition to the perfect storm. As long as we choose the market eugenic or the deliberately eugenic means of decidability. And as long as we create markets for production(goods and services), reproduction (family), commons (government), dispute resolution (law), market for policies (many small polities). So hopefully this helped clarify the argument a bit for you (at the expense of my time.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.