—“[for american whites, the data shows] a modest eugenic trend for men, though a dysgenic one for women. The dysgenic one for women is driven by education, not intelligence, however. So the takeaway [is that our smart women are under-reproducing in favor of increasing education with questionable returns].”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-25 04:12:00 UTC
[T]HE OBVERSE The day before yesterday, I met a very interesting fellow, who though a decade older, and part of the 60/70s generation (Hippies) instead of the 70’s/80’s generation (Yuppies); also of English extraction (of the taller kind), obviously someone in the same iq range; he, like many musicians was a bohemian, author of some successful pop songs (many years ago) and who (uncomfortably for me) was happy switching between lyrics, music and language as means of communication. We spoke for hours. We are different but still kin. Same genes, different gene expression. I had to couch no idea, fear no rejection of it. Weigh no words. I felt safe, understood. I could chain together a long sequence of reasoning and he could effortlessly see the pattern, and pose questions. But unlike my operationalism he, better than any woman I have met, could read people, sense them, intuit them on a scale that I feel for what we call ‘the economy’ or ‘pure abstractions’. I was envious – jealous – that like two beings we were divided: specialists in the conceptual division of knowledge and labor. That is what the future of many looks like if we do not once again descend into dysgenia. He, and me, in one, without defect, as the population in a mean. What could we achieve with just 10,000 of us? There are too few of us. We are spread out. But our utility to one another, and the relief we feel from the ease of one another’s company is what normal people experience every day – and we rarely do. It is not true that genius competes. We love one another. Models of analogy that we construct differ within the same field can come into conflict. My work creates a universal language that renders models commensurable and without dependence upon analogy. And a universal language elminates competiion on frames of analogies, such that we compete on explanatory power and parsimony. THE REVERSE But what if artist’s laments are lies, rather than truths? Thefts rather than creations? If we deprive the religious of the illusion of the deity and mystery, can we also deprive the communist, the feminist, the postmodernist, the propagandist, the snake oil salesman, and the wishful thinkers of the release and relief that their fantasies provide? Do we personalize fantasies the way we have personalized religion – eradicating both from the public commons? I can find no reason not to. I see no reason why we should or even can, limit private mysticism, self deception, obscurantism, and fantasy, while I see every reason to prohibit mysticism, obscurantism, deception and fantasy from the public forum. We prohibit discourse on many topics which are taboo and justifiably so (child pornography). We have all but prohibited religion (christianity) from the public form (because it competes with the religion-of-state). It is one thing to enforce for conformity (a positive constraint) and another to enforce the prohibition on error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from the informational commons. Although it is somewhat unfortunate that we must teach everyone the logic of truth telling the same that we teach them reading, writing, mathematics, and the scientific method. But just as the cost of teaching people the Three-R’s was expensive, the fruits were phenomenally beneficial for all. And teaching people the reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, rhetoric (truthful speech), and history as the evolution of cooperation and production, is an additional expense. But like reading, speaking truth will have similar beneficial consequences. (And it will destroy the lies, pseudosciences, and false religions forever.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv, Ukraine)
[T]HE OBVERSE The day before yesterday, I met a very interesting fellow, who though a decade older, and part of the 60/70s generation (Hippies) instead of the 70’s/80’s generation (Yuppies); also of English extraction (of the taller kind), obviously someone in the same iq range; he, like many musicians was a bohemian, author of some successful pop songs (many years ago) and who (uncomfortably for me) was happy switching between lyrics, music and language as means of communication. We spoke for hours. We are different but still kin. Same genes, different gene expression. I had to couch no idea, fear no rejection of it. Weigh no words. I felt safe, understood. I could chain together a long sequence of reasoning and he could effortlessly see the pattern, and pose questions. But unlike my operationalism he, better than any woman I have met, could read people, sense them, intuit them on a scale that I feel for what we call ‘the economy’ or ‘pure abstractions’. I was envious – jealous – that like two beings we were divided: specialists in the conceptual division of knowledge and labor. That is what the future of many looks like if we do not once again descend into dysgenia. He, and me, in one, without defect, as the population in a mean. What could we achieve with just 10,000 of us? There are too few of us. We are spread out. But our utility to one another, and the relief we feel from the ease of one another’s company is what normal people experience every day – and we rarely do. It is not true that genius competes. We love one another. Models of analogy that we construct differ within the same field can come into conflict. My work creates a universal language that renders models commensurable and without dependence upon analogy. And a universal language elminates competiion on frames of analogies, such that we compete on explanatory power and parsimony. THE REVERSE But what if artist’s laments are lies, rather than truths? Thefts rather than creations? If we deprive the religious of the illusion of the deity and mystery, can we also deprive the communist, the feminist, the postmodernist, the propagandist, the snake oil salesman, and the wishful thinkers of the release and relief that their fantasies provide? Do we personalize fantasies the way we have personalized religion – eradicating both from the public commons? I can find no reason not to. I see no reason why we should or even can, limit private mysticism, self deception, obscurantism, and fantasy, while I see every reason to prohibit mysticism, obscurantism, deception and fantasy from the public forum. We prohibit discourse on many topics which are taboo and justifiably so (child pornography). We have all but prohibited religion (christianity) from the public form (because it competes with the religion-of-state). It is one thing to enforce for conformity (a positive constraint) and another to enforce the prohibition on error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from the informational commons. Although it is somewhat unfortunate that we must teach everyone the logic of truth telling the same that we teach them reading, writing, mathematics, and the scientific method. But just as the cost of teaching people the Three-R’s was expensive, the fruits were phenomenally beneficial for all. And teaching people the reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, rhetoric (truthful speech), and history as the evolution of cooperation and production, is an additional expense. But like reading, speaking truth will have similar beneficial consequences. (And it will destroy the lies, pseudosciences, and false religions forever.) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv, Ukraine)
INTERVIEW BRIEF PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT: In Propertarian Institute interviews, we are just having a video of two people having a conversation. It does not have to be structured. The purpose of this document is for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them. This is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations. I will try to cover all the points I have sketched out (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable. AUDIENCE The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra. POSITIONING Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it. TIME APPROX 2.5 HOURS FROM SET UP TO WRAP UP Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video. “STUFF THAT HAPPENS” We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will PREPARATION read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience. FOR THE CAMERA AND SOUND CREW I am far worse than a professional actor. I am very easily distracted. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. So, sorry. You can’t. Bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process. EQUIPMENT Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct. THE LOCATION Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios. DELIVERABLE A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’ DISTRIBUTION we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels. — SAMPLE OPENING SCRIPT — TITLE “Trust and the Circumpolar People” HOST INTRODUCTION Face the camera. “Hello, I’m ___________, and I’m here in ___________ with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.” (Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location). Today we’re going to talk about _____________. HOST QUESTION Something on the order of: “Curt, _____________________” (Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.) CURT ANSWERS Thanks (host), and thanks for having me. (continued)
INTERVIEW BRIEF PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT: In Propertarian Institute interviews, we are just having a video of two people having a conversation. It does not have to be structured. The purpose of this document is for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them. This is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations. I will try to cover all the points I have sketched out (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable. AUDIENCE The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra. POSITIONING Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it. TIME APPROX 2.5 HOURS FROM SET UP TO WRAP UP Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video. “STUFF THAT HAPPENS” We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will PREPARATION read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience. FOR THE CAMERA AND SOUND CREW I am far worse than a professional actor. I am very easily distracted. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. So, sorry. You can’t. Bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process. EQUIPMENT Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct. THE LOCATION Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios. DELIVERABLE A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’ DISTRIBUTION we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels. — SAMPLE OPENING SCRIPT — TITLE “Trust and the Circumpolar People” HOST INTRODUCTION Face the camera. “Hello, I’m ___________, and I’m here in ___________ with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.” (Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location). Today we’re going to talk about _____________. HOST QUESTION Something on the order of: “Curt, _____________________” (Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.) CURT ANSWERS Thanks (host), and thanks for having me. (continued)
[D]amn. Great article. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-college-kids-are-avoiding-the-study-of-literature/ Other points I thought of while reading it: (a) another (failed) twentieth century attempt at ‘scientizing’ an art to increase the status of it’s professors. There are indeed basic rules to the craft of writing. But that in the end result, fiction is a parable: it gives us experiences of hypotheses at a discount and in compressed time. As such we can carry rich and complex parables, sometimes amounting to the entire mental framework of the author in his time, with us, as if we are Methuselah, having lived a thousand lives. (b) I have been concerned about the use of literature as a vehicle for empathic suggestion and therefore as a means of deceit as it has been by the postmoderns – but now that I know it is possible to objectively test the moral content of actions, I know it is just as possible to teach people to morally judge literature, just as they rationally judge arguments, or scientifically judge the possibility of physical phenomenon. We merely would need teach objective morality, and the construction of moral political, social , moral, and commercial contract. Since this is the only form of accounting we can sense, perceive and measure without instruments, moral science should be the easiest science to teach. Leaving authors of literature as unconstrained with moral challenges for characters as science fiction authors are unchallenged with challenges of physics for their readers. (c) science describes the universe. history describes man. fiction produces theory about what might be, how we might act, and in doing so is the most abstract, but most richly loaded method of teaching how one might live one’s life (and how one might not want to.) (d) I can’t afford to read literature any longer, even if I love it as a kid. Too informationally sparse, and too time consuming. And I have too much experience in the world. And unless it’s mystery almost all of it is predictable. I am also too cognizant of the agendas of authors (Dickens),and too intolerant of their (shallow) attempts at manipulation, as well as that of liberation theology (Steinbeck), or even more subtle cultural competition (Dr.Seuss). While I can appreciate the artistry of Joyce’ Ulysses, I quickly lose patience with his and Pynchon’s works. Only Shakespeare seems to warrant the investment. (e) So yes, I find cliff or spark notes, or even amazon reviews, useful in selecting those rare investments I choose to make. And I can see the value of teens and adults merely referring to them, and wikipedia entries. Why? Because scanning multitudinous sources for similar information in brief form provides less opportunity for deception by framing, overloading and suggestion. Which is why I find the whole idea of the near infinite discount on information access that comes with the information era more important than the literary era. All communication is dependent upon technology. Novels provided entertainment and experiential enlightenment and most importantly, insight into the minds of characters. And novels were profitable vehicles. Movies do this poorly, but they show us rich information about the world and even now, about imagination of the world. And they were profitable vehicles.. But summary articles often do the same. And we can cover so much more thought in articles than we can in books. We can learn more, choose our own paths like a game, and compare dozens hundreds if not thousands of opinions and perspectives. However, one cannot make money at these things. That is what I find most interesting about the information era. Incentives to produce truth rather than deception. And the use of comparison rather than argument to circumvent deception. Conversely, authors no longer have much ability to influence the reader except with insight and fact. And it is this I think that creates opportunity for ours and future generations. We can perhaps all of us master the small number of basic principles of the physical and social realms, independent of the error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading and deceit that has plagued past generations. But what will happen then is the loss of the influence of the narrator. And the relegation of such narrators to vaudeville. And that I think, is the real objection of the narrative (middle) intellectual class, compared to the factual (upper) intellectual class. Isn’t that something to ponder!? (As such ( Troy Camplin ) I have lost my concern over the use of literature. All theories can be tested. All moral theories can be tested. The problem was creating the means by which moral theory and argument could be tested. And that was not so hard really in retrospect. )
[D]amn. Great article. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-college-kids-are-avoiding-the-study-of-literature/ Other points I thought of while reading it: (a) another (failed) twentieth century attempt at ‘scientizing’ an art to increase the status of it’s professors. There are indeed basic rules to the craft of writing. But that in the end result, fiction is a parable: it gives us experiences of hypotheses at a discount and in compressed time. As such we can carry rich and complex parables, sometimes amounting to the entire mental framework of the author in his time, with us, as if we are Methuselah, having lived a thousand lives. (b) I have been concerned about the use of literature as a vehicle for empathic suggestion and therefore as a means of deceit as it has been by the postmoderns – but now that I know it is possible to objectively test the moral content of actions, I know it is just as possible to teach people to morally judge literature, just as they rationally judge arguments, or scientifically judge the possibility of physical phenomenon. We merely would need teach objective morality, and the construction of moral political, social , moral, and commercial contract. Since this is the only form of accounting we can sense, perceive and measure without instruments, moral science should be the easiest science to teach. Leaving authors of literature as unconstrained with moral challenges for characters as science fiction authors are unchallenged with challenges of physics for their readers. (c) science describes the universe. history describes man. fiction produces theory about what might be, how we might act, and in doing so is the most abstract, but most richly loaded method of teaching how one might live one’s life (and how one might not want to.) (d) I can’t afford to read literature any longer, even if I love it as a kid. Too informationally sparse, and too time consuming. And I have too much experience in the world. And unless it’s mystery almost all of it is predictable. I am also too cognizant of the agendas of authors (Dickens),and too intolerant of their (shallow) attempts at manipulation, as well as that of liberation theology (Steinbeck), or even more subtle cultural competition (Dr.Seuss). While I can appreciate the artistry of Joyce’ Ulysses, I quickly lose patience with his and Pynchon’s works. Only Shakespeare seems to warrant the investment. (e) So yes, I find cliff or spark notes, or even amazon reviews, useful in selecting those rare investments I choose to make. And I can see the value of teens and adults merely referring to them, and wikipedia entries. Why? Because scanning multitudinous sources for similar information in brief form provides less opportunity for deception by framing, overloading and suggestion. Which is why I find the whole idea of the near infinite discount on information access that comes with the information era more important than the literary era. All communication is dependent upon technology. Novels provided entertainment and experiential enlightenment and most importantly, insight into the minds of characters. And novels were profitable vehicles. Movies do this poorly, but they show us rich information about the world and even now, about imagination of the world. And they were profitable vehicles.. But summary articles often do the same. And we can cover so much more thought in articles than we can in books. We can learn more, choose our own paths like a game, and compare dozens hundreds if not thousands of opinions and perspectives. However, one cannot make money at these things. That is what I find most interesting about the information era. Incentives to produce truth rather than deception. And the use of comparison rather than argument to circumvent deception. Conversely, authors no longer have much ability to influence the reader except with insight and fact. And it is this I think that creates opportunity for ours and future generations. We can perhaps all of us master the small number of basic principles of the physical and social realms, independent of the error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading and deceit that has plagued past generations. But what will happen then is the loss of the influence of the narrator. And the relegation of such narrators to vaudeville. And that I think, is the real objection of the narrative (middle) intellectual class, compared to the factual (upper) intellectual class. Isn’t that something to ponder!? (As such ( Troy Camplin ) I have lost my concern over the use of literature. All theories can be tested. All moral theories can be tested. The problem was creating the means by which moral theory and argument could be tested. And that was not so hard really in retrospect. )
THE COST OF IMMIGRATING UNDERCLASSES SO THAT THE YOUNG AND ELDERLY DO NOT PERFORM SERVICE JOBS IS NOT GOOD FOR THE YOUNG, FOR THE ELDERLY, OR FOR OUR CIVILIZATION.
Start children working by age 5 on household chores, in civic labor maintaining the commons by 10, and in commerce by 15. Earlier is better.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-17 02:12:00 UTC
BRIEF (SCRIPT)
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT:
In these interviews, we are just having a conversation. It does not have to be structured. The purpose of this document is (a) for me to organize my thoughts ahead of time so I remember the points to cover and how to tie it all together at the end, (b) for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them.
BUT, this is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations. I will try to cover all the points in this document (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable.
For this topic, that means that **American utopianism and Russian nihilism are equal fallacies that we can overcome**. And that we can unite Anglo, Germanic, Slavic, and Russian circumpolar civilizations if we overcome the fallacies of the enlightenment visions of man, and accept scientific evidence of man.
AUDIENCE
The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra.
POSITIONING
Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it.
TIME APPROX 2.5 HOURS FROM SET UP TO WRAP UP
Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video.
“STUFF THAT HAPPENS”
We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will
PREPARATION
read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience.
FOR THE CAMERA AND SOUND CREW
I honestly don’t care about your ‘needs’. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. Sorry. You can’t. So bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process.
EQUIPMENT
Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct.
THE LOCATION
Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios.
DELIVERABLE
A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’
DISTRIBUTION
we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels.
— SCRIPT —
TITLE
“Trust and the Circumpolar People”
DON INTRODUCTION
Face the camera. “Hello, I’m Don Finnegan, and I’m here in the beautiful old-town of Tallinn Estonia with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.”
(Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location).
Today we’re going to talk about the Circumpolar People: Anglo, Germanic, Slavic, and Russian civilizations, and why we’ve been in conflict, and how we can end that conflict.
DON QUESTION
Something on the order of: “Curt, you’ve been critical of Russia over the invasion of Ukraine and the Seizure of the Crimean Peninsula, and Russia’s use of propaganda…..”
(Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.)
CURT ANSWERS
Thanks Don, and thanks for having me.
(Ad-lib….) My problem with his actions are:
PART 1 – CRITICISMS
UNNECESSARY
1) It was unnecessary, since Ukraine would have happily ceded the territory in exchange for discounts on energy (especially if it was stated that it’s strategic and we really can’t afford not to have it). The Russian ‘resettlement’ of Russians into Ukraine (the equivalent of the west bank) had divided the country, and there had been years of discussion that the country was hampered by the baggage of Russian and ex-soviet corruption.
POSTWAR CONSENSUS
2) It broke the postwar consensus and demonstrated to the whole world that nuclear weapons are the only means of securing borders. So it was the deciding factor in nuclear proliferation going forward.
INFLUENTIAL, UNITING, LEADER
3) Putin was emerging as the world’s most influential leader, and the only legitimate critic of the west. He had begun uniting western conservatives. And he threw it all away out of impulsive fear. Now Russians will yet again pay for the hubris of their leaders. And the rest of us will pay for yet another delay in uniting our peoples.
UNIFICATION OF RUSSIA AND GERMANY
4) It prevented the unification of Russian resources, labor, and martial culture from unifying with German technology and rule of law. And while the Anglo sphere has been trying to prevent this perhaps for centuries, it turns out that the Germans were right about the nature of man, and the Anglos were wrong, and that if we could unite Russia and Germany we could reunite Anglo and German civilization and achieve Gorbachev’s vision of a circumpolar Christian civilization across the entire top of the globe. And I think that this failure might be as catastrophic as the fall of Constantinople, and the Islamization of North Africa.
( PART II – SOLUTIONS)
DON – IMPOSSIBLE?
Don: Well, is that vision impossible now?
CURT ANSWERS
Well, yes, it’s possible – we’re all European pagan Christian Aristotelians. But to make that obvious lets tell a few stories,
STOCK MARKET…
1) Why is the top stock market, and top technological innovation in America, the top bond market in the UK, the best engineering in Germany, and the best military in Russia? Why do the different countries specialize in that division of labor?
RULE OF LAW
2) Why do Americans use rule of law bordering on formal logic, brits use rule of law in the tradition of common law, the French and Germans use Napoleonic rule of law, and the Russians rule BY law? American law permits people to do anything but resolves all conflicts that occur. Anglo law is more regulatory up front, and resolves conflicts. German law, as Napoleonic, heavily regulates the front of any process, and then resolves conflicts that remain. Russian law is rule by not of law, and is… merely a command structure. Chinese law traditionally is not comparable with western law in any sense in that there are no material limits to the state’s dictates.
JURY JUDGE SYSTEMS
3) Why do Americans and brits use a single judge and a twelve-person jury, and why are courts forums for debates conducted in front of a jury who decides? Why do the French not use such a system, nor jury (except in rare cases), and why do authorities attempt to judge the claims. Why in German courts do defendants appeal to a judge rather than a jury for decisions? Why are Russian courts adversarial (as in the Anglo model, and before a jury, but nearly 80% of people do not expect a fair trail because of pervasive bribery of both jurors and jurists? (HT to Putin for the dramatic increase in the trust in the courts.) Why did or do some countries use multiple judges and no jury?
SPEEDING TICKET TRUTH / AND ACCIDENTS
4) If you go to court in America over a speeding ticket that you deserve, what are the chances your friend or relative will tell the truth. Britain? Germany? France? Italy? Russia? China? Saudi Arabia?
LIAR AND WHO BELIEVES IT?
6) A few days ago I asked a Russian woman if two people are talking, and one tells a lie and the other believes it, who was ‘wrong’? She said the person who believed the lie. This is unbelievable to an American. Yet an American will stretch the truth in a sales pitch, while a German will not, and a Finn will be horrified by it? Why is idealism so prevalent in America, moral signaling at the level of pandering absurdity in Britain, absolute mastery of subject matter so required in Germany, and cunning problem solving so heroic in Russia – while pseudoscience bordering on mysticism so common, and conspiracy theories so prevalent in Russia?
AMERICANS AND RUSSIANS CAN”T UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER
When a Russian politician hears an American politician they assume that he is lying because no one would be that naive, instead of utopian. When an American politician hears a Russian politician lie, he just assumes he’s malevolent tyrannist rather than desperately trying to keep the wolves at bay. They can’t understand each other. When any western politician hears a Chinese we know it’s a lie because that’s their natural form of communication since sun Tzu: delay and deceive. Or Islamic courts which .. aren’t worth discussing.
A Russian cannot imagine that not only to Americans believe this stuff, but that they think it is good for everyone: an aristocracy of everyone. An American cannot imagine a Russian who lives in a vast country, with enemies south and east (and imagined enemies west), a hostile climate, and have been occupied and enslaved for most of their history.
EXTERNALITIES: UTOPIAN VS NIHILIST
But utopianism produces externalities that are beneficial for the economy, and nihilism produces externalities that are damaging for the economy. Both nihilism and utopianism are fallacies. They are excuses for not doing the good German work of gathering the facts and assuming you know nothing at all other than the facts.
(PERSONAL INTERJECTION)
So I will say this: I would rather have American peers in court and business, and Russian, and eastern European family and friends at home. Which is pretty much how my life is today.
(PART THREE: THE DIVISION OF LABOR AND EXCHANGE VS UNIVERSALISM AND MONOPOLY)
MY CAMPAIGN AGINST UNIVERSALISM
I think people who follow me know my criticism of the enlightenment’s universalism, and my preference for a division of perception, cognition, knowledge advocacy and labor. I think it’s WONDERFUL that the circumpolar people have divided their labors. There is one problem preventing us from unifying, and that is American utopianism and Russian corruption. We have got to fix this if we are to unite Anglo invention, German engineering, and Russian intellectual and military excellence.
GORBACHEV HAD THE RIGHT IDEA, THE OLIGARCHS RUINED IT, PUTIN BANISHED THEM AND STARTED THE REFORM, AND THEN HE FLINCHED.
He wants to restore the Soviet Union, instead of uniting all of us under Russian military, Anglo law, and German discipline. Why are the Chinese and the Muslims looking at their civilizations as a unit, and we are not? We have everything we need to preserve Christendom, our histories and our ambitions.
WESTERN OUTLIERS: UTOPIANISM AND NIHILISM
The outliers are American utopianism (neo-puritanism, postmodernism, democratic secular humanism) and Russian nihilism and distrust.
KILLING OFF THE FALLACIES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT UNIVERSALISM – Of any cultural strategy, and instead, replace it with a division of knowledge and labor at the gender, individual, cultural and civilizational levels.
I am trying to kill off the fallacies of the enlightenment and unify Christendom. In an effort to save it. Russia is an integral part of that plan. Because with Russia the division of labor necessary for our very rich civilization is possible.
UNIVERSALISM: division of labor across Christendom rather than any one group’s strategy as universal. Anglo Island, German River, and Russian Steppe
DEMOCRACY
Russians are correct, that democracy is a cancerous idea that has failed not only the rest of the world, but the countries that promote it. It is merely mob rule. And Russians are surrounded by MOBS. They are not stupid. We are island people. We can afford the illusion.
EMPIRE
Americans should broker a deal between Germany and Russia for the defense of Eurasia.
MORE MOB REDUCTION
Westerners above the Hanja line suppressed the underclasses through more than a millennium of genetic pacification. Russians are surrounded by people who have done the opposite: weaponized reproduction of the underclasses.
CAPITALISM
Putin failed to diversify the economy because it was too attractive to restore the Russian empire WITH CONTROL rather than to unite the circumpolar peoples AT RISK. Americans had nearly abandoned Europe assuming that Russia would gradually reform and America could withdraw from Europe. Putin would have been the most powerful man in Eurasia.
ECONOMIES
Why does the economic status of each of these countries reflect its nihilism(Russia), skepticism(Finland and Poland), realism(Germany), optimism(Britain), utopianism(America)?
TRUST ISN”T AN EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL, OR RATIONALIST CONCEPT. TRUST ISN”T AN ACT OF FAITH, IT”S THE RESULT OF AGGRESSIVE APPLICATION OF RULE OF LAW
(Discuss rule of law)
UNIVERSAL DECIDABILITY IN LAW (suppression of parasitism)
(Discuss decidability in law across heterogeneous polities)
RULE OF LAW – ESPECIALLY IN THE STATE
(discuss how France is Wrong) (‘Secret Shoppers’ : Using Entrapment. Bring in how we (marchenko) test security in the military.)
CONTRACTUALISM IN GOVERNMENT AND RULE IN LAW
(Regional variation in the production of commons)(Difference between universal rule, and regionalism in the production of commons)
(PART IV – SOLUTIONS)
BUT WE MUST TRUST ONE ANOTHER WITH “CHRISTIAN LOVE”. Not American utopianism, not Russian nihilism, but pure scientific judgment: trust produces economic velocity, and rule of law preserves it.
ELIMINATE CORRUPTION BY USING TRUTH. RUSSIANS ARE SCIENTIFIC PEOPLE – USE IT.
Russia must accelerate its program of suppression of corruption, and instead of frightening the populace in order to generate demand for the state’s authority, simply communicate to the (smart) Russian people precisely what it is we wish to accomplish.
Russians are heroic like Americans. Russians need to use their macho to bravado heroism, and crush, punish and beat corruption, deceit and propaganda. But Russians DO NOT need democracy. We cannot spread the cancer of the west to Russia. We need rule of law. How we produce commons depends upon our local needs and traditions. Russia is a resource economy and needs central distribution of wealth and a diverse economy in services. American needs innovate; Canada needs its myth of character in order to sell off its continent to immigrants. Britain needs its absurd moralism to be the world’s Switzerland. Germany needs its ‘duty’ to engineer everything. And we all need Americans to adjudicate trade conflicts and Russians to police the air, land and seas.
AMERICANS NEED TO STOP LYING IN PURSUIT OF UTOPIAN FALLACIES
(Discuss how Americans **DO** lie in marketing, advertising, academia, and politics. And the collusion between state, media and academy in the great utopian American education scam.)
ELIMINATE AMERICAN EMPIRE AND DIVIDE THE LABOR OF CHRISTENDOM
We have failed the postwar era, in large part because of the Jewish neoconservatives on one end and the anglo-geman-neopuritan left on the other.
We have to end the empire. Turn America into a domestic government, and preferably return to a federation of countries rather than a tyrannical government that we have today.
(CLOSE)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 07:10:00 UTC
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-college-kids-are-avoiding-the-study-of-literature/THE USE OF LITERATURE.
Damn. Great article.
Other points I thought of while reading it:
(a) another (failed) twentieth century attempt at ‘scientizing’ an art to increase the status of it’s professors. There are indeed basic rules to the craft of writing. But that in the end result, fiction is a parable: it gives us experiences of hypotheses at a discount and in compressed time. As such we can carry rich and complex parables, sometimes amounting to the entire mental framework of the author in his time, with us, as if we are Methuselah, having lived a thousand lives.
(b) I have been concerned about the use of literature as a vehicle for empathic suggestion and therefore as a means of deceit as it has been by the postmoderns – but now that I know it is possible to objectively test the moral content of actions, I know it is just as possible to teach people to morally judge literature, just as they rationally judge arguments, or scientifically judge the possibility of physical phenomenon. We merely would need teach objective morality, and the construction of moral political, social , moral, and commercial contract. Since this is the only form of accounting we can sense, perceive and measure without instruments, moral science should be the easiest science to teach. Leaving authors of literature as unconstrained with moral challenges for characters as science fiction authors are unchallenged with challenges of physics for their readers.
(c) science describes the universe. history describes man. fiction produces theory about what might be, how we might act, and in doing so is the most abstract, but most richly loaded method of teaching how one might live one’s life (and how one might not want to.)
(d) I can’t afford to read literature any longer, even if I love it as a kid. Too informationally sparse, and too time consuming. And I have too much experience in the world. And unless it’s mystery almost all of it is predictable. I am also too cognizant of the agendas of authors (Dickens),and too intolerant of their (shallow) attempts at manipulation, as well as that of liberation theology (Steinbeck), or even more subtle cultural competition (Dr.Seuss). While I can appreciate the artistry of Joyce’ Ulysses, I quickly lose patience with his and Pynchon’s works. Only Shakespeare seems to warrant the investment.
(e) So yes, I find cliff or spark notes, or even amazon reviews, useful in selecting those rare investments I choose to make. And I can see the value of teens and adults merely referring to them, and wikipedia entries. Why? Because scanning multitudinous sources for similar information in brief form provides less opportunity for deception by framing, overloading and suggestion. Which is why I find the whole idea of the near infinite discount on information access that comes with the information era more important than the literary era.
All communication is dependent upon technology. Novels provided entertainment and experiential enlightenment and most importantly, insight into the minds of characters. And novels were profitable vehicles. Movies do this poorly, but they show us rich information about the world and even now, about imagination of the world. And they were profitable vehicles.. But summary articles often do the same. And we can cover so much more thought in articles than we can in books. We can learn more, choose our own paths like a game, and compare dozens hundreds if not thousands of opinions and perspectives. However, one cannot make money at these things.
That is what I find most interesting about the information era. Incentives to produce truth rather than deception. And the use of comparison rather than argument to circumvent deception.
Conversely, authors no longer have much ability to influence the reader except with insight and fact. And it is this I think that creates opportunity for ours and future generations. We can perhaps all of us master the small number of basic principles of the physical and social realms, independent of the error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading and deceit that has plagued past generations.
But what will happen then is the loss of the influence of the narrator. And the relegation of such narrators to vaudeville. And that I think, is the real objection of the narrative (middle) intellectual class, compared to the factual (upper) intellectual class. Isn’t that something to ponder!?
(As such ( Troy Camplin ) I have lost my concern over the use of literature. All theories can be tested. All moral theories can be tested. The problem was creating the means by which moral theory and argument could be tested. And that was not so hard really in retrospect. )
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-09 04:53:00 UTC