Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • BLANK: A STARTUP IS A SEARCH FOR A BUSINESS MODEL (1) SEARCH: Search for a busin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RTcXwJuCaUSTEVE BLANK: A STARTUP IS A SEARCH FOR A BUSINESS MODEL

    (1) SEARCH: Search for a business model (Founders from dysfunctional families have an edge in the search for a business model.) BUT: The day your company finds that business model, the VCs see you as valuable, and they want to know if you’re the executive to take them to liquidity – operating execs.

    (2) BUILD An operating exec knows how to scale a company from startup to scaled production. Build out the team.

    (3) EXECUTE: Execute on your business model.

    These may be three different people.

    FOUNDERS RUN PATTERN RECOGNIZERS

    At the end of the day it is not a spreadsheet problem. We are looking for opportunities to develop patterns. It is not about execution based upon numbers, but it is at finding and SEIZING opportunities, and turning them into business models.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-05 02:42:00 UTC

  • As Far As I know, This Is The Definitive Analysis of the Church

    [A]s far as I know: 1) The church served as a wealthy but weak professional administrative branch of government. 2) The church could grant moral authority to nobility and monarchy, or revoke it. Meaning that if revoked, your lands were marked for conquest by others. 3) The central tenet of christianity is the extension of kinship love to non-kin, breaking familial and tribal bonds. This is the only meaningful principle. It also happens to intuitively reflect hunter gatherer ethics and morality. 4) The church was able to legally enforce this policy by the prohibition on cousin marriage, and the grant of property rights to women. 5) While the church pursued these policies purely out of self interest: the removal of competition to the church as government, and the cheaper acquisition of lands, the net effect was to restore order to Celtica after the Roman destruction of Celtic Civilization and the impact of the migration period, and to provide sufficient administrative support that Saxon (north sea hanseatic) civilization could evolve into what we think of as Protestant Europe. There is nothing valuable at all in the literature. It is mere nonsense. The ‘good’ outcomes were the product of one principle ‘love’ and one institution: property rights under the common saxon law, administered by literate if ignorant clerks. Rome created a false history of european barbarism. The church, starting with Bede, has been successful in authoring a false history of Europe. Just as the “democratic era’ has authored a false history of Europe. Just as americans are being taught a false history of Europe. Economic history tells us differently. Aristocracy, sovereignty and Militita, Rule of Law, the common law of property, Extra-kinship love and high trust. These institutions produce the lowest transaction costs, and therefore highest possible economic velocity humans are capable of.

  • As Far As I know, This Is The Definitive Analysis of the Church

    [A]s far as I know: 1) The church served as a wealthy but weak professional administrative branch of government. 2) The church could grant moral authority to nobility and monarchy, or revoke it. Meaning that if revoked, your lands were marked for conquest by others. 3) The central tenet of christianity is the extension of kinship love to non-kin, breaking familial and tribal bonds. This is the only meaningful principle. It also happens to intuitively reflect hunter gatherer ethics and morality. 4) The church was able to legally enforce this policy by the prohibition on cousin marriage, and the grant of property rights to women. 5) While the church pursued these policies purely out of self interest: the removal of competition to the church as government, and the cheaper acquisition of lands, the net effect was to restore order to Celtica after the Roman destruction of Celtic Civilization and the impact of the migration period, and to provide sufficient administrative support that Saxon (north sea hanseatic) civilization could evolve into what we think of as Protestant Europe. There is nothing valuable at all in the literature. It is mere nonsense. The ‘good’ outcomes were the product of one principle ‘love’ and one institution: property rights under the common saxon law, administered by literate if ignorant clerks. Rome created a false history of european barbarism. The church, starting with Bede, has been successful in authoring a false history of Europe. Just as the “democratic era’ has authored a false history of Europe. Just as americans are being taught a false history of Europe. Economic history tells us differently. Aristocracy, sovereignty and Militita, Rule of Law, the common law of property, Extra-kinship love and high trust. These institutions produce the lowest transaction costs, and therefore highest possible economic velocity humans are capable of.

  • On NSA Interest in You or Me or Anyone.

    [W]hy They Don’t Care About You.
    1) Search engines are more effective than friends lists.
    2) And you don’t write in Arabic.
    3) And you aren’t writing across borders.
    4) They have better things to do.

    I’ve been both a justice department employee, and on the C list in the past, and that hasn’t stopped the government from asking me for help.

    RUSSIANS: The Russians work by buying influence with public intellectuals (people who write stuff). They play to egos. Russian ‘spies’ have the easiest job of all: find ‘useful idiots’. They are great at it.

    CHINESE: The Chinese work by stealing info via blood relations in the states. They play to genetics, nationalism, racism, and the Chinese ‘chip on their shoulder’. They are very good at it.

    MUSLIMS: The Muslims work by inciting violence with outcasts. They play to the contradiction between islam’s utopian promise and it’s evident contradiction in reality as the religion of the lower (lowest) classes. They are becoming reasonably good at it.

    JEWS: The Jews work by using money to buy influence and by using their control of the media. They play of tribal common interest. They are very good at it.

    AMERICANS: Americans work by gathering signal intelligence. They play off the distribution of american military, technical, financial, and commercial prowess to less developed countries, and discontent by the middle and upper middle classes in those countries.
    Real ‘spies’ are very small in number. The simple ones are attache’s to embassies. The better are employees of foreign companies, or foreigners hired as employees of companies. Then there are just plain specialists who can be inserted into nearly any position as needed, and they develop

    RELATIONSHIPS.
    We all know how each group works. So we investigate each group by the means that group uses to organize.

    So unless you start threatening the president, or specifically inciting violence you’re just another annoying malcontent. And there are a lot of you. And you’re little more than evidence of the superiority of our legal system’s ability to tolerate intellectual dissent, while at the same time prohibiting physical violence.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • On NSA Interest in You or Me or Anyone.

    [W]hy They Don’t Care About You.
    1) Search engines are more effective than friends lists.
    2) And you don’t write in Arabic.
    3) And you aren’t writing across borders.
    4) They have better things to do.

    I’ve been both a justice department employee, and on the C list in the past, and that hasn’t stopped the government from asking me for help.

    RUSSIANS: The Russians work by buying influence with public intellectuals (people who write stuff). They play to egos. Russian ‘spies’ have the easiest job of all: find ‘useful idiots’. They are great at it.

    CHINESE: The Chinese work by stealing info via blood relations in the states. They play to genetics, nationalism, racism, and the Chinese ‘chip on their shoulder’. They are very good at it.

    MUSLIMS: The Muslims work by inciting violence with outcasts. They play to the contradiction between islam’s utopian promise and it’s evident contradiction in reality as the religion of the lower (lowest) classes. They are becoming reasonably good at it.

    JEWS: The Jews work by using money to buy influence and by using their control of the media. They play of tribal common interest. They are very good at it.

    AMERICANS: Americans work by gathering signal intelligence. They play off the distribution of american military, technical, financial, and commercial prowess to less developed countries, and discontent by the middle and upper middle classes in those countries.
    Real ‘spies’ are very small in number. The simple ones are attache’s to embassies. The better are employees of foreign companies, or foreigners hired as employees of companies. Then there are just plain specialists who can be inserted into nearly any position as needed, and they develop

    RELATIONSHIPS.
    We all know how each group works. So we investigate each group by the means that group uses to organize.

    So unless you start threatening the president, or specifically inciting violence you’re just another annoying malcontent. And there are a lot of you. And you’re little more than evidence of the superiority of our legal system’s ability to tolerate intellectual dissent, while at the same time prohibiting physical violence.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Unpleasant Truth: Hiring a Female CEO is a Negative Indicator

    [T]he primary reason that women and minorities are put into power because they lack the ability to alter the status quo through the construction of stress-bearing loyalties. Boards hire them as weak placeholders – a strategy of delay an wait. The assignment of a woman to a leadership position in a troubled company is an admission by the board that they cannot come to consensus on a strategy, or that they have exhausted available strategies, and that further investment in the firm will perform negatively. They are aware that a woman and minorities will be willing to take the position due to the status perk of obtaining a rare executive position even while winding a company down, while men will not find status in such an effort, but failure. They are also aware of the positive PR that such appointments generate, and the negative that white male appointments generate under duress: in other words, the media will criticize a white male on his abilities, and laud the progressive appointment of a woman or minority in the hope that he or she succeeds. So the company is buying resistance to criticism by the press. Women and minorities will readily walk off the glass cliff because they are desperate for status from other women and minorities for having obtained a rare position. Men of equal ability will evaluate taking such a position as career ending and avoid it. Women having held such a status position can hold that status even after their failure. Men having failed will carry the stigma of failure, not the status of having obtained a rare position. So the long term consequences of an executive position in a declining company vary by gender and race. The glass ceiling exists because women are less loyal to their faction under stress than men of equal abilities. Meaning that men view women as less trustworthy. So, men view women (subconsciously) as untrustworthy under duress, if not weak allies at all times, and thereby untrustworthy in general. Conversely, this weakness means that the status quo will not be upset, and further confusion created if a woman or minority is appointed. Lastly, any professional c-level executive is very well aware prior to taking a position, of the prospects for the company. These things may seem complex to non-professionals, but in general it’s a matter of talent, alliances, incentives, assets, debt and time. I’ve been writing and talking about this topic for two decades now. Outside of obvious industries selling consumer products to women, boards choose women execs as an admission of failure. (Xerox, HP, Yahoo…) Even Meg Whitman was a placeholder for the two founders. Truth hurts. Science is uncomfortable. But it is what it is. We are unequal. And that’s a good thing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Unpleasant Truth: Hiring a Female CEO is a Negative Indicator

    [T]he primary reason that women and minorities are put into power because they lack the ability to alter the status quo through the construction of stress-bearing loyalties. Boards hire them as weak placeholders – a strategy of delay an wait. The assignment of a woman to a leadership position in a troubled company is an admission by the board that they cannot come to consensus on a strategy, or that they have exhausted available strategies, and that further investment in the firm will perform negatively. They are aware that a woman and minorities will be willing to take the position due to the status perk of obtaining a rare executive position even while winding a company down, while men will not find status in such an effort, but failure. They are also aware of the positive PR that such appointments generate, and the negative that white male appointments generate under duress: in other words, the media will criticize a white male on his abilities, and laud the progressive appointment of a woman or minority in the hope that he or she succeeds. So the company is buying resistance to criticism by the press. Women and minorities will readily walk off the glass cliff because they are desperate for status from other women and minorities for having obtained a rare position. Men of equal ability will evaluate taking such a position as career ending and avoid it. Women having held such a status position can hold that status even after their failure. Men having failed will carry the stigma of failure, not the status of having obtained a rare position. So the long term consequences of an executive position in a declining company vary by gender and race. The glass ceiling exists because women are less loyal to their faction under stress than men of equal abilities. Meaning that men view women as less trustworthy. So, men view women (subconsciously) as untrustworthy under duress, if not weak allies at all times, and thereby untrustworthy in general. Conversely, this weakness means that the status quo will not be upset, and further confusion created if a woman or minority is appointed. Lastly, any professional c-level executive is very well aware prior to taking a position, of the prospects for the company. These things may seem complex to non-professionals, but in general it’s a matter of talent, alliances, incentives, assets, debt and time. I’ve been writing and talking about this topic for two decades now. Outside of obvious industries selling consumer products to women, boards choose women execs as an admission of failure. (Xerox, HP, Yahoo…) Even Meg Whitman was a placeholder for the two founders. Truth hurts. Science is uncomfortable. But it is what it is. We are unequal. And that’s a good thing. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • WHY THE SKEPTICS WERE MOSTLY RIGHT CRITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION 1 – We justify mor

    WHY THE SKEPTICS WERE MOSTLY RIGHT

    CRITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION

    1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm )

    2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law)

    3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness)

    4 – We criticise truth propositions (theory)

    Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are infirmationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious).

    Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ).

    Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology.

    As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kyiv, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 08:27:00 UTC

  • AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS IS THE DEFINITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CHURCH 1) The church ser

    AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS IS THE DEFINITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CHURCH

    1) The church served as a wealthy but weak professional administrative branch of government.

    2) The church could grant moral authority to nobility and monarchy, or revoke it. Meaning that if revoked, your lands were marked for conquest by others.

    3) The central tenet of christianity is the extension of kinship love to non-kin, breaking familial and tribal bonds. This is the only meaningful principle. It also happens to intuitively reflect hunter gatherer ethics and morality.

    4) The church was able to legally enforce this policy by the prohibition on cousin marriage, and the grant of property rights to women.

    5) While the church pursued these policies purely out of self interest: the removal of competition to the church as government, and the cheaper acquisition of lands, the net effect was to restore order to Celtica after the Roman destruction of Celtic Civilization and the impact of the migration period, and to provide sufficient administrative support that Saxon (north sea hanseatic) civilization could evolve into what we think of as Protestant Europe.

    There is nothing valuable at all in the literature. It is mere nonsense. The ‘good’ outcomes were the product of one principle ‘love’ and one institution: property rights under the common saxon law, administered by literate if ignorant clerks.

    Rome created a false history of european barbarism. The church, starting with Bede, has been successful in authoring a false history of Europe. Just as the “democratic era’ has authored a false history of europe. Just as americans are being taught a false history of europe. Economic history tells us differently.

    Aristocracy, sovereignty and Militita, Rule of Law, the common law of property, Extra-kinship love and high trust.

    These institutions produce the lowest transaction costs, and therefore highest possible economic velocity humans are capable of.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 05:48:00 UTC

  • Eric Field on Metaschools (from elsewhere) Broadly speaking there are three meta

    Eric Field on Metaschools

    (from elsewhere)

    Broadly speaking there are three metaschools of historiography for defining “Western” civilization.

    1. Classical, which takes the classical Mediterranean from the Greco-Roman civilization as being the origin and nucleus of what has become Anglo-American civilization.

    2. Medievalist, which views the rise of Christianity, usually the rise of the Church after the fall of Rome as the foundation of our current civilization.

    3. Or the sort of Nordic model that Oswald Spengler advocated that asserts that the northern Indo-Europeans (Germanic and Celtic tribes, but later Balts and Slavs as well) came south, smashed into Rome, destroying Classical civilization, but ultimately absorbing the remnants into their own culture.

    Academic elites in the West tended to use a mixture of theories 1 and 2. The United States is semi-unique amongst westerners for relying on a much bastardized version of theory two, which places Christianity as the defining role. I’m partial to the third model, but I am an ethnic German, and I think it does a great job reconciling Anglo-American frontier experience with a larger Northern European pattern of migration that goes back to at least the Völkerwanderung.

    The Point I’m trying to make with this really autistic unsolicited history lecture is of the three historiographical schools of western civ, Americans (especially the rightwing) tend to be shaped by a version that considers Christianity the central defining feature of this civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 00:22:00 UTC