Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Currently, Who Are The Best Right Wing Philosophers/thinkers? I’m A Leftist, And I Believe That It’s Important To Challenge The Beliefs You Hold, So I’m Mostly Looking For Authors/public Speakers That’ll Give Me Something Worthwhile To Engage With.

    I’ll bite anytime, any place, anywhere – as long as you’re intellectually honest, and have more than trivial grasp of economics. (The problem is finding a leftist that’s intellectually honest, and has any understanding whatsoever of economics.)

    CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD

    1. A conservative questions the overestimation of reason, and above all questions consensus. Conservatism is familial, stoic, pragmatic, and empirical. In other words risk averse to capital.

    2. As a means of questioning, a conservative requires reciprocity (tort): american < british < anglo saxon < germanic < european < norther indo european in law. That law evolved from the oath (tell the truth, never steal, never flee, in combat).

    3. A Conservative requires ‘empirical’ results – and where empirical fails, the ‘traditional’ is adequate, since traditional survived empirical tests in competition in reality.

    4. A Conservative accumulates genetic, cultural, normative, institutional, physical, and territorial capital – attempting to pass on to future generations of his family, more than he himself inherited.

    5. Conservatism is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy that increases accumulated capital through intergenerational transfer, using intergeneration lending, in order to produce increasingly ‘noble’ families.

    6. Ergo successful individuals in the market for craftsmanship, successful purchase of the franchise through military service, successful individuals in the market for marriage and child rearing, successful individuals in the market for industry, successful families in the market for noble (intergenerational) families.

    7. In other words, conservatism(aristocracy) is a eugenic group evolutionary strategy. And while bipartite manorialism was practiced from 700, and aggressive hanging of up to 1% of the population every year after 1000, and an attempt to escape church-state nobility, and create an entrepreneurial nobility (meritocracy), succeeded by 1600, there was a great reaction to the english revolution, and a greater reaction to the french revolution. Thus while Locke,smith,hume,adams, and jefferson promised an aristocracy available to everyone, Burke, after the french revolution, and germans after that, recognized that the peasantry was even worse at rule (see russia) than the nobility.

    The problem with today’s conservatism is that darwin and spencer were famous before the war, after the second world war, conservatism and eugenics were effectively banned from discourse, academy, and science.

    As such conservatives never (until perhaps 2000) restored empirical discourse to conservatism, because eugenics are antithetical to the experiment with democracy. This changed incrementally beginning in 76, through the 80s, and aggressively since 2000, and more aggressively since 2008.

    1 – Soveriengty requires reciprocity

    2 – Reciprocity requires rule of law (tort), jury(thang, senate, house of lords, supreme court), and an independent judiciary.

    3 – Rule of law forces markets, since it incrementally suppresses each innovation in parasitism.

    4 – Markets cause hierarchies, because they are necessary to voluntarily organize production.

    5 – Markets are eugenic, because they are empirical means of testing industry and impulse.

    6 – But they make possible liberty for those with property, freedom for those who labor, and subsidy for those who impose no costs on sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or property.**

    DOMESTICATION
    Man domesticated the human animal after he had learned to domesticate the non-human animal. And he did so by the same means. And the result in both domestication of the human and non human animal is the same: eugenics.

    CONSERVATIVES
    Most conservatives do not write philosophy, they run businesses, or write history, economics, science, and law. (I write because I was successful enough in multiple businesses to spend my time writing full time.) Conservatives also are actively suppressed in academy and media.

    This has been true since the end of the war and teh rise of the Frankfurt School, and the Postmodern school, both of which were necessary after the failure of marxist pseudoscience. (a pseudoscience marx died knowing, since he stopped writing as soon as he read the Mengerians, and kept silent only to keep the checks coming in from Engels.)

    AUTHORS TO READ
    Burke, Hayek, Burnham, Sowell, Buchanan, Murray, and maybe Nietzsche. Veblen.
    (The essayists are nonsense)
    Anyone in Hoover or Heritage institutions.

    READING LIST
    Propertarianism’s Reading List (https://propertarianinstitute.com/reading-list/).

    My reading list (above) contains most of the science we’ve been looking for, while the pseudosciences dominated the mid to late 20th century under the marxist-postmodernists.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Currently-who-are-the-best-right-wing-philosophers-thinkers-I’m-a-leftist-and-I-believe-that-it’s-important-to-challenge-the-beliefs-you-hold-so-I’m-mostly-looking-for-authors-public-speakers-that’ll-give-me-something-worthwhile-to-engage-with

  • “So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about sto

    —“So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me:

    It really is all about stopping lies. If we tolerate lies, and liars, eventually we will be ruled by the best liars telling the biggest lies.

    (And the best liars are ((())), 0-+, and <-0-+ . And the French – but I repeat myself.)

    My second thought was “Great. I’m just now fully comprehending what Curt was posting 3 years ago.”

    Anyway, welcome back to Facebook.

    You’ve been missed.”– A Friend

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-22 11:22:00 UTC

  • “So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about sto

    —“So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about stopping lies. If we tolerate lies, and liars, eventually we will be ruled by the best liars telling the biggest lies. (And the best liars are ((())), 0-+, and <-0-+ . And the French – but I repeat myself.) My second thought was “Great. I’m just now fully comprehending what Curt was posting 3 years ago.” Anyway, welcome back to Facebook. You’ve been missed.”– A Friend

  • “So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about sto

    —“So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about stopping lies. If we tolerate lies, and liars, eventually we will be ruled by the best liars telling the biggest lies. (And the best liars are ((())), 0-+, and <-0-+ . And the French – but I repeat myself.) My second thought was “Great. I’m just now fully comprehending what Curt was posting 3 years ago.” Anyway, welcome back to Facebook. You’ve been missed.”– A Friend

  • You don’t know that your genes are speaking out of self defensive panic. I know

    You don’t know that your genes are speaking out of self defensive panic. I know mine are speaking. But then, scientific (operational) truth is in in my genetic interest.

    Technically speaking we cannot measure IQ reliably above 140. What we can do however, is group people in a distribution above 140 – and that appears to work fairly accurately. (Although, we tend to specialize in certain categories of thought.)

    EQ is pseudoscience. All demonstrated intelligence increases and decreases constantly. The difference between our behaviors is easily measurable and attributable to personality differences (values). In particular some people have higher or lower agreeableness and conscientiousness, and higher or lower neuroticism – and higher or lower agency as a consequence. Most of these differences are the result of what we call male(autistic) vs female(psychotic) brain structures developed in-utero (and possibly early post-partum) and at present we can measure them reasonably accurately.

    And each of those personality traits corresponds to variations in the (few) reward systems. And each of those reward systems corresponds to a phase of the prey drive. With the difference between the genders as significant biases.

    Now, if we add into this set of variables (a) sexual, (b) social, and (d) economic market values, we find that those that are more valuable almost always take conservative (asset preservation) strategies, while those less valuable with less agency take progressive (consumption) strategies.

    Now, whether someone’s opinion makes you feel offended, insecure, or inadequate, is simply your genes telling you that it’s true, and to change your social group to improve your market value.

    And no, I have no contempt for normies. But ALL OF US at the upper end, have developmental (Childhood) challenges growing up with ‘normies’ who tend to ostracize us, without realizing that (a) we must mature more slowly, and (b) they will inevitably end up working for us in one way or another.

    So the point of my post (and most posts I make on this topic) is that it an economic advantage to be gifted, but it is not necessarily one that makes you happier. In fact, the evidence continues to accumulate that the opposite is true.

    We are all victims of the normies so to speak: which is another way of saying that those of us who grasp history are doomed to be the victims of those who do not.

    Sorry. It’s that simple.

    (So I know your virtue signalling is self defensive, but that doesn’t make it any less obviously a lack of agency, and a failure to mature into adulthood. The purpose of the postmodern revolution was to relieve the infantilized mind of the pressures of competition in modernity when freed of the criticism that they were just poor. Unfortunately, the poor were poor deservedly, and the postmodern underclasses are still underclasses that can just spend money because their betters have made all consumer goods and services infinitely cheaper.)

    ——— IN RESPONSE TO——

    —“Can you tell the difference between someone with and IQ of 145, and one at 165 just by speaking to them? Probably not.

    But you would notice a massive difference between the one that had the equivalent EQ, and the one without, very quickly.

    The difference I’ve observed in people of this mental make up is that there is almost a desperation to be noticed as smart in some, whereas, the truly intelligent people I know have no cares whether it’s noticed in them or not. They won’t correct someone, they won’t manoeuvre the conversation to walk into a topic so they can show off. They certainly won’t brag about it online.

    There is an underlying contentment, and confidence that appears in people like this. Or should I say “us”?

    I thought, perhaps, that I was reading into your post too much. The last paragraph, however, only signals a real contempt for the “normies”. You’re too busy “Se lancer des fleurs”, as the French say, to realise the only people that care about how smart you are are you, and your parents. Other people can appreciate it, but nobody really cares – especially on the internet.

    Here is something you can try. Why don’t you just swap the topic of your answer from intelligence, to physical attractiveness, and see how repulsively it would read. Maybe that will give you a hint as to why its an unbecoming way to carry yourself.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-20 12:57:00 UTC

  • You don’t know that your genes are speaking out of self defensive panic. I know

    You don’t know that your genes are speaking out of self defensive panic. I know mine are speaking. But then, scientific (operational) truth is in in my genetic interest. Technically speaking we cannot measure IQ reliably above 140. What we can do however, is group people in a distribution above 140 – and that appears to work fairly accurately. (Although, we tend to specialize in certain categories of thought.) EQ is pseudoscience. All demonstrated intelligence increases and decreases constantly. The difference between our behaviors is easily measurable and attributable to personality differences (values). In particular some people have higher or lower agreeableness and conscientiousness, and higher or lower neuroticism – and higher or lower agency as a consequence. Most of these differences are the result of what we call male(autistic) vs female(psychotic) brain structures developed in-utero (and possibly early post-partum) and at present we can measure them reasonably accurately. And each of those personality traits corresponds to variations in the (few) reward systems. And each of those reward systems corresponds to a phase of the prey drive. With the difference between the genders as significant biases. Now, if we add into this set of variables (a) sexual, (b) social, and (d) economic market values, we find that those that are more valuable almost always take conservative (asset preservation) strategies, while those less valuable with less agency take progressive (consumption) strategies. Now, whether someone’s opinion makes you feel offended, insecure, or inadequate, is simply your genes telling you that it’s true, and to change your social group to improve your market value. And no, I have no contempt for normies. But ALL OF US at the upper end, have developmental (Childhood) challenges growing up with ‘normies’ who tend to ostracize us, without realizing that (a) we must mature more slowly, and (b) they will inevitably end up working for us in one way or another. So the point of my post (and most posts I make on this topic) is that it an economic advantage to be gifted, but it is not necessarily one that makes you happier. In fact, the evidence continues to accumulate that the opposite is true. We are all victims of the normies so to speak: which is another way of saying that those of us who grasp history are doomed to be the victims of those who do not. Sorry. It’s that simple. (So I know your virtue signalling is self defensive, but that doesn’t make it any less obviously a lack of agency, and a failure to mature into adulthood. The purpose of the postmodern revolution was to relieve the infantilized mind of the pressures of competition in modernity when freed of the criticism that they were just poor. Unfortunately, the poor were poor deservedly, and the postmodern underclasses are still underclasses that can just spend money because their betters have made all consumer goods and services infinitely cheaper.) ——— IN RESPONSE TO—— —“Can you tell the difference between someone with and IQ of 145, and one at 165 just by speaking to them? Probably not. But you would notice a massive difference between the one that had the equivalent EQ, and the one without, very quickly. The difference I’ve observed in people of this mental make up is that there is almost a desperation to be noticed as smart in some, whereas, the truly intelligent people I know have no cares whether it’s noticed in them or not. They won’t correct someone, they won’t manoeuvre the conversation to walk into a topic so they can show off. They certainly won’t brag about it online. There is an underlying contentment, and confidence that appears in people like this. Or should I say “us”? I thought, perhaps, that I was reading into your post too much. The last paragraph, however, only signals a real contempt for the “normies”. You’re too busy “Se lancer des fleurs”, as the French say, to realise the only people that care about how smart you are are you, and your parents. Other people can appreciate it, but nobody really cares – especially on the internet. Here is something you can try. Why don’t you just swap the topic of your answer from intelligence, to physical attractiveness, and see how repulsively it would read. Maybe that will give you a hint as to why its an unbecoming way to carry yourself.”—

  • You don’t know that your genes are speaking out of self defensive panic. I know

    You don’t know that your genes are speaking out of self defensive panic. I know mine are speaking. But then, scientific (operational) truth is in in my genetic interest. Technically speaking we cannot measure IQ reliably above 140. What we can do however, is group people in a distribution above 140 – and that appears to work fairly accurately. (Although, we tend to specialize in certain categories of thought.) EQ is pseudoscience. All demonstrated intelligence increases and decreases constantly. The difference between our behaviors is easily measurable and attributable to personality differences (values). In particular some people have higher or lower agreeableness and conscientiousness, and higher or lower neuroticism – and higher or lower agency as a consequence. Most of these differences are the result of what we call male(autistic) vs female(psychotic) brain structures developed in-utero (and possibly early post-partum) and at present we can measure them reasonably accurately. And each of those personality traits corresponds to variations in the (few) reward systems. And each of those reward systems corresponds to a phase of the prey drive. With the difference between the genders as significant biases. Now, if we add into this set of variables (a) sexual, (b) social, and (d) economic market values, we find that those that are more valuable almost always take conservative (asset preservation) strategies, while those less valuable with less agency take progressive (consumption) strategies. Now, whether someone’s opinion makes you feel offended, insecure, or inadequate, is simply your genes telling you that it’s true, and to change your social group to improve your market value. And no, I have no contempt for normies. But ALL OF US at the upper end, have developmental (Childhood) challenges growing up with ‘normies’ who tend to ostracize us, without realizing that (a) we must mature more slowly, and (b) they will inevitably end up working for us in one way or another. So the point of my post (and most posts I make on this topic) is that it an economic advantage to be gifted, but it is not necessarily one that makes you happier. In fact, the evidence continues to accumulate that the opposite is true. We are all victims of the normies so to speak: which is another way of saying that those of us who grasp history are doomed to be the victims of those who do not. Sorry. It’s that simple. (So I know your virtue signalling is self defensive, but that doesn’t make it any less obviously a lack of agency, and a failure to mature into adulthood. The purpose of the postmodern revolution was to relieve the infantilized mind of the pressures of competition in modernity when freed of the criticism that they were just poor. Unfortunately, the poor were poor deservedly, and the postmodern underclasses are still underclasses that can just spend money because their betters have made all consumer goods and services infinitely cheaper.) ——— IN RESPONSE TO—— —“Can you tell the difference between someone with and IQ of 145, and one at 165 just by speaking to them? Probably not. But you would notice a massive difference between the one that had the equivalent EQ, and the one without, very quickly. The difference I’ve observed in people of this mental make up is that there is almost a desperation to be noticed as smart in some, whereas, the truly intelligent people I know have no cares whether it’s noticed in them or not. They won’t correct someone, they won’t manoeuvre the conversation to walk into a topic so they can show off. They certainly won’t brag about it online. There is an underlying contentment, and confidence that appears in people like this. Or should I say “us”? I thought, perhaps, that I was reading into your post too much. The last paragraph, however, only signals a real contempt for the “normies”. You’re too busy “Se lancer des fleurs”, as the French say, to realise the only people that care about how smart you are are you, and your parents. Other people can appreciate it, but nobody really cares – especially on the internet. Here is something you can try. Why don’t you just swap the topic of your answer from intelligence, to physical attractiveness, and see how repulsively it would read. Maybe that will give you a hint as to why its an unbecoming way to carry yourself.”—

  • “Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”

    —“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov

    We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states.

    But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations).

    A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time.

    When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate.

    And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-16 11:58:00 UTC

  • “Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”

    —“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states. But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations). A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time. When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate. And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it.

  • “Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”

    —“Can you have reason without logic, and language without placeholder/tautology?”–Dmitry Chernov We conflate the terms a great deal, but reasoning consists of both wayfinding (via positiva free association ) and what we call ‘logicAL’ operations (via negativa dissassociations) that test constant relations between states. But if we are to avoid conflation, reasoning consists of informal free association and dis-association (dissociation), while the LOGICS consist of formal grammars by which we perform via negativa disassociations by tests (falsifications) of associations (constant relations). A grammar consists of rules (patterns really) of continuous disambiguation. The logics study and catalog subsets of constant relations (dimensions) such as time. When we ask, can we have language without referrents (Names) – well, we are capable of non-liguistic reasoning so yes. And we are capable of sign language. but we must have a grammar in both cases to communicate. And as for ‘natural grammar’ that appears to be nothing more than the same thing neurons do in large numbers: associate and disassociate by a process of continuous disambiguation (category formation) and the recursive differences in state as we ponder it.