Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • DISTRIBUTING DEFECTIVE SPEECH? If you sell a product that’s defective, or delive

    DISTRIBUTING DEFECTIVE SPEECH?

    If you sell a product that’s defective, or deliver a service that was defective, were you responsible for the consequences? Of course you were. Because you failed to perform due diligence.

    how do we know whether you failed to perform due diligence out of deception, out of laziness, or out of incompetence?

    This is the basic question. Does it matter if you cause damage intentionally or unintentionally? No. We still hold each other liable for the damage we do.

    What percent of people’s speech (bullshit) do they know is false or half true, or immoral or just wrong (bullshit) but they do it anyway to see if they can get away with it?

    Conversely, what percent of people’s speech have they done sufficient due diligence to insure that they do not spread a falsehood, half truth, immoral, or just ‘wrong’ information?

    What percent of people cannot be trusted to perform that due diligence – simply because they lack the ability?

    How would the world differ if we learned to speak truthfully along with our learning reading, writing, grammar, and arithmetic?

    It would be a very different place.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 18:31:00 UTC

  • Apparently ‘philosophy’ often means ‘literary pseudoscience’ or ‘moral fiction’

    Apparently ‘philosophy’ often means ‘literary pseudoscience’ or ‘moral fiction’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 07:21:00 UTC

  • “Verbosity is no crime where integrity is concerned.”—Dmitry Chernov

    —“Verbosity is no crime where integrity is concerned.”—Dmitry Chernov

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 13:40:00 UTC

  • WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE???? Um. You don’t get it. 1 – The reason I

    WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE????

    Um. You don’t get it.

    1 – The reason I have done so much work is that by my own definition, ***I cannot make a truth claim without producing a full accounting*** of internal consistency and external consequences. (That’s why you write books about theories and, not papers. And why you write papers about experiments not books.)

    2 – The vast majority of what I do online is explore a single theory consisting of three questions: i) Can we extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence in the commons (the market) from products and services to speech? ii) If we do extend it, what will be the consequences? iii) How can we provide institutions that provide the institutions that satisfy market demands and do so truthfully? iv) is truth enough? The answer to those question so far, is yes, we can do it; the consequences will be profoundly beneficial on the scale of the scientific and industrial revolutions; we can provide those institutions my relatively minor changes to the constitution; and yes, truth is enough to restore the west *AND* to maintain the west’s traditional advantage: no other people seem to be able to create a truth speaking high trust society.

    3 – I can make my policy recommendations understood by common folk. I can make the general theory of the cycles of history as one of lies-vs-truth between the west/east, and center. I can give activists moral arguments. I can make my general theory understood by people with sufficient education in economics and politics. I can sometimes make very smart people able to understand how to construct arguments in propertarian and operational language. I can as yet make very few people understand the epistemology of testimonialism and why it completes the scientific method and unites science, biology, morality, philosophy, politics, and law into a single field of ‘testimony’. This distribution of ability and narrative is what we should expect. I probably am not a good person to talk with ordinary folk about technical issues. I simply can’t do the translation. I really love it on the few occasions where people understand most of the scope of work. But in a division of knowledge and labor my job, our job, is to produce a distribution of people who understand each level of sophistication. That’s all.

    4 – However, I do enjoy talking to ordinary guys about the things they are concerned with. And the truth is I wish I could ‘reach’ them better than I do. Because it is ordinary guys who have been most screwed over by the 20th century scams, and it’s they who I feel most need to be saved from the destruction of the west via our women and our underclasses. So I want to care for my brothers in arms most of all. But most of all, because I believe these ordinary guys will be the warriors that change from the current order to the restoration of western civilization. if for no other reason than they have the most to gain from our doing so.

    5) We do not need millions in the streets to produce a revolution. We need a solution to demand, and a small number of people to raise the cost of the status quo until we obtain our objectives. In that sense I care about a few intellectuals, a few leaders, a few advocates, and enough warriors to conduct revolution. The majority of the people once they understand the policy demands and how greatly they will benefit from them, will gladly burn the parasitic classes and reap the rewards of doing it for purely practical reasons. So they will not *resist* the transition. The only people who will resist it are the (immoral) academic, (immoral) political, and (immoral) financial classes, and the left that despises all meritocracy for good reason: they are dysgenic peoples who are but parasites upon the rest. So we do not need a mass movement. We need simply to eliminate the middle and working class’ desire to resist.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:45:00 UTC

  • MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary)

    MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC

    OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary) – Kantian Rationalism

    – vs. –

    SCIENTIFIC (Deflationary / Falsificationary) – Darwinian/Popperian Science

    1) A justificationary argument would rely on claims of objectivity. (via-positiva)

    2) A deflationary argument would rely on elimination of subjective information. (via-negativa)

    3) We achieve Deflationary (~Objective) speech by removing all subjective content from our speech.

    4) We remove all subjective content from our speech by

    (a) fully expanding all sentences.

    (b) translating those expanded sentences into fully operational language.

    (c) Testing each dimension of perceivable reality for consistency (determinism)

    …i) categorical consistency (identity)

    …ii) internal consistency (logical)

    …iii) external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    …iv) existential consistency (operational language)

    …v) rational consistency (rational choice of rational actor)

    …vi) reciprocal consistency (rational choice of all participating actors)

    …vii) scope consistency (limits of proposition, and full accounting of internal properties and external consequences.)

    (d) Restating the sentence with surviving and failed tests of consistency as a test of coherence.

    6) this process will, in ordinary language, provide tests of whether the speaker in fact understands what he speaks, and that his speech is correspondent, consistent, and coherent in all dimensions. Because it is, as far as I know, impossible to state a coherent and false statement and survive these tests, while at the same time claiming it is ‘truthful’ rather than theoretical, hypothetical, or a guess.

    –“every claim we make”–

    (a) It means that within the LIMITS we assume or propose it is possible to speak truthfully, even if in the ideal sense – unlimited, and ideal truth – we cannot speak ‘the truth’.

    (b) All speech is theoretical but some theoretical speech is trivial (non contradictory, or with implied limits).

    —“Brain in a vat”–

    Rationalist error. since no logic of any dimension (identity, logic, empirical, operational, reciprocal) is sufficient for truth claims, only for tests of internal consistency, then all ordinary language tests must appeal to the next higher dimension (at least – if not all) in order to make truth claim (rather than a proof claim).

    It is very common for rationalists used to justificationary statements, to conflate proof (internal consistency) with truthfulness (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), with True(ideal), and True(analytic).

    So unless you know which ‘true’ you’re using, most rational arguments are just victorian word games.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 12:02:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHY DO YOU ATTACK CHRISTIANITY? (OR ALL RELIGION) This is a great question

    CURT, WHY DO YOU ATTACK CHRISTIANITY? (OR ALL RELIGION)

    This is a great question but the answer is pretty simple.

    1) I want to know if it is possible to prohibit all forms of deception in public speech, so that my high trust people can continue to practice and improve their high trust civilization.

    2) There are multiple sources of ‘deception’ in history, but very few of those sources of deception are successful at political scale. The primary sources of deception can be identified by examples during the age of the invention of communication in the ancient world: (a) abrahamism(deception by bait and suggestion), (b) augustinian( accommodation / pragmatism), (c) platonism (ideal / utopianism); and their attempts at truth (d) education(stoicism/virtues) or propaganda(good/should), and (e) aristotelianism(description of what exists and works).

    3) In my work I rely on deflation: survival from competition; or what prior generations of philosophers called ‘analysis’, or what you would consider the scientific method: falsification. I attack every definition, every causal proposition, every value attribution, under the presumption that they are all false, biased, wishful thinking, or deceptions, until all I have left are possible (true) statements, that are categorically, logically, empirically, rationally consistent. So I have to break ideas down into their basic parts as ‘what do people want to acquire by saying this?’, and ‘what kinds of lies are they telling themselves and others to justify acquiring it?’ In other words, I attack everything completely until all loading, framing, obscurantism and suggestion, and bias, are eliminated.

    THE ANSWER?

    Because what prevented the completion of the enlightenment and our return to Aristotelianism, Roman Law, and Stoic Education, (or the escape from the lies of abrahamic deception , augustinian pragmatism, platonic idealism ), was our failure to demand total reformation of our church – abandoning Abrahamic deception, abandoning Augustinian accommodation. But preservation of the feminine: the individual service of others. In other words, abandoning everything other than the very, very, simple message of jesus: the extension of infinite love to one another. (Unfortunately, this message was universalist rather than nationalist. As suited the ancient empires. As suits the underclasses rebellion against the various aristocracies.)

    During the mid 20th century, the the American Protestant churches, and the catholic church under Vatican II abandoned defense of europe and doubled-down on the *individual* christ-as-servant strategy, and individual *evangelism*. And while this was the proper use of church teaching, the church retained it’s nonsense abrahamic and augustinian and platonist nonsense.

    So we might say that the churches failed to reform. Or we might say that they lacked knowledge of HOW to reform into secular hero worship of jesus and the saints who ACTED to serve others rather than *god*. As far as I know, The only persons in my lifetime I have can judge as having succeeded in achieving the christian ideals are Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul. But if we remove the abrahamic spiritualists from the list of saints, and the political propagandists, and political activists, and instead, lionize the servants of the poor that remain then we have in fact, the remains of the christian church. All else is lies.

    So if you want to, and I want to, save western civilization, it is by eliminating the false gods, and lionizing the heroes that really existed. To do so requires at least four archetypes: Alexander and Leonidas(Martial), Aristotle and Zeno(Truth and Reason), The Templars and Explorers(Entrepreneurs and Financiers), and Jesus and (Theresa?) (love and caretakers). And the many thousands of other characters who existed.

    If you want to save your people it is not achieved by lies, but by the knowledge and use of the origins of western civilization: Truth and Reason, Heroism and Excellence, Law and judge and jury, and the markets in everything that result from those institutions.

    Truth is enough. And it is quite possible to extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence against fraud from product(property), and service(action), to information (public speech.)

    *Categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal consistency with defined limits and full a full accounting of internal scope and external consequences.*

    It is trivial to put this into law.

    And the market for non-parasitism via the courts will end by self interest that which we cannot achieve through demand for virtue against self interest.

    And within a generation the west will be restored.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 08:56:00 UTC

  • THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS I am not unique, in the assumption that the following w

    THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS

    I am not unique, in the assumption that the following would need to be true in order for the myth to originate:

    – a jewish preacher existed

    – he had followers (disciples)

    – the temple event turned him into a problem.

    – he was crucified for creating that problem.

    – his ‘strategy’ was adopted by his followers (Saul)

    I suspect also that:

    – the betrayal occurred – but i can see that being added.

    – ‘love expansion’ argument was his innovation and an important one.

    And the rest evolved from there.

    That is all that is needed for the formation of the entire mythos.

    THE EVOLUTION AND THE CONSEQUENCES

    – The old testament was added to give the character legitimacy in historical context.

    – The single event was integrated into the then-evolving sun-god cults dominant in the empire but with egyptian, roman, and persian variations. In other words, the new-jews produced a jewish version of the sun god mythos.

    – The sun god mythos was turned against the empires rather than assisting people in integrating into those empires.

    – This strategy of undermining the empires from within through a resistance movement by the women and the underclasses was more successful in the period where empires were powerful.

    – The muslims evolved from a christian cult, and their strategy was more effective in the period when the empires were weak from the plague and the persian – byzantine wars.

    – The Marxist (jewish), postmodernist (christian), and islamist(muslim) techniques evolved as resistance movements – in no small part due to a fear of the darwinian/spencerian/pareto-weber-durkheim/nietzchean/maxwellian revolution. And were conceived as a resistance and rebellion movement (Jewish marxism), a method of undermining the empire in period of weakness (christian postmodernism), and an outright attack on the great civilizations of modernity by invasion, territory claiming (temples/churches), reproduction (depopulation), and terrorism(warfare).

    – The answer to the ancient world and the modern is simply to preserve civilization and prevent jewish and marxist, christian and postmodernism, and muslim and islamicist dark ages, just as we prohibited the communist revolution, and just as the romans tried during the christian prosecutions.

    HISTORICITY

    So far as i can tell, scholarly opinion on the historical figure seems to coalesce on a preacher (storyteller), baptism, followers, temple event, crucifixion.

    This could have been a very, very, minor person, and the events only known to followers, and much like Arthur or Gilgamesh, continually embellished for the purpose of claiming greater wisdom and authority to the speaker, embellished by expansion into a prophet, embellished through the appropriation of the various old world sun god myths, until it was able to spread reliably through anchoring (replacing ) larger earlier figures, rather than originating a new narrative.

    So by appropriating the sun god cult story that had been evolving from its oldest form in egypt to its persian form (mithras) to its third iteration in the roman for (sol invictus) it could turn the sun god cuts from positives that assisted people in integrating into the ancient empires, into a resistance movement that sought to destroy those empires.

    And without the licensing of the rebellion by constantine, and ending the persecution of rebels, and the forcible conversion of rome to it later, and the closure of the schools, and the collapse of rome eighty years later, the project would not have been successful.

    And we might have been weakened by the plagues, but never been defeated by the muslims and never had such a dark age, and the spread of abrahamic ignorance across the entire old world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 02:21:00 UTC

  • “The problem of the West is not that we haven’t been deceived by the ‘proper’ se

    —“The problem of the West is not that we haven’t been deceived by the ‘proper’ set of lies, but that we haven’t yet learned to identify sophisticated forms of deception.”— James Augustus

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 02:56:00 UTC

  • THE EVOLUTION OF RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS 1) Equalitarianism > Sovereignty > Law and

    THE EVOLUTION OF RESISTANCE MOVEMENTS

    1) Equalitarianism > Sovereignty > Law and truth

    2) Slavery > Freedom > Abrahamism and deception

    3) Taxation > Liberty > Philosophy and idealism

    4) Democracy > Marxism/Libertarianism/Neoconservatism > Pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-moralism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 18:35:00 UTC

  • I FEEL I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING (MEANING VS TRUE) I am trying to end th

    I FEEL I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING (MEANING VS TRUE)

    I am trying to end the ability to lie to my high trust people and to manipulate them into ignorance, stagnation, and genocide by means of suggestion using the invention of abrahamism.

    So while you might find something MEANINGFUL and there fore valuable, I am conducting a FULL ACCOUNTING of the consequences of your producing, communicating, and obtaining MEANING by the various modes of communication.

    So, yes, while I understand you may like heavily loaded emotional expression and the free association that is invoked by taking you close to the dream state, I also know that you are suggestible in that state, and that through suggestion you can obtain meaning at the cost of implanting in you things that seed your destruction.

    This is the secret to abrahamism.

    This is why I am trying to kill abrahamism: because it is a method of deception. And this is why I am trying to destroy platonism: because it is a means of obscuring one’s ignorance.

    So when I say something against christianity, or nietzsche, or evola, or any of the european philosophers and … fuzzy thinkers… it’s because they are more heavily infected with abrahamism and platonism than are the Americans, who are tediously reduced to little other than law: the constitution is a bible.

    In other words THE PRICE OF EASY KNOWLEDGE more readily intuited is far higher than the benefit you obtain by the discounted method of communication.

    You were taught to read, to measure, to do simple mathematics, to do complex mathematics, and to do basic human scale physics, and to at least understand biology and chemistry and micro and macro physics. And if you were very lucky you might have been taught the basics of money, accounting, finance, economics. And rarely the practice and use of law.

    So why is it that you feel you can learn morality by simply literature?

    WHy isn’t morality calculable as is every other field.

    It is. But it’s harder to access. It’s harder to learn. It’s harder to use. It’s far more like understanding how to program computers with a very limited vocabulary and a very limited set of possible operations and only one method of comparison: reciprocity.

    So while I am slaying your sacred cows and the investments you have made in obtaining meaning that is easy and emotionally entangled for you, the purpose is moral and profound

    To save you and our people from deceit and extermination.

    And the cost is merely learning how to ‘read’, write, listen and speak in very simple language. A language that makes it very hard to lie.

    And if you are unwilling to pay that cost, then you are part of the reason we have been defeated by abrahamists in the ancient world, and more recently in the modern.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 18:30:00 UTC