Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545321894 Timestamp) ORGANIZED TRUTH SUPPRESSION HERE ON FB It appears that Andrew Taylor (who I don’t know) and Claire Khaw – an asian-brit, of questionable mental ability and unquestionable mental instability, who is an apologist for authoritarian religion – particularly islam – are attempting to get me (us) shadow banned by inviting muslim fanatics to our pages, and creating multiple sock accounts, and then having them report us. This is why we are so careful with filtering friend requests and follows. We had the same problem with another woman who shall remain nameless. Anyway, that’s why some of you are seeing shadow ban activity. I don’t quite have my arms around the FB algorithm yet but it does seem to require numbers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545320274 Timestamp) Sure, gods exist in the minds of men, but so do numbers, math, chemistry, biology, history, socrates, and gandalf – and with the same consequences: our display word and deeds are influence heavily if not entirely determined by them.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545397804 Timestamp) MORE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAUD —“It does not claim that “reality” is socially constructed, that would be ridiculous. It claims that the means by which we conceive of reality is socially constructed, which seems pretty obvious really.”—- Twitterite This is an artful conflation of terms of ‘reality’ (action), and ‘model’. Evidence is very clear that people distinguish between reality and model. The violence in video games being the most current example, or the greco roman distinction between religious myth and reality. So even the the phrase ‘reality is socially constructed’ is an attempted fraud. The model we use to determine action in reality is and must be produced as a market good like any other, and is limited to the supply and demand of that market – like any other. However… …. the narratives and VALUES we use to NEGOTIATE actions in reality are constructed within that market given the references and referents available. In other words, WE SOCIALLY CONSTRUCT LIES, we SCIENTIFICALLY DISCOVER TRUTHS. And those that work by truth compete best. What surprises me is that it’s not obvious that there is a difference between reality and action and cost and imagination and speech, and not bearing a cost – and that those of us who have achieved in life in the markets for force and commerce, and those who achieve in life … … in the market for fraud, are readily distinguished by whether we use the languages of truth, science, economics, and law, or the language of utility, theology, philosophy, and morality. The fact that you (anyone who subscribes to neo-abrahamism) are speaking about the pseudoscientific origins of such a thing,rather than the GOALS TO ACHIEVE WITH IT, is merely another alt-right nerd-variation on memes. Yeah. Meme’s are fun. Yeah. Sophism is fun. Yes you’re witty. But in the end you’re just poisoning the same well we eventually drink from. Words and priests are cheap, unwarrantied, and without cost. artists, soldiers, craftsmen, engineers, lawyers, accountants, executives, and financiers ACT to produce an end for which they pay the cost. Social construction refers to our ability to create narratives like priests do that cost us nothing, but force costs on the people, by the process of creating moral hazard, by the process of diversion from truth. period. You aren’t philosophers or scientists, but sophists using the ancient technique of deceit by priests with the pretension of special knowledge that doesn’t exist,to fool by complex language and suggestion those who are suckers -and the first sucker is always the man in the mirror.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545396786 Timestamp) GENERATIVE GRAMMAR SOPHISTS ARE NEO ABRAHAMISTS (((yes))) 1) Generative Grammar refers to the theory that we are born with an innate capacity for producing speech, according to some rules or patterns, and that all languages evolve from this innate ability. (Ai would say serialization of information into streams of … 2) … continuously disambiguating symbols (phonemes) is a limit of neural economy – particularly short term memory. Opponents to generative grammar don’t use AI examples, they use studies out outliers and their answer reflects the AI: that it is simply a product of …. 3) … the limits of sense perception (Homunculus), and the limits of information processing ability – particularly integration. 4) Generative Anthropology refers to the theory that the history of human culture is a genetic or “generative” development stemming from the development of language rather than language assists in the distribution of processing power calculation and falsifiability, and that … 5) … all social language is merely an act of negotiating cooperation, fraud, and deceit in the furtherance of dividing labor, processing power, calculation, and FALSIFIABILITY OR UNFALSIFIABILITY. In other words, that language assists in the negotiating distributed … 6) … computation, valuation, and action (or prohibiting, computation, valuation, and action) is not something open to dispute. Nor is the great leap forward provided by the singularity of development of language in the division of sense, perception, memory, and cognition. 7) The technical debate is over whether there is an innate facility for language or it is simply a function of increased neural capacity and density given our rather rare capacity for complex movement whether limbs, fingers, lips, throat, or even control over our breathing. 8) However, this has nothing to do with and is merely an EXCUSE for Gans’ writing and the scope of the GA writing available, and the GA Blog for example, consists of little more than the ‘astrology and numerology of speech’ and simply a revision of the sophism of abrahamic and .. 10) … platonic, speech. While we find mythological speech in hinduism, and we find idealism in Sinic philosophy and religion, and we find pseudoscientific speech in buddhism, and Legal speech in Aristotelianism – if not all european folk language – we do not find them … 11) … conflated into argument until semitic abrahamic speech, and the incorporation of semitic abrahamic speech into western discourse under the christian theologian attempts to reconcile european truth and semitic lie. Wisdom was not Argument employed as ‘truth’- just wisdom. 12) so the question is, why is it that the anglos and scandinavians retain western truth, germans resist restoring it to german, french have abandoned it at least in parisian education, and the jews and muslims have done everything in their intellectual and cultural power… 13) … to preserve sophism, despite the fact that jews contributed nothing to history other than sophisms, and that muslims have destroyed (culturally and genetically) every great people of the ancient world. And the reason is very simple: INTROSPECTION, SOPHISM, … 14) … and CONFIRMATION and DECEIT are cheaper than investigation, falsification, and action in the real world. In other words, why lie EXCEPT to entice people into moral hazard? The answer is simple: there isn’t any reason except competence at coercion and deceit. Why Josh and Tom have trouble understanding this rather obvious dichotomy between truth/error/lies is INCENTIVE, is evidence of their justification of desirable, convenient, or utilitarian lying. End Abrahamic Supernaturalism, Sophism and Pseudoscience forever: NO MORE LIES. It’s one thing to use violence or shame against fraud and deceit, and quite another to use violence or deceit as a means of criticizing truth. Science is the universal language of truth,and operations its grammar of measurement. To restore the west,truth is enough. No More Lies. It’s bad enough we have left wing liars taking advantage of women and the underclass, but it’s hard to understand why there are those of you who want to take advantage of lost, underachieving young man and throw them in the degenerative maelstrom with the women and fools. —@TrueDilTom: Curt I see how you could think that given Chomsky’s “Generative Grammar”, but theyre different things. GA sees neuro-structural explanations of culture as having little room for non-instinctive abstraction to account for the arbitrariness of language. There is no science envy.”— Um. What science? There isn’t any science behind GA. It’s just Gans, who is a career postmodernist, doing exactly what I said he is. THERE ISN’T ANY SCIENCE. The structure of language is determined by analogies to experience (the homunculus) and the recursive depth of memory. There is nothing to understand. GA is just postmodern Social Construction of Reality with Chomsky added to convert a sophism into a pseudoscience. Josh has intellectual penis envy, which is why he pisses on others and pursues nonsense rather than producing intellectual works. The fact that we forecast a combination of real world and imaginary (fictional) models is simply our ability (or inability to resist) conflation of the imagined and the real. People need frames to calculate action. They can have a mixture of false, analogistic, and true frames.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545488904 Timestamp) (Revised Intro To Propertarianism) THE NATURAL LAW PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL LAW AS PHYSICS IS TO THE LAWS OF NATURE But what are we more precisely referring to when we use the term “Propertarianism”? 1) The completion of the scientific method and its application to social science. The completion of the scientific method is the core achievement of the work, and in retrospect it explains the reason for the rise of social pseudoscience from Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Mainstream Economics, The Frankfurt School, The Success in circumventing the Constitution, the libertarianism of Rothbard/Rand, and the Neoconservatism of Strauss. The Postmodernists and the rise of postmodernism in the academy. And the Feminists, and the feminization of markets, the workplace, norms, educations, and institutions, and the infantilization of the population as a consequence. 2) The Natural Law of Human Cooperation However we focus our application of the completed scientific method on Economics, Ethics, Law Politics, and Group Evolutionary Strategy, and we use demonstrated property in its totality as a unit of measure – in not only economic, but ethical, moral, legal, and political commensurability. So the word ‘propertarianism’ refers to the use of demonstrated interests, and the defense of those interests, as a unit of measure providing commensurability, and the test of reciprocity as truth or falsehood, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, and legal or illegal. And in fact, this is how all law is constructed today in one way or another, and to one degree or another. So, the correct name for the work we call ‘propertarianism’ would be The Natural Law. We just can’t use it because the term has been so loaded throughout history, on the one hand, and because it’s not an identifiable ‘brand’ on the other. So the simple version is: Laws of Nature = The Physical Sciences. Natural Law = The Social Sciences. Sorry but it’s a paradigm shift that we just have to pay the cost of learning. 3) A Set of Related and Dependent Ideas We use the ‘brand name’ Propertarianism to refer collectively to three different sets of ideas:

    • Methodology: The Natural Law including restatements of metaphysics, psychology, sociology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy (the cooperation, competition, and conflict of civilizations).

    • Application: The Use of the Natural Law to Produce Constitutions, and therefore Societies, Nations, and Civilizations, in Accordance with Natural Law.

    • Explanation: The reason for the disproportionate contribution an success of the west in the ancient and modern worlds. And The history of the cycles of conflict between western(european) and eastern(asian) masculine civilizations against and central(semitic) feminine civilizations.

    Counsel: Given that we are now in the post subsistence-agrarian era, we are wealthy enough to express our genetic differences, and as such are entering into political conflict between the ancient female herd reproductive strategy and civilizations, and the male pack reproductive strategy and civilizations. It appears we can no longer compromise, and neither interest can be pursued without some sort of oppression or genocide. So we can no longer assume we will create a one-world-government and a uniformity among peoples, but instead, we must separate, prospert, and speciate according to our genetic interests, and our differences in moral intuition because of those interests. As such the constitutions we recommend, are those that facilitate ‘letting a thousand nations bloom’ and returning to the speciation that we were in the process of achieving prior to both the anglo conquest of the world by sea, and the gradual transformation of our means of production from hunter-gathering and speciation, to agrarianism and unification. The future is very different from that under which the majority of our history was written down. It is often challenging to understand which of these things we are discussing in at any given moment even if they are independent, because we use them in concert in most of our discussions. The reason is that we tend to be working on Counsel, because we already understand Methodology, Application, and Explanation. Summary: Only europeans could invent The Laws of Nature and the Natural Laws – but EVERY people can use them to prosper. And to some degree, our future prosperity, is dependent upon doing so.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545483841 Timestamp) UM…. NO. PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL LAW AS PHYSICS IS TO THE LAWS OF NATURE. —“I’m somewhat confused, is Propertarianism a rebranding of libertarianism?”— Laudanum Um. It’s far more than that. It’s the completion of the scientific method and its application to social science. However we focus more on Economics, Ethics, Law Politics, and Group Evolutionary Strategy, and we use demonstrated property in its totality as a unit of measure – in not only economic, but ethical, moral, legal, and political commensurability. So, the correct name for the work would be Natural Law. We just can’t use it because the term has been so loaded throughout history, on the one hand, and because it’s not an identifiable ‘brand’ on the other. Laws of Nature = The Physical Sciences. Natural Law = The Social Sciences. Sorry but it’s a paradigm shift that we just have to pay the cost of learning.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545488904 Timestamp) (Revised Intro To Propertarianism) THE NATURAL LAW PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL LAW AS PHYSICS IS TO THE LAWS OF NATURE But what are we more precisely referring to when we use the term “Propertarianism”? 1) The completion of the scientific method and its application to social science. The completion of the scientific method is the core achievement of the work, and in retrospect it explains the reason for the rise of social pseudoscience from Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Mainstream Economics, The Frankfurt School, The Success in circumventing the Constitution, the libertarianism of Rothbard/Rand, and the Neoconservatism of Strauss. The Postmodernists and the rise of postmodernism in the academy. And the Feminists, and the feminization of markets, the workplace, norms, educations, and institutions, and the infantilization of the population as a consequence. 2) The Natural Law of Human Cooperation However we focus our application of the completed scientific method on Economics, Ethics, Law Politics, and Group Evolutionary Strategy, and we use demonstrated property in its totality as a unit of measure – in not only economic, but ethical, moral, legal, and political commensurability. So the word ‘propertarianism’ refers to the use of demonstrated interests, and the defense of those interests, as a unit of measure providing commensurability, and the test of reciprocity as truth or falsehood, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, and legal or illegal. And in fact, this is how all law is constructed today in one way or another, and to one degree or another. So, the correct name for the work we call ‘propertarianism’ would be The Natural Law. We just can’t use it because the term has been so loaded throughout history, on the one hand, and because it’s not an identifiable ‘brand’ on the other. So the simple version is: Laws of Nature = The Physical Sciences. Natural Law = The Social Sciences. Sorry but it’s a paradigm shift that we just have to pay the cost of learning. 3) A Set of Related and Dependent Ideas We use the ‘brand name’ Propertarianism to refer collectively to three different sets of ideas:

    • Methodology: The Natural Law including restatements of metaphysics, psychology, sociology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy (the cooperation, competition, and conflict of civilizations).

    • Application: The Use of the Natural Law to Produce Constitutions, and therefore Societies, Nations, and Civilizations, in Accordance with Natural Law.

    • Explanation: The reason for the disproportionate contribution an success of the west in the ancient and modern worlds. And The history of the cycles of conflict between western(european) and eastern(asian) masculine civilizations against and central(semitic) feminine civilizations.

    Counsel: Given that we are now in the post subsistence-agrarian era, we are wealthy enough to express our genetic differences, and as such are entering into political conflict between the ancient female herd reproductive strategy and civilizations, and the male pack reproductive strategy and civilizations. It appears we can no longer compromise, and neither interest can be pursued without some sort of oppression or genocide. So we can no longer assume we will create a one-world-government and a uniformity among peoples, but instead, we must separate, prospert, and speciate according to our genetic interests, and our differences in moral intuition because of those interests. As such the constitutions we recommend, are those that facilitate ‘letting a thousand nations bloom’ and returning to the speciation that we were in the process of achieving prior to both the anglo conquest of the world by sea, and the gradual transformation of our means of production from hunter-gathering and speciation, to agrarianism and unification. The future is very different from that under which the majority of our history was written down. It is often challenging to understand which of these things we are discussing in at any given moment even if they are independent, because we use them in concert in most of our discussions. The reason is that we tend to be working on Counsel, because we already understand Methodology, Application, and Explanation. Summary: Only europeans could invent The Laws of Nature and the Natural Laws – but EVERY people can use them to prosper. And to some degree, our future prosperity, is dependent upon doing so.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545925603 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545925603 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546011953 Timestamp) Truth is the most intolerant religion. This is the oath of that religion: A HEATHEN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a Heathen if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to a Garden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of supreme beings with dominion over the physical laws; and I treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Heathen: the Worship(Appreciation) of Kin, Hearth and Home. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the demand for personal acts of charity, 4) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with joy, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Heathen, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men who are still animals, and not man transcendent.