Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • “Existence exists and reality is real. It’s not necessary to mention that until

    —“Existence exists and reality is real. It’s not necessary to mention that until someone asserts otherwise.”— Wyatt Storch

    nice….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-16 23:31:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1052341182142042112

  • “Existence exists and reality is real. It’s not necessary to mention that until

    —“Existence exists and reality is real. It’s not necessary to mention that until someone asserts otherwise.”— Wyatt Storch

    nice….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-16 19:30:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism Isn’t an Ideology.

    October 16th, 2018 4:22 PM PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S THE LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY (Propertarianism) AND THE SCIENCE OF TESTIMONY, COMBINED INTO A FORMAL RATIO-EMPIRICAL SYSTEM OF LAW (Decidability) FOR ETHICS, AND POLITICS. In other words, it’s the solution to social science.

    —“This is crucial for people that want to claim they don’t adhere to the propertarian ideology. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology and much like science it focuses on empirical evidence and the falsification of proposed truth claims. Most people that say they don’t agree with propertarian ideology have an ideology of their own that has been found to be based on lies via propertarian methods – and that’s the real objection.”– Curtus Maximus (A Sock/Alias of Someone Else)

    [Y]ou cannot defeat it. Sorry. You can however, state that despite your ideology being parasitic, predatory(immoral) and dishonest (fraudulent) that you cannot compete by meritocratic (market, evolutionary, eugenic) means, (meaning you’re inferior) and therefore must resort to parasitism, predation, and deceit (fraud), to survive by parasitism, predation, and fraud. It’s ok to do that. It’s just the truth. But you can’t make any kind of moral argument to support it.

  • Propertarianism Isn’t an Ideology.

    October 16th, 2018 4:22 PM PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S THE LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY (Propertarianism) AND THE SCIENCE OF TESTIMONY, COMBINED INTO A FORMAL RATIO-EMPIRICAL SYSTEM OF LAW (Decidability) FOR ETHICS, AND POLITICS. In other words, it’s the solution to social science.

    —“This is crucial for people that want to claim they don’t adhere to the propertarian ideology. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology and much like science it focuses on empirical evidence and the falsification of proposed truth claims. Most people that say they don’t agree with propertarian ideology have an ideology of their own that has been found to be based on lies via propertarian methods – and that’s the real objection.”– Curtus Maximus (A Sock/Alias of Someone Else)

    [Y]ou cannot defeat it. Sorry. You can however, state that despite your ideology being parasitic, predatory(immoral) and dishonest (fraudulent) that you cannot compete by meritocratic (market, evolutionary, eugenic) means, (meaning you’re inferior) and therefore must resort to parasitism, predation, and deceit (fraud), to survive by parasitism, predation, and fraud. It’s ok to do that. It’s just the truth. But you can’t make any kind of moral argument to support it.

  • WHY INTELLECTUALS DEBATE IN TEXT NOT SPEECH —“Let’s schedule a video call, and

    WHY INTELLECTUALS DEBATE IN TEXT NOT SPEECH

    —“Let’s schedule a video call, and we can exhaust this without the unnecessary social incentives until I find out where I’m wrong, and I’ll leave you guys be in Aryan Propertyland.”—

    The Value of Text

    1) leaves a record of the evolution of the argument, and the tactics used in pursuing it.

    2) Sophisms, Signaling, and Frauds are much harder to get away with in text.

    3) The chain of reasoning one can produce in text is more suitable to proof by falsification, whereas verbal reparté is more suitable to analogy and justification (fraud).

    4) I do not care whether you continue to argue or depart, because articulate debate only serves to educate the followers – there is no chance that you can win such an argument – you just don’t know that yet. I do. You can only say “Lying is a strategic advantage if you can get enough people to do it without getting them killed in the process.”

    5) I am now aware of you, just as you are aware of me. And I don’t practice philosophy but law. And prosecution of those who perpetuate harm against the commons is not only my job, my art but my moral duty.

    6) You can use the pejorative ‘aryan’ as if aryan (law) vs semitic (religion) is some sort of dispute over taste rather than a dispute over truth and transcendence, vs lies and dysgenic regression.

    You’re reasonably talented but it’s too clear that you are used to confusing the tactic of winning by sophism against the common folk, and not experienced at such debate with professionals with the hard science of it all.

    Trying to repeat the past is simply an admissino of the failure to solve the problems of the present. The problem of the present is the same as it has always been: the conflict between the agrarian-metalworkers using law and markets (Male reproductive strategy), and the pastoralists using cults, and separatism (the female reproductive strategy)

    Horse+bronze+wheel+sky-worshipping+Militaristic+expansionist vs earth worshipping, pacifist, separatists.

    The eternal war between Cain and Able: The Masculine vs the Feminine.

    This is the fourth cycle of that war of civilizations.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-16 13:36:00 UTC

  • ABSOLUTISM IS NONSENSE. ZERO TOLERANCE IS NOT. 1) We pursue what we can both und

    ABSOLUTISM IS NONSENSE. ZERO TOLERANCE IS NOT.

    1) We pursue what we can both undrestand and suits our interests.

    2) Absolutism is easy to understand. It’s the children’s-blocks version of political problem solving.

    3) Absolutism is easy to use when ‘backward’ or ‘at war’, but extremely error prone at competition and production. It is an extremely weak form of organization compared to markets. It depends on retaining the attention of the populace through constant manipulation. It is expensive. Hence absolute military, absolute law, market economy, limited charity is the optimum order. (India vs China. China has better demographics, is ethnically homogenous, and has the red army. India has none of the above.)

    4) one can organize the vast network of productions in an polity by authority (fear), compensation (reward), or deceit (fear or promise). But we are no longer in a position where the information system can be monopolized and the population is ignorant.

    5) The purpose of advancing markets (liberalism et all) is to provide those in power with the means of holding and expanding power cheaply and easily. In other words, one is naive to think he can capture attention and power without material incentives, and we are all victims of overestimating our deviation from the norm.

    6) The optimum government is flexible (Roman) with Authoritarianism for War, Markets for growth, and Redistribution for Windfalls.

    7) In other words: Money Scales Power. And the vast majority are always and everywhere motivated by (a) access to mates, (b) food and food prices (now energy as well), (c) change in economic condition (d) release from perceived oppression (taxation, competition, conquest).

    POWER REQUIRES WEALTH REQUIRES MARKET ORDER REQUIRES RULE OF LAW – which is what Putin has had to learn.

    OUR RULE OF LAW IS SIMPLY TOO TOLERANT.

    (Ergo – stop stroking your dicks, and masturbating to manga-fantasies of absolutism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-15 19:44:00 UTC

  • Defend the Sophism of Postmodernism with The Sophism of Critique

    October 15th, 2018 10:52 AM THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND THE SOPHISM OF POSTMODERNISM WITH THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE“The Sophism of Critique.” [I]t does not matter ‘what you intend’ or ‘what you mean’ it matters what changes in state occur (consequences) because of your display word and deed (actions and consequences). If I speak in poetry (loading/framing), or code (symbolism/parsimony), or science (existential description), I can say the same things in different terms and frames. If I act according to the instructions or consequences of deductions and inferences therein, my actions are what are caused by the prose. The Grammar of Postmodernism (semantic content and limits; its’ consistency, correspondence, non-operational prose; coherence; its rules of continuously recursive disambiguation) are simply a continuation of the evolution of the Sophisms of: Pilpul (justification), Critique (Straw Manning), Suggestion(appeal to cognitive bias), Overloading (of cognition), and Obscurantism (untestability); … used in: the Abrahamic (and other) religions > Platonism (Idealism/Obscuring one’s ignorance) > Rabbinical Judgement (Pilpul/Justification) > Christian Justificationism (theology) > Rousseauian (French) Moralism (Justification) > Kantian Rationalism (Pilpul/Justification) > Marxist/Freudian/Boasian/Frankfurt Pseudoscience, Justification, and Critique > and French Postmodernism (Critique). These Grammars are all forms of sophistry. What they are not is math(measurement), logic (internal consistency), empirical (externally correspondent), scientific(warranty of due diligence), economics(rationality), law (reciprocity), and history(evidence), that is commensurable and testable because it is consistent, correspondent, operationally stated (existentially possible), consisting of rational choice, limited to reciprocal actions, coherent, fully accounted (against cherry picking, and complete in scope (against cherry picking). Critique Consists in: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, straw manning, reputation destruction, of enemies, and heaping of undue praise of allies, and a failure to address the truth or falsehood of the central arguments, and their outcomes, rather than proposing an alternative, superior, competitively superior, solution that is actionable, and produces superior outcomes and externalities. Peterson cannot say in his venues anything sufficiently complex that he would lose the relatively mainstream audience. I can. Because it’s my specialty to debunk sophism (psedorationalism: pilpul, critique, loading/framing/overloading/obscurantism), supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and deceit. Postmodernism is yet another sophism in the long line of deceits that evolved through history to compete with testimonial truth in law, and the evolution of the tools by which we limit one another to that which is testifiable, rational, and reciprocal, and therefore a truth candidate. In other words, Postmodernism is just another cult-of-lies. Like Marxism before it. Like Rationalism before it. Like Theology Before it. Like Occult before it: a means of coercing the simple to conform to the demands of the Herd. Whereas speech that is testifiable, rational, reciprocal, and stated in operational (existentially possible) prose, like all the grammars of testimony (math, logic, empiricism, science, economics, law, and history) is and always has been, and always will be the means of DECIDING between differences of argument and opinion. Thus Endeth the Lesson. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26fIBA7O5Ag

  • NPC’s in The Proletariat Are Scripted by The Commentariat

    October 14th, 2018 2:27 PM THE NPC’s, PROLETARIAT, AND COMMENTARIAT [T]he NPC’s in the PROLETARIAT are SCRIPTED by the COMMENTARIAT, who UNDERMINE Truth, Duty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, and Markets in Everything, through disapproval, shaming, gossiping, rallying, and reputation destruction as a substitute for argument. Why? Because they cannot speak the truth: that equality and proportionality and discretionary rule can only exist under a kleptocracy of dishonesty that steals from the productive reproductive and meritocratic peoples.

  • NPCs, and Their Method of Resistance

    October 15th, 2018 11:03 AM NPCs, AND THEIR METHOD OF RESISTANCE [O]ne of the NPCs traits is to rely on Euphemism when it suits them and Literalism when it suits them, but then attack the use of Euphemism or Literalism by opponents when it doesn’t. As always, an NPC simply withdraws consent to agree no matter what, by whatever excuse possible, as a means of avoiding continuous, recursive, cooperative pursuit of decidability (the truth) that would require that they change their prior bias and commitment. You do not have to be intelligent to engage in this form of non-cooperation-by -continuous-denial. You just have to find a way to disagree and prevent progress to decidability NPC’s merely transmit and imitate means of denying cooperation on the discovery of decidability (truth) and resist all attempts at discovery of decidability. It is by this method the Herd ‘sticks together’ and is not ‘divided’ by reason, truth, science, argument, morality, reciprocity or any other criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Defend the Sophism of Postmodernism with The Sophism of Critique

    October 15th, 2018 10:52 AM THOSE WHO WOULD DEFEND THE SOPHISM OF POSTMODERNISM WITH THE SOPHISM OF CRITIQUE“The Sophism of Critique.” [I]t does not matter ‘what you intend’ or ‘what you mean’ it matters what changes in state occur (consequences) because of your display word and deed (actions and consequences). If I speak in poetry (loading/framing), or code (symbolism/parsimony), or science (existential description), I can say the same things in different terms and frames. If I act according to the instructions or consequences of deductions and inferences therein, my actions are what are caused by the prose. The Grammar of Postmodernism (semantic content and limits; its’ consistency, correspondence, non-operational prose; coherence; its rules of continuously recursive disambiguation) are simply a continuation of the evolution of the Sophisms of: Pilpul (justification), Critique (Straw Manning), Suggestion(appeal to cognitive bias), Overloading (of cognition), and Obscurantism (untestability); … used in: the Abrahamic (and other) religions > Platonism (Idealism/Obscuring one’s ignorance) > Rabbinical Judgement (Pilpul/Justification) > Christian Justificationism (theology) > Rousseauian (French) Moralism (Justification) > Kantian Rationalism (Pilpul/Justification) > Marxist/Freudian/Boasian/Frankfurt Pseudoscience, Justification, and Critique > and French Postmodernism (Critique). These Grammars are all forms of sophistry. What they are not is math(measurement), logic (internal consistency), empirical (externally correspondent), scientific(warranty of due diligence), economics(rationality), law (reciprocity), and history(evidence), that is commensurable and testable because it is consistent, correspondent, operationally stated (existentially possible), consisting of rational choice, limited to reciprocal actions, coherent, fully accounted (against cherry picking, and complete in scope (against cherry picking). Critique Consists in: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, straw manning, reputation destruction, of enemies, and heaping of undue praise of allies, and a failure to address the truth or falsehood of the central arguments, and their outcomes, rather than proposing an alternative, superior, competitively superior, solution that is actionable, and produces superior outcomes and externalities. Peterson cannot say in his venues anything sufficiently complex that he would lose the relatively mainstream audience. I can. Because it’s my specialty to debunk sophism (psedorationalism: pilpul, critique, loading/framing/overloading/obscurantism), supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and deceit. Postmodernism is yet another sophism in the long line of deceits that evolved through history to compete with testimonial truth in law, and the evolution of the tools by which we limit one another to that which is testifiable, rational, and reciprocal, and therefore a truth candidate. In other words, Postmodernism is just another cult-of-lies. Like Marxism before it. Like Rationalism before it. Like Theology Before it. Like Occult before it: a means of coercing the simple to conform to the demands of the Herd. Whereas speech that is testifiable, rational, reciprocal, and stated in operational (existentially possible) prose, like all the grammars of testimony (math, logic, empiricism, science, economics, law, and history) is and always has been, and always will be the means of DECIDING between differences of argument and opinion. Thus Endeth the Lesson. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26fIBA7O5Ag