Economists Start To See The Virtue of Operationalism in Computer Science.

Mathematics is a weakness not a strength in the absence of operations. Mathematical logic is dependent upon ‘independence of scale’. But it remains dependent upon existential possibility. And existential possibility is the test provided by operational definitions.  (And yes, despite this bit of brevity I can defend that argument.)

Something that is not well understood, even in computer science, is that just as they syllogism, the ratio, the calculus, and statistical relation were innovations in human thought, so was programming an innovation in the process of human thought.

It is hard to accept the fact that programming may be as important as mathematics, the scientific method, and logical reasoning, grammar and rhetoric.

For the single reason that unlike statistical relations programs consist of existentially possible operations.

The 20th century failure of operationalism, intuitionism and praxeology is due to the failure to grasp that justification (confirmation) is not meaningful, and that correlation provides us with a source of inquiry, but only a sequence of operations provide us with evidence of existential possibility. And only parsimony assists us in choosing truth candidates between existentially possible sequences of operations.

In other words, if statements of social science cannot be reduced to sympathetically testable, rationally decidable sequences of choices, they we have no idea if they CAN be true.

We train ourselves to be intolerant of inserting information that does not exist, because the entire purpose of science is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from propositions that we construct by means of free association. And that is what statistical analysis helps us do: extend our senses so that we can construct possible free associations from that which we cannot sense without such technological devices.



New Video: Circumpolar Civilization

Explaining why we have failed to integrate Russians into western Civilization despite their membership in Christendom and their obvious similarities to Americans: trust.

This is a rather deep video that demonstrates the distribution of trust from Chinese “delay and deceive” constant deception, to Russian/Muslim “honor in lying”, to German Truth and Duty, to British moral optimism, to American Utopianism and how it affects each country.

Then we discuss how we can unite these different ‘time preferences’ and ‘risk profiles’ into a vast intra-civilizational distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor using Rule of law, if only we can end American ideological Utopianism and Russian lying and legal corruption.


Q&A: Boosting our Spirits: Love Your Kin.  Reproduce Your Kin. We Will Win.

—“Curt: Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I misread it; maybe you aren’t so in favor of the continuation of violent types as have come from my family,”—

I am trying to RESTORE violence to political discourse. When I talk about genetic pacification I’m criticizing IMPULSIVITY not violence. I want men to be violent in the suppression of free-riders, criminals, usurpers and invaders. Awarrior, a sheriff, and judge and a king use violence for good. A free-rider, criminal, usurper and invader use it for parasitism. Violence is neither good or bad, it is merely put to good or bad ends. If we abandon violence then we cannot put it to good ends – and we need to.

—“…but you have restored pride and a sense of urgency in me to keep the traditional European family alive. I know my mother, and aunts, and uncles would love to shake your hand for doing that to me, as they long considered me a lost cause, a man “too smart for his own good,” but you have in some ways circled me back home.”—

Well you made my day if not my week. Thank you. Because that is what I want to do. Restore moral authority and intellectual credibility to our aristocratic political system. But the fact that I influenced your life a bit is the best feeling I can hope for.

—“For a while, I considered children and child-rearing as these unexplainably horrendous endeavors, and it must seem that way to people with destroyed heritages, to people who’ve lost the connection to the traditional family structure. … I’m actually visiting my sister’s place right now, with her recent daughter, and her teething cries doesn’t really bother me, because I look at it in a larger, prouder context, thanks to you.”—

—“I see our people going down, the same people who created most of what has ever been great in this word, and having men like you in my life who can give rational reason to not give up, is important to me. It makes me want to find a nice Germanic lass and make 6 kids.”—

OK. Now I’m almost moved to tears. That’s exactly what we need to do.

–“This is what proper parents do for their children; we need to restore the proper family, to head off this dysgenic, infertile decline.”—

Reproduction is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL, where politics, law and the economy are not. You have complete control over it. So, be fertile and prosper.  :)

Men need to understand the collapse and why it occurred. We have to ignore feminist parasitism and rebellion and restore the family. We can defeat them in a few generations by merely ending immigration of the underclasses, and out-breeding them by two to one.



Aristocracy A Better Evolutionary Strategy for Whom?


Aristocracy suppresses free riding, opportunistic profiting from free riders, and conquest by free riders.


Next Videos On The Agenda


(hopefully with female hosts)

(the high trust society, the private bureaus)

(Law as philosophy) (the failure to separate out the law of commons/norms)

Not sure I know anyone who can play the role of interviewer for these two. Maybe Roman can do the first. But who can do the second?


Ethnocentrism Is Superior to Humanitarianism at Suppressing Free Riders 

—“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders.

If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.

Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper.

Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-


The Second Enlightenment

We had to restore science(truth) in order to end more than a thousand years of levantine mysticism. We are now going to have to restore science (truth) in order to end more than a century of levantine pseudoscience.

Liars love their lies.  But we can defeat them, with Truth.

Liberty in our lifetimes.


Q&A: Are There Limits To Western Evolutionary Strategy?

—“Curt, you’ve been hinting that you think that high trust, low ethnocentrism is not an evolutionary strategy superior in every regard.”—

This is an interesting question because like supply-demand curves, no evolutionary strategy is beneficial under all conditions – other than rate of adaptation. Humans are special in our rate of adaptation because not only can we adapt by developing tools, we can adapt by changing our behavior, AND we can adapt merely by selective reproduction for the EXPRESSION of genes, AND we can adapt by selective SUPPRESSION of genes (genetic pacification), rather than merely waiting for mutations. As such we actually only have to modify our behavior, and reproductively select for different goods and pacify other traits as conditions change.

So we naturally encounter three overlapping fallacies in study of ourselves: The fallacy of linear progression(instead of supply-demand curves). The fallacy of progress (rather than adaptation). The fallacy of evolutionary direction (rather than evolution has no direction other than a bias for complexity in order to exploit niches).
Well, a small, high trust, highly innovative, technically advanced, militarily excellent, aristocratic population that is willing to conquer and rule can compete. Conversely, a small, high trust, highly innovative, technically advanced that is unwilling to maintain military excellence, unwilling to rule, and unwilling to defend its territory from incursion cannot compete.

So the reason I’m addressing these issues is the theory of “Peak Human”. Its not necessarily true that intelligence and limited reproduction are more beneficial than rapid reproduction and aggression. Malthus unbound means reproduction and aggression are more competitive than intelligence, innovation, and quality of life.

Expensive and pacifist humans are a liability in a world of inexpensive and aggressive humans. More reproductive, less intelligent, more aggressive people will defeat less reproductive, more intelligent, less aggressive people. And it’s happening.

Which is obvious when we state it that way.

—“I got the impression that you thought the West would eventually be able to detect lying high ethnocentric cultures. Do you no longer feel this way? Because your exchange with him made it seem they’d have to become familial, rather than simply upgrade infringements of trust.”—

We can put into a constitution, and therefore into the common law an equivalent of the requirement for mathematical proofs (demonstrations of possibility), and scientific papers (a loose analogy but the best I can do). We can enumerate the steps necessary to propose a political statement (an offer of contract, bound by contract). We can return grammar, rhetoric, and logic to education. We can prosecute offenders, and suppress lying as well as error, bias, and wishful thinking. It might take six to ten years to work its way through the culture, but at some point after ten or more years, people will be so habituated into the demands of truth telling by simple exposure to it, that they’ll spot error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit easily. I mean, a lot of the most important disciplines do this today already. Law is not strictly constructed, but contracts are very close to programming at this point. Science does a fairly good job of peer review in the top journals – and law is nowhere near as difficult a problem as is physical science, because law (contract) is a justificationary process (known) and physical science is a critical process (unknown).

Now, I advocate a return to the traditional family because the absolute nuclear family is no longer useful because we move around too much. It was useful for forcing people to obtain homes, and for delaying child bearing, when they lived near one another. But what’s happened is that our people are becoming unhappy because they’re alone. And (in particular, our women) are more susceptible to ideology if they are alone rather than in families. And our rates of reproduction are better in traditional families with greater mutual economic, emotional, and generational support. For men, the ANF and divorce means early death.

Germany has for example, built large family sized apartments in the postwar era while Asia and to some degree, america, are building every smaller apartments – which is terrible for everyone involved.

The argument is that ANF families are higher trust than TRAD/STEM families, but that is because of norms not laws. If we have a legal system that enforces truth telling (now that we know how), that means that trust can be created regardless of reproductive family structure.

I try to say it this way: that while only northern europeans could EVOLVE high trust, once the technology is know everyone else can APPLY high trust ethics in law. Just like we invent other technologies that different cultures adapt.

My fantasy world is a future of high trust societies slowly suppressing low trust societies, just as agrarian societies suppressed banditry and raiding. As far as I can tell this is a logical progression of the incremental suppression of parasitism. Not that it’s a deterministic process, but because it’s a competitive evolutionary strategy just as the suppression of fraud, theft and violence were competitive strategies.

—“It’s hard for me to see how regression back to familialism is progress by any perspective. This “propagation of local genes” seems a flawed model, because it’s often not ultimately eugenic.”—

Well I think I answered the first part of this question already, but the second part is a common misunderstanding of inbreeding. It’s true that there is a minimum population necessary to prevent the problems of inbreeding. But it’s also true that there is a maximum population before we prevent error-correction. And a maximum population to produce attractive people by pairing off. Large Cities, particularly diverse large cities, are dysgenic as hell. What we see today is very much the reproductive strategy of crows: young people move to the city for opportunity and mating, then move to the suburbs to raise children.

—“I have my own Nietzschean critiques of the West, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t continue to pursue their evolutionary strategy of building a superior commons.”—

I agree. And that commons will be superior under Truthful Speech, Propertarian ethics, the traditional (extended) family, the elimination of the death tax, and the restoration of nobility (access to the senate) to a family that maintains its military, economic and social status sufficiently to afford to contribute to the commons over three or more generations.

Honestly, the forced exit of the martial class from politics since the Vietnam war is a significant part of the problem here. And it’s easy to fix.


(Interview Brief)



In Propertarian Institute interviews, we are just having a video of two people having a conversation. It does not have to be structured.

The purpose of this document is for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them.

This is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations.

I will try to cover all the points I have sketched out (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable.

The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra.

Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it.

Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video.

We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will

read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience.

I am far worse than a professional actor. I am very easily distracted. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. So, sorry. You can’t. Bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process.

Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct.

Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios.

A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’

we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels.


“Trust and the Circumpolar People”

Face the camera. “Hello, I’m ___________, and I’m here in ___________ with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.”

(Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location).

Today we’re going to talk about _____________.

Something on the order of: “Curt, _____________________”

(Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.)

Thanks (host), and thanks for having me.



Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?

Because in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest.

Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors?

The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest.

Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you.

Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas.