True Enough? Imagine A Grammar That Promised Truth Content

(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)

***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.***

Lets note the difference between the following points of view.
1 existence,
2 experience of the universe,
3 utility in determining one’s action,
4 observation of an action and consequences
5 justification of the results of one’s action,
6 warranty in recommendation of action*,
7 and decidability in conflict*,

…describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it.

I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language.

Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them.

We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.


Female Reproductive Strategy

The female r-selection strategy also includes: increasing your numbers decreases your risk of (a) bearing the dominance of and abuse of an alpha, (b) bearing unwanted offspring by undesirable mates (c) engaging in status competition with other females and losing (d) running out of allies and assistance in production and care-taking (e) running out of allies in rallying and shaming the alphas (f) defecting to another group if unhappy is less provocative if you’re defecting from larger to smaller numbers (g) hiding in the herd reduces your chance of being eaten – safety in numbers.


The Shift In Violence

1) Violence is not less. It shifts from violent to indirect, and transfers from destructive to constructive use. War. Religion. Law. Credit.
2) Violence. Theft shifts from territory and women, to things, to money, to taxation, to credit, to fraud, to free riding, to conspiracy.
3) Much of the world is less violent because of prosperity. The rest is because most thefts like most property is of non-physical things.
4) If I respect life, property, norm, and tradition with expectation of purchasing a future, yet policy steals it from me – why respect it?
5) Much of postmodern theft depends on the perpetuation of habits without the incentive to produce them. We have run out of both.
6)If we no longer have the incentive to respect life, property, norm, and tradition, then why not instead construct an order in which we do?
7) Rule of Law. Strict Construction. Textualism. Property-en-toto. Informational commons. Universal standing. Class Houses. Market Gov’t.


The Zombie Apocalypse Is Here!

The zombie apocalypse is here. They just have 80 IQ’s instead of 40. The virus is conceptual. And you don’t have to shoot them in the head. Anywhere will do.


The Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis:

The Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis:
1) For any concept you refer to, construct lines of three or more points demonstrating limits not states. This is the most subtle and difficult part of the method since we tend to think in ideal types that invoke a particular experience and not the range of conditions and set of experiences that are invoked. Think in lines not states. Turn any idea into a spectrum. It’s not hard with practice.

2) Analyze information movement – who possesses it, what it consists of, and when. (programming is great for teaching you how your assumptions of the knowledge of others is tragically flawed).

3) Analyze incentives given the information individuals have at their disposal at any moment.

4) Expect people to seek to acquire at all points in time, and to seize rents whenever possible, and wherever possible means whenever they won’t be caught.

5) Expect Culture, Class, Gender, Race, Tribe, Family, and personal reproductive strategies to provide the dominant influence in decidability: whenever discretion is required these factors will influence the decision because the individual has no other means of decidability without propertarian ethics.

6) When you write, do so operationally not analogically, experientially, or observationally: use the vectors, information, incentives, biases, and decisions of individuals. Never use the word ‘is’ since it means you do not understand what you are saying.

7) Test for identity (non-conflationary identification of properties, methods and relations). Test for internal consistency of your argument. Test for external correspondence of your argument. Test for existential possiblity of each step in your argument (which is what propertarianism asks you to do by its nature). Test for Morality (that no involuntary transfers have occurrred, or if they have articulate them). Test for parsimony: that you have defined limits to all your assumptions and terms. Test for explanatory power. Attempt to falsify it: seek contradictory examples and ensure that your analysis (description) holds up.

Propertarian analysis should produce tests of existential possibility: a proof. A proof is not a truth. But it is the most likely means of constructing a truth candidate that we currently know of.

Curt Doolittle


More On Debate: Hierarch Of Arguments


Screen Shot 2015-11-22 at 4.21.08 PM


Q&A: “Why do people get triggered by Curt…”

Q&A: “Why do people get triggered by Curt and immediately downvote his videos? They’re at least interesting ideas to entertain even if you don’t accept them.”

I have been openly attacking the MI hierarchy for two years now. And they have no response to my criticisms (they cant have one really – they can only adapt to them.)

People invest their self worth in these ideologies to the point which they are not competing institutional solutions but hats to hang one’s self worth upon. It’s only logical that they defend their priors by non rational, non-empirical, largely symbolic and emotional means.
The great thing about Rothbard is that despite being mostly wrong, he’s partly right, and what he’s right about is relatively easy for amateurs to understand.

If people understood my arguments they would grok that I’m completing the ancap project by converting it from pseudoscience and kantian rationalism to a scientific argument that’s uniform across biology, morality, philosophy, law, politics and economics.

Which, just in terms of explanatory power is pretty hard to criticize.

But if the end result is preservation of investment, preservation of self image, rejection of the effort and time needed to improve one’s knowledge and a justification of non-contribution to the commons for the because one is rejected by the mainstream culture, then that’s an excuse for one’s behavior not a pursuit of a moral good, a sustainable political order, or an scientific truth about cooperation among men.



Q&A: “WHY DON’T YOU DEBATE THE ROTHBARDIANS”, Or ” [insert name here]”?


Any time. Any day. It’s because they’re afraid of me. Just as they’re becoming increasingly afraid of everyone else given the catastrophic failure of their ideology. Hans has said I am ‘too combative’ which is true – because one of the marxist techniques is to rely upon your good manners and lack of hostility to conduct loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, gossip, shaming and rallying. So I attack dishonestly in their arguments – even when they have no idea that they’re engaging in unconscious dishonesty (fallacy).


Look, I’m trying to CORRECT the enlightenment: Not just the jewish, but ALL of it: French, Anglo, American, German and Jewish.

1) The French literary catholicism is a catastrophe of empty justification resulting in the murder of their aristocracy, the arresting of the their civilization, the birth of napoleon, and his consequential destruction of old Europe.
2) The Anglo classical liberal (market government) and empirical: the right method, but the aristocracy of everyone a failure.
3) The American Legal, a success until the civil war, but a tragedy with the inclusion of women without their own house under democracy rather than rule of law.
4) The German Kantian rationalist movement a correct ascertainment of man, but a failed attempt to recreate the aristocratic church as a means of preserving the martial order.
5) The Jewish Pseudoscientific Hermeneutic Legal tradition which tries to recreate their separatist insular legal tradition in pseudoscientific language: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt School* Mises, Rand and Rothbard.

I’m trying to correct all of them. Including the fallacy that Mises is an Austrian empirical christian classical liberal and libertarian rather than a Ukrainian Jewish Pseudoscientific Cosmopolitan libertine who was born in predominantly Jewish Ukraine and happened to go to Vienna for School.
But why so much emphasis on correcting the cosmopolitans? Because they have little real concept of government, no concept of commons, no concept of natural law. But they have a well developed application of using money, finance, banking, and economics as a means of constructing a social order.

***When you combine banking with rule of law you have the basis of an amoral social science: a means of arguing amorally rather than morally.***

You see. It’s not that the cosmopolitans had a particular insight. It’s all the cosmopolitans had to work with. Its their internal system of government writ large: create a law(that one cannot fail to adhere to), justify it pseudo-scientifically (or religiously), propagate it widely (verbal, written, print, media propaganda), and use ostracization (gossip, rally, shame)defectors, and heroize (heap undue praise) on advocates. You can see from this list of attributes that this reflects the origins of both Mises’ and Rothbard’s works – as well as the better work of Georg Simmel’s on “The Philosophy of Money” which I tend to prefer, and pair with Popper’s “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Hayek’s “Use of Information in Society”, and his “Law, Legislation and Liberty”, as well as his chapters on Traditional Knowledge

**The Humeian and Smithian argument does the same between states. But the Cosmopolitan argument does so Amorally*** (meaning without moral reference, vs immoral which means violation of moral prohibitions, and moral which means by adhering to moral prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs.)

And you see, that’s the magic right there. Jewish law may be a parasitic group evolutionary strategy (objectively immoral), it may be polymoral (objectively immoral), and it may be constructed from scripture (babylonian and Egyptian appropriation). But besides being written down, and internally consistent, and rather complete in its coverage, the organizing principles of diasporic judaism of the ghetto, bazaar, steppe and desert peoples is i)separatism, ii)law and iii)communal banking/insurance. Just as the organizing principles of western man are 1)martial, ii)law, and iii)production.

Money and credit are more ‘precise’ forms of ‘instrumental measurement of individual behavior’ than are property and production and reputation. And that right there is pretty profound. Conversely, land is illiquid and production time consuming, and requires armies to hold it. This is very different from money and ledgers.

So as a new technology that was ADDITIVE to the aristocratic landed order, especially since the forced destruction of our own diasporic capitalists, the Knights Templar (in one of the great crimes of history second only to the forcible christianization of Europe under Justinian), the diasporic jewish people had been conducting a research program into management of political order by law, money and credit instead of by law, land and production. (And an eugenic reproduction program as great as westerners had been conducting in their different order).

( Note: EVOLUTION OF ORDERS: Tribe, Religion(universal – ostracization vs inclusion), Law(particular – punishment vs avoidance), Credit(individual – consumption vs hardship), (Truth????) )

And that’s why I emphasize this unification of a) the anglo empirical and truthful discourse under rule of law and a market for commons (b) the german martial patriarchal hierarchy of duty land holding man (c) the jewish unification of morality, credit and law – as the best of each culture’s research program without the errors, immoralities, and various fallacious constructions of each.

So we can now reconstruct our civic order, by combining our ancient traditions of property rights, our medieval market government, our enlightenment understanding of rule of law, our new understanding money, credit, and economics as a more granular application of law, and our understanding of biology, to unite into a single consistent framework the disciplines of biology, morality, law, philosophy, economics, politics, into a single unified system that is constructed amorally and therefore universally, and which provides decidability in all questions of conflict.

And that is pretty cool.

So the reason I pick on the cosmopolitans is because of their propagandizing of falsehoods and pseudosciences. While at the same time I try to reform all three enlightenments using the novel method of amoral argument.

It’s not that I don’t make use of these men’s work. It’s that it’s only half right, and half wrong, and it’s useless as half wrong.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

* The Frankfurt School


The Disarming Effect of the r/K Reproductive Strategy Argument: Liberals Are Just Mindless Brainstems.

—“Liberalism isn’t intellectual. It is merely the rabbit’s r-selected Reproductive Strategy, intellectualized in humans who exhibit it instinctually. Its only purpose is to exploit a resource excess in our society. This information kills Liberals, if you point it out to them, because it strips Liberalism of any intellectual justification, leaving it as merely a conglomeration of r-selected urges that K-selected humans oppose instinctually. This work is what we were waiting for, and it will alter our political debates forever.”—Anon Conservative.

In other words “all human language is negotiation on behalf of our reproductive strategies.”

Humans start out rather androgenous, and we grow either male or female – from a lighter to a stronger version of each, in a spectrum from one end to the other. From r to k. From solipsistic to autistic.


Why Is Propertarianism’s Explanatory Power So Important?

Well, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny.

A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology).

Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value
of all goods commensurable.

So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along.

Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing.

And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines.

But all investments provide returns or not.

The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.