Welcome to The Choice – Episode 0022 – Introduction to the Prosecution of the Enemy – and My Apologia – I’m Curt Doolittle
I research and teach the scientific method, the universal vocabulary grammar and logic of the formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, and the natural law of reciprocity in display, word, and deed.
This program – The natural law – is the completion of the greek, roman, germanic, anglo program. And it re-harmonizes our religion, philosophy, law, science, and mathematics into a single consistent coherent correspondent formal operational logic of the universe. It provides complete explanatory power. Really. And the consequences are as vast as the empirical and scientific revolutions.
My work seeks to solve the great problems of the 20th century, the origins of which in large part are reducible to the most recent counter-revolution against western truth, reason, science, law, markets, adversarialism, and subsequent rate of evolution of European civilization, European people, and a reluctant world that wants nothing of it on the one hand while desperately seeking its proceeds on the other.
While I had worked on artificial intelligence as a means of understanding mankind through most of the 80’s, it wasn’t until I decided to produce a value-neutral language of ethics and politics to compete with the Jewish left’s industrialization of lying, around 1990 – that I began this project. I was terribly ill throughout the 80’s and 90’s, despite building companies, which made progress difficult. But I discovered Hans Hoppe’s work just prior to 2000. And I felt I had found an answer to the problem of value-neutral commensurability. By 2006 I had an admittedly terrible first draft. It served the purpose of illustrating just how much I didn’t yet know. By 2009 I had a second draft. But it serves to help me understand that I needed to solve the problem of demarcation between truth, falsehood, and deceit. I’d solved most of those problems by 2014, with a third draft. And by 2016 I had the full outline of the completed work. But it took until about last year to resolve the outstanding issues-particularly religion – and it was only over this past summer’s work on evolutionary history that I felt the project was complete and inescapable as a system of thought dependent entirely on first causes – the formal logic of all the sciences.
Why Do We Need Truth and Universal Decidability
Because the greater our numbers, the greater our scale of cooperation, the greater our division of labor, the more fragmentary our knowledge and information, the more free we are to pursue our individual and group interests, the more divergent those interests, and therefore the more necessity for positive markets for consumption, positive markets for commons, and negative markets we call courts for the resolution of our disputes, and the greater the demand for decidability in our law to both construct those consumptions and commons and resolve those differences. In other words, our law like our logics and sciences incrementally progresses to a single most parsimonious most universal logic and science decidability and universal explanatory power across all fields of human behavior.
But some subjects are more controversial than others. Some evoke differences at the political level, some at the economic, some at the social, and some at the interpersonal, and even some among family members.
The most contentious of those subjects are what we call taboos. But taboos both the most difficult and necessary subjects to resolve. So of necessity, the logic and science of universal decidability will answer those taboos, and those taboos generate the greatest demand for decidability so that societies, and polities and the world can move beyond them.
A taboo is a subject we try not to discuss. Taboos can fulfill one or more of three purposes: in the positive, taboos assist in the normative suppression of human impulses that if satisfied would export costs directly or indirectly, and by that suppression forcing the development of people’s agency. In the Neutral, to prevent conflict between individuals and groups that may have similar cooperative interpersonal or market interests but different group, social, economic, and political interests. Or in the negative, to force ignorance in order to conduct a deceit, fraud, theft, parasitism, or predation.
Taboo Breakers Pay A Cost
European people, for accidental historical reasons, deep in pre-history, developed rule of law as their first institution, instead of religion or state. This is the ‘first cause’ of european civilization. Skipping the underclass religion phase, and the upper-class state phase and developing an upper-middle-class entrepreneurial civilization – the corporation. In the absence of authority only demonstrated interest provides decidability in matters of conflict. The logic of Demonstrated interests is what we call the law of tort. And testimony the method of investigating it. For this reason testimonial speech and military reporting, evolved into the normative language of the people. For this institutional reason and this reason alone, Europeans incrementally discovered, adapted to, and applied the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of the universe, creating their competitive advantage of initiative, adaptability, maneuver, and technology, despite small numbers and lesser wealth on the edge of the bronze age revolution.
But Socrates was killed for heresy. Aristotle nearly. The Christians used virtue signaling to obtain office, allied to produce political power, and eventually killed or deported the philosophers (the european equivalent of an intellectual priesthood), destroyed the Greco-roman arts and letters, ended roman religion – which wasn’t religion as we understand it but an expression of loyalty to the state and the people, one’s city, ancestors, the laws of nature, and various natural spirits that were compatible with physical natural and evolutionary laws. The Christians ended literacy and prevented the restoration of the western roman aristocracy, greek and roman reason, and rule of law. They brought about underclass rule. It wasn’t until the later middle ages that under primogeniture the church became a holding company for the aristocracy, and the aristocracy used the church leadership as a corporation for non-inheriting sons to manage aristocratic lands. This is what kept the church in check, the people ignorant and servile peasants, and the civilization in ignorance and poverty, during the Semitic Dark Ages of Ignorance. It wasn’t the church that rescued Europe from darkness but middle-income northern Italians translating the works of the greeks, returned to Europe by the flight of intellectuals from the middle east as Islam experienced the most recent of its exhaustions and declines and the natural determinism of fundamentalism – meaning law – replaced wisdom literature – meaning advice. And it was the spread of ancient literature through the middle class seeking escape from the corruption of the church that led to centuries of war to escape it.
So like Socrates, Aristotle and the Philosophers, Galileo was imprisoned for breaking a taboo, Darwin reviled for it, and the eugenicists removed from the historical record, and postwar social science converted to sophistry for it. And I expect similar treatment. Because my work is the latest attempt to suppress pseudoscientific, philosophical, legal, economic, political, and theological deceits, and to once again free western civilization and western people to continue their long march to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, pseudoscience, sophistry, deceits, conflict, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and the victimization by a nature, planet, solar system, and universe all but hostile to life.
I love my work but I don’t like my job. It’s a moral duty and a nearly unbearable personal cost. So some of us must prevail against those taboos that prevent necessary conflict and that in turn prevents the discourse, accusation, prosecution and restitution for informational, social, and political crimes. And instead, to use the truth in discourse to cause conflict to bring about the end to those crimes, so that mankind once again can leap into a future of transcendence rather than continue down the current path to another dark age.
So, I will, and history will judge your reaction to the following argument by whether you are stating it is true or false, or whether you’re stating that it’s a taboo, or that you merely disapprove. Worse, if you choose taboo or disapproval, and/or some sort of fraudulent argument, then you have by that demonstration selected yourself out of the jury as incapable of juridical decidability, political participation, and selected yourself for prosecution as well.
The only question is whether the argument is true or not. And if it is true then what to do about it.
No more lies