1.6-The Pattern of History · 3.5-Testimony

The Answer To The Peterson Harris Debate

(philosophy)(science)(truth)(decidability)(western uniqueness)

The current debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris over the constitution of truth propositions and whether or not they can be used as a means of decidability between frames of reference has raised the most important issue of our time to a discourse between public intellectuals who the citizenry might learn something substantial from.  However, both Peterson and Harris lack the vocabulary and arguments with which to resolve their conflict. In this short article, I’ve provided the terminology, argument, and judgement for both of their positions.



1 – For the most ancient of reasons, by accident of geography, and accident of technology, the West alone relies on Sovereignty as its organizing principle (means decidability of last resort – or on archaic parlance: metaphysical value judgment.).

2 – Choosing Sovereignty requires natural law (perfect reciprocity) to resolve disputes (via-negativa).

3 – And conversely choosing Sovereignty requires markets in everything to organize cooperation. (via-positiva) (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies)

4 – Markets allow for cooperation on means despite different ends, given different abilities, different resources, and different specializations.

5 – The combination of Sovereignty, Natural Common Law, Markets in Everything, and the universal indoctrination of men into ‘reporting‘ testimony in militia service, allowed the west to adapt and evolve faster than the rest.

We (the West)  are not always first, but we are fastest at defeating the red queen. This is the origin of western man. Not Hegelian Literary ‘Spirit’ but a group evolutionary strategy for those who combined horse, bronze, and wheel to create a social, economic, and political order we call aristocracy on the Eurasian Plain, where agrarian production was widely distributed and difficult (prohibitively expensive) to organize into a central administration as did the flood river valleys. And where nothing – not language, not literature and law, not religion, or not class, not power, was conflated.


1 – Philosophies allow for the production of argument and decidability within a domain.

2 – The search for Truth seeks the production of argument and decidability regardless of domain.

3 – Deflationary truth allows us to construct truthful arguments regardless of domain.

4 – Deflationary, operational, and promissory (truthful) arguments can be warrantied for due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – as well as demand productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. Using this form of truth, it is extremely difficult for false argument to survive due diligence against all dimensions of the human ability to reason.

5 – Science is not a positive, but a negative research program: the means by which we warranty that we have eliminated ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit from our speech.

6 – Ergo science when applied to both categorically deterministic (physical) and categorically dynamic (heuristic social / cognitive) disciplines functions as the means of decidability regardless of domain. i.e.: the discipline of science when sufficient in scope of due diligence, produces truth candidates regardless of a division of inter-temporal perception, experience, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. i.e.: where in a society of markets (choice) in everything.


1 – In each era of transformation the “truthful” eugenic aristocracy has been opposed by the dysgenic practitioners of deceit:

a) The Bronze Age Origin of heroism/paternalism/Aristocracy – the invention of oral authoritarian religion.

b) The Iron Age Origin of Reason – the invention of written, conflationary, authoritarian – scriptural religion as law, distributed by organize religion.

c) The Steel Age of Empiricism (bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson,) – was opposed by the invention of printed, argumentative rebellion: (Rousseau/Moral, Kant/Rational, Mendelssohn/Legal.)

d) The Age of Automation and the reformation of the social sciences ( Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Menger, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Nietzche, and the Romanticists ) Was opposed by the invention of pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt School, Mises, Keynes, Rand/Rothbard, Strauss and The host of Postmoderns, and Macro Economists.)

2 – In each era, despite the fact that humanity is transformed by the aristocratic (martial), order, the opposition generally seems to ‘win’ through numbers. This causes anything from a stagnation to a dark age.

3 – The challenge of our time is the industrialization of lying made possibly by automation and media in the pseudoscientific era. Combined with the failure of the west to advance ‘science’ (Truthfulness) sufficiently to suppress the (desirable) lies.

4 – The solution to the industrialization of lying is the demand for warranty of due diligence in law, economics, and politics in the  information we bring to market – just as we require warranty of due diligence in the products and services we submit to the market (a commons).

5 – The returns on the suppression of the industrialization of lying by operationalism will be greater than the returns on the returns on the suppression of mysticism by empiricism. every lie or falsehood produces a friction against human reason, just as every atomic rule created a greater friction than was produced by the transformation to general rules (science).

6 – Definition of PSEUDOSCIENCE: Followers know that I use a rigorous definition of what constitutes scientific speech and therefore truthful speech. My use of the term ‘pseudoscience’ refers to the addition of or subtraction of information that must be complete but unloaded in order to render decidability across contexts. Scientific speech requires due diligence against subtraction(cherry picking) and addition (loading, framing, overloading). To perform due diligence of truthfulness requires we test each possible dimension of speech.

1 – categorical consistency – Identity – non-conflation
2 – logical consistency – internal consistency, non-contradiction.
3 – empirical consistency – external correspondence – falsification
4 – existential consistency – operational language – consistency.
5 – reciprocity-consistency – moral reciprocity of Property in Toto.
6 – scope consistency – full accounting and specified limits.

These questions are easily testable in a court of law. Any essay, article, paper, contract, or constitution may be written in these terms. The intuitionist/operationalist movements failed (unfortunately) because they were discovered in categorically static math, logic, and physical science, where they are of less utility, but neither discovered nor applied in heuristic and therefore categorically dynamic sciences, where they are necessary: law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy.

What I have tried to briefly suggest here is that grammar and terminology alone are nearly sufficient to reverse the industrialization of lying in law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. (See research on EPrime for example).  And that extension of the involuntary warranty of due diligence that we currently apply to products and services can be extended to all market, commons, and political speech.  We are saturated with lies and falsehoods, and they are cheap to produce and expensive to defeat. This is the reason for the success of the era of pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, and outright lying.


1 – In the second great transformation (the ancient world) we developed three attempts at decidability with different appeals to coercive decidability: Supernatural (religious) Mythic and Theological, Ideal/Supernormal(Platonic) Literary, and Demonstrated(existential) Historical. The Supernatural attempts to solve the problem of authority by appeal to a superhuman deity. The supernormal by appeal to ideals or utopias. The historical, by appeal to demonstrated existence: survival from competition. It is the sovereign, existential, that survives competition that comprises the uniqueness of western thought: we preserve the right to choose: sovereignty – for there is no authority among sovereigns.

2 – Peterson’s conflation in the literary (Platonic) tradition is anti western and unnecessary. It is the competition between conflationary narrative analogy, and deflationary operational criticism that assists us in identifying truth candidates. All civilizations that practice conflation stagnate. Literature is sufficient for the loading and framing and experiential without resorting to truth claims. Conflation of the good, true, and beautiful is a literary technique, and is helpful if not necessary for the immature or unable mind. But only if the mind is also taught how to truth test conflationary statements such that the true, the good, and the beautiful can be tested, so that the citizenry can distinguish between truth and lie, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. It is through this method of conflation that the culture wars were conducted.

3 – Harris‘ cherry-picks in the pseudoscientific tradition, fails to account for changes in state of the full scope of capital, and the lost opportunities for productive voluntary exchange. (This will take some explaining – outside of the scope of this paper.) Most frequently he gives parasitic action a pass if he agrees with it. Humans accumulate capital, and humans cooperate to accumulate capital more readily. And humans evolve cooperative social orders to accumulate capital even more rapidly – by the production of commons. Harris’ presumed ‘goods’ are cosmopolitan, destroy accumulated intergenerational capital, and produce eugenic outcomes that over time destroy the possibility of not only choice, and prosperity, but of transcendence (evolution). Reality is not kind. There are no free rides. And that is an uncomfortable, scientific, truth. We must continue to defeat the red queen.

Science (truth) rarely tells us what we desire, it merely gives us power to choose that which is desirable in fact over that which is desirable in pretense, or that which is a mere deception.

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

(BTW: One or two years ago Harris issued a challenge as to whether morality could be scientifically expressed. I lacked the time (or inclination) to do so, but it can be (easily and thoroughly and irrefutably). And it is just as dehumanizing as the work of Darwin and Copernicus.)

1.6-The Pattern of History · 2.8-Evolution · 3.7-Evolutionary Strategy · Uncategorized

The Future Is A Choice: Choose to Rule


We could take a very different perspective: “They are our minorities. They are our Africans, our Jews, our Caribbeans, our Mestizos. We have paid a high price for them. Under the right circumstances they make excellent wage labor. All we must do is return to our ancient industry of Ruling the Lesser Peoples. It is an industry we excel at and have profited from for thousands of years – much to the benefit of not only the ruled but all mankind. To rule for profit is just a choice. But to make that choice we must admit that our ancestors the aristocracy were right and we were wrong.”

You see, the future is just a choice. Rule and profit. Or be rule parasitically.

1.6-The Pattern of History · 2.8-Evolution · Definitions

Definition: Paedomorphic Evolution

It’s called Paedomorphic Evolution: Genetic Pacification selecting for lower maturity – the “juvenile”. One of which is Gracilization: loss of bone mass. The ‘strange’ sexual interests of the Japanese (and the asians) and our men’s attraction to Asian women, is very likely due to the greater paedomorphism of the asians and the lower levels of testosterone. The east and the west have been engaging in genetic pacification over a long long time. The rest of the world has not. Because they were unable to reduce the bottom population.

1.2-Uniqueness · 1.6-The Pattern of History

Q&A: “British civilization viz a viz the ancient Greek civilization?”

Q&A: “Curt: How would you compare the merits of the British civilization viz a viz the accomplishments of the ancient Greek civilization?”

The Aegean vs The North Sea
Reason vs Empiricism
Slave-hold Manors vs Manorialism
Athens/Sparta vs England/Germany
Rome vs the United States
Bronze vs steel
Trireme vs warship

In other words, there isnt any difference.

Athens and sparta exahusted each other leaving rome like england and germany exhausted each other leaving america.

The question is whether we spend another thousand years trying to restore our civilization, or we do it today.

1.2-Uniqueness · 1.6-The Pattern of History

Q&A: Social Capital In Europe?

Aug 24, 2016 2:23pm

—“Would you also say, sir, that Europe’s Scientific and industrial Revolutions were the result of this high trust/social capital, as opposed to the prevailing narrative that colonialism = industrial/scientific revolution? It’s always been a theory of mine that social capital is what allowed Europe and Western Civilization to accelerate ahead of other Civs, which runs contrary to the Guns, Germs and Steel narrative”—

Well, the tradition was there in the 700’s when the Friesians started immigrating to land in England. And Roger Bacon in 1200 started a tradition that  Francis Bacon brought to fruition in the 1500’s. Bacon had studied this contractualism and invented empiricism. And starting about the same time they started aggressively hanging vast numbers of troublemakers, and restoring the trade that would become the Hansa (Germanic) civilization.

So my view is that the colonial expansion ARRESTED the growth of germanic north sea civilization, and that while there was amazing wealth generated in England, France, holland, Spain, and Portugal by this switch from north sea to Atlantic, that the reason for the division between germanic and English civilizations that culminated in the world wars, was this catastrophe we call colonialism. (Durant has the same opinion).

Now, Americans speak English, but we separated from England before England split from germanic civilization. The majority of American whites are from germanic decent. And the majority of anglo whites are from pre-Germanic split. So that is why we have the language of the English and a culture more Prussian-like the germans.

And in my opinion, from what I’ve seen throughout history, as far as I can tell, the industrial revolution would have occurred in northern Europe just as it nearly occurred in Athens. England blew up just like Athens for the same reason – overreach.

If you have an empirical society, with enough literacy, and enough cultural capital, you will eventually produce innovations, since there is no opportunity to survive and compete by parasitism.

In other words, if we create rule of law we will continue to evolve. We have no choice. It’s the societies that dont create incremental suppression through natural law that stagnate.

Becuase it is too easy to develop stagnating-corruption and parasitism.

1.6-The Pattern of History · Uncategorized

Specialization In Everything

Athens indeed gets the credit for what were often spartan victories. And that is because navies (hamiltonian ethics) are more rewarding than armies (jeffersonian ethics).

And that western europe (france, italy, and britan) had prosperous navies only because germany held the territories against invasion.

And that rome was prosperous as a naval and trading power that fought with marines, but failed as an army because the cost of holding land was too great.

So my position (like most of my positions) relies upon the observation that specialization produces better armies, navies, and prosperity. Just as american entrepreneurship, british banking and finance, italian arts, german engineering, and russian military produce specialties that no one could produce on its own.