Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Philip Saunders Frames The Narrative Correctly

    [F]rom Philip:

    “The operating philosophy of the 20th century was relativism in the domain of ideas, combined with universalism in the realm of institutions. This expressed itself in the subjectivistic movements of modernism and postmodernism, combined with the socio-economic trends of communism, fascism and statist neoliberalism. “The 21st century is the polar opposite. With unlimited access to information and global connectivity, we’re moving towards more universalism in the domain of ideas, culture and philosophy (which is not to be misunderstood for homogeneity, but rather the belief that there are universal standards by which ideologies or cultures can be judged or disputed), combined with relativism in the domain of institutions. “

  • Philip Saunders Frames The Narrative Correctly

    [F]rom Philip:

    “The operating philosophy of the 20th century was relativism in the domain of ideas, combined with universalism in the realm of institutions. This expressed itself in the subjectivistic movements of modernism and postmodernism, combined with the socio-economic trends of communism, fascism and statist neoliberalism. “The 21st century is the polar opposite. With unlimited access to information and global connectivity, we’re moving towards more universalism in the domain of ideas, culture and philosophy (which is not to be misunderstood for homogeneity, but rather the belief that there are universal standards by which ideologies or cultures can be judged or disputed), combined with relativism in the domain of institutions. “

  • ON SO CALLED BANNED BOOKS THAT ARE MERELY INCOMPETENT (re: RT story on supposedl

    ON SO CALLED BANNED BOOKS THAT ARE MERELY INCOMPETENT

    (re: RT story on supposedly banned books that aren’t)

    Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) Marxist Critique in the form of Conspiracy Theories that can be explained as rational political incentives necessary to constrain the murderous expansion of Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) Marxist World Communism, by immoral people who have no moral intuitions, and no moral tradition, and no history of their own ability to hold territory against encroaching evil.

    Some of the easiest markers of ‘critique’ are (a) the heaping of undue praise not met by market evidence, (b) the use of loaded and framed language rather than the analysis of rational incentives of the individuals involved (c) the use of moral argument instead of economic argument, (d) emphasis on the criticism of competing ideas rather than defense of the proposed idea.

    The person being interviewed demonstrates all four of these (a, b,c, d) methods of Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) Marxist Critique, as well as borderline schizophrenic paranoia.

    Books are marginalized because they demonstrate leaps of logic only possible for the borderline schizophrenic. That is because conspiracy theories that can be explained by Occam’s Razor as the result of rational incentives by normal moral people, can ONLY be analyzed as does the speaker and the books’ authors as the bias of borderline schizophrenic minds.

    I’ll tell you all you need to know about the CIA: It’s a bunch of nerds trying to collect gossip and rumor in order to prevent the politicians from fantasizing just like this speaker does. The purpose of intelligence is to CONSTRAIN political action whenever possible. And that’s what the nerds pretty much do.

    This man will undoubtably be ignored just as all the books he mentions, as well as all his ilk are. Because they’re laughable.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 06:44:00 UTC

  • SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 05:35:00 UTC

  • VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY It’s very simple. Is the information sufficien

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/07/30/a-very-short-course-in-decidability/A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY

    It’s very simple. Is the information sufficient or must I add it? (The Axiom of Choice)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 05:34:00 UTC

  • SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING (worth repeating)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 05:33:00 UTC

  • THREE CULTS The cult of consumption (progressive-feminine)- Gossip – Optimism Th

    THREE CULTS

    The cult of consumption (progressive-feminine)- Gossip – Optimism

    The cult of production (libertarian-masculine) – Exchange – Utility

    The cult of saving (conservative-masculine) – Force – Pessimism

    The intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, labor.and advocacy.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 05:31:00 UTC

  • THE CHURCH OF TED Why does TED function as a ‘Church’ for progressives? (Because

    THE CHURCH OF TED

    Why does TED function as a ‘Church’ for progressives?

    (Because TED sells the promise of infinite bounty – consumption without constraint).

    And there are no heterosexual males involved in its production.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-02 05:27:00 UTC

  • Yes, I Know That Sometimes You Need To Read, and Re-Read…

    [Y]ep. You gotta read, re-read, and think about some of the stuff I write. Sorry. I do too. Writing a proof, which is most of what I try to do, does not mean that I understand all the implications of what I write when I write it. I often go back and say “wow… I wrote that? Without the aid of hallucinogens?” At the time I wrote it I was doing what you would think of as mathematics or engineering. I don’t always see the implications of it until I review it later. The degree to which I discover things while attempting to construct proofs is not easy for others to see. But I tend to stumble upon insights I tend only to vaguely intuit, and only understand as I am writing the logical consequences. This is what Mises meant but could not articulate. I wish I could talk to him for just an hour or two. Same with Hayek.

  • Yes, I Know That Sometimes You Need To Read, and Re-Read…

    [Y]ep. You gotta read, re-read, and think about some of the stuff I write. Sorry. I do too. Writing a proof, which is most of what I try to do, does not mean that I understand all the implications of what I write when I write it. I often go back and say “wow… I wrote that? Without the aid of hallucinogens?” At the time I wrote it I was doing what you would think of as mathematics or engineering. I don’t always see the implications of it until I review it later. The degree to which I discover things while attempting to construct proofs is not easy for others to see. But I tend to stumble upon insights I tend only to vaguely intuit, and only understand as I am writing the logical consequences. This is what Mises meant but could not articulate. I wish I could talk to him for just an hour or two. Same with Hayek.