Author: Curt Doolittle

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

    QUICK ANSWER: [A]ny 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). LONG ANSWER: [L]ook, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

    [I]n 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.

  • 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.

    [I]n 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?

    [W]ell, 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.

  • Why Is Propertarianism’s Explanatory Power So Important?

    [W]ell, 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.

  • He Who Fights Regardless of Rank Is A Brother In Arms

    [S]eek out combat: Intellectual, romantic, social, economic, and physical. Not to win, but to improve until you can no longer find a way to lose. Love the fight. Revel in it. It’s your heritage. Celebrate it. Heroes all – whether words, heart, work, money, stick, spear, sword or rifle. He who fights regardless of rank is a brother in arms.

  • He Who Fights Regardless of Rank Is A Brother In Arms

    [S]eek out combat: Intellectual, romantic, social, economic, and physical. Not to win, but to improve until you can no longer find a way to lose. Love the fight. Revel in it. It’s your heritage. Celebrate it. Heroes all – whether words, heart, work, money, stick, spear, sword or rifle. He who fights regardless of rank is a brother in arms.

  • Why Aren’t There More Female Directors

    [T]op 100 films (directed by women) – a list by minalex The problem is that there is only one money making director on that list that can compete with men as a rule rather than as an outlier, and that’s KB. It’s not about whether you like the movie. It’s about whether people will drive, fill up the gas, get a date, drive more, park, walk, buy tickets, grab something at the snack bar, watch a movie, go for a drink or food after the movie, drive the date home, drive home. If you cant get someone to do that it’s not a movie. It’s a daydream. It’s not business its recreation. If you want to make it as a woman director, follow the advice we got in film school: shoot a trailer, shoot a sex scene (yeah, that’s what we were taught – it’s hard to do), shoot a car chase, shoot a horror movie that doesn’t make people laugh at you, and blow people away with how much emotion you created with how little resources. A drama doesn’t take skill in managing the audience experience. Then make the case you will make money. After all. That’s the business. Men are more likely to trust men. Men are more likely to take risks. Men are more likely to lose health, life, family and home for their work. Men are more likely the high performing outliers. We invest in who we trust. So there is a bias toward men by men for completely logical reasons: evidence. What I remember hearing from women all the time was “I want to make a movie at my pace with my aesthetics, on the budget I need to do that”. Made me cringe. There are thousands of guys out there willing to make a movie that makes money at whatever pace the money requires. You gotta get people out onto the street and into the theatre, you’re competing with video games, and the internet, not other movies. The test is not whether one movie is better than another. Its whether people will choose to go to your movie during it’s first weekend over video games, Netflix, the internet and whatever else they can choose to do. Enough complaining from me. Just tired of dealing with bias claims in all walks of life when the problem is trust and evidence. If women need to make movies because they’re women then raise money and build a studio to do it. If you can’t get into business raising your own money, than that’s just empirical. If you can’t stay in business, then that’s just empirical. Its just what it is. Movie making is an extreme right of the curve high risk business. It’s gambling. Some people do it for love at great personal cost, often, if not most often, experiencing tragic failure. Other people do it because they know how to make money at it. And others are willing to burn life, health, family, friends, and every cent they have to make it happen. And that inspires trust. The kind of trust you give budget to.

  • Why Aren’t There More Female Directors

    [T]op 100 films (directed by women) – a list by minalex The problem is that there is only one money making director on that list that can compete with men as a rule rather than as an outlier, and that’s KB. It’s not about whether you like the movie. It’s about whether people will drive, fill up the gas, get a date, drive more, park, walk, buy tickets, grab something at the snack bar, watch a movie, go for a drink or food after the movie, drive the date home, drive home. If you cant get someone to do that it’s not a movie. It’s a daydream. It’s not business its recreation. If you want to make it as a woman director, follow the advice we got in film school: shoot a trailer, shoot a sex scene (yeah, that’s what we were taught – it’s hard to do), shoot a car chase, shoot a horror movie that doesn’t make people laugh at you, and blow people away with how much emotion you created with how little resources. A drama doesn’t take skill in managing the audience experience. Then make the case you will make money. After all. That’s the business. Men are more likely to trust men. Men are more likely to take risks. Men are more likely to lose health, life, family and home for their work. Men are more likely the high performing outliers. We invest in who we trust. So there is a bias toward men by men for completely logical reasons: evidence. What I remember hearing from women all the time was “I want to make a movie at my pace with my aesthetics, on the budget I need to do that”. Made me cringe. There are thousands of guys out there willing to make a movie that makes money at whatever pace the money requires. You gotta get people out onto the street and into the theatre, you’re competing with video games, and the internet, not other movies. The test is not whether one movie is better than another. Its whether people will choose to go to your movie during it’s first weekend over video games, Netflix, the internet and whatever else they can choose to do. Enough complaining from me. Just tired of dealing with bias claims in all walks of life when the problem is trust and evidence. If women need to make movies because they’re women then raise money and build a studio to do it. If you can’t get into business raising your own money, than that’s just empirical. If you can’t stay in business, then that’s just empirical. Its just what it is. Movie making is an extreme right of the curve high risk business. It’s gambling. Some people do it for love at great personal cost, often, if not most often, experiencing tragic failure. Other people do it because they know how to make money at it. And others are willing to burn life, health, family, friends, and every cent they have to make it happen. And that inspires trust. The kind of trust you give budget to.

  • We All Weaponize Something Or Other…

    [I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.