Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548089728 Timestamp) IT’S THE AGE OF LIES THAT’S HARD TO OVERCOME – PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T THAT DIFFICULT by Neil A. Bucklew I am a working class person; 10 years in the marines; general labor almost all of my life. i study math and science and tech as a hobby. In no way could anyone consider me a genius. I do not have much trouble understanding Curt at all. I merely have to check some sources on things I have little knowledge in. It has been said we live in an age of mysticism. but that is a euphemism for lying. we live in an age of lies. we live in a cult of escalating lies, and have done so for over a century. holding on to lies makes understanding truth more difficult. You do not have to have a giant brain or iq to understand propertarianism is. just stop lying to yourself. lies are information that take processing time. You don’t let them in your computer, so don’t let them in your head.

    (CD: I think the issue that makes the difference is life experience. Military and work with common folk is educational in ways that the academy, bureaucracy, and white collar privilege create ignorance.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548182859 Timestamp) ONLY REASON NOT TO GUT TALEB BEFORE NOW WAS UTILITARIAN. Now it’s time to take him down. Let moly make the correlative argument and I’ll make the causal argument and explain what taleb got wrong, why his project is a failure, and why he writes as he does in the grammars that he does, and why he ridicules the people that he does.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548182316 Timestamp) LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR: “TALEB’S PROJECT FAILED.” And it failed because he is a racist against whites, and that is the origin of his entire argument. He hates the moral people that he profited from scamming.

  • (FB 1548181922 Timestamp) DO I GET A PRIZE FOR BEING BLOCKED BY TALEB? (Stefan M

    (FB 1548181922 Timestamp) DO I GET A PRIZE FOR BEING BLOCKED BY TALEB? (Stefan Molyneux )

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548104523 Timestamp) SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts. —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism. An authority must command a dogma. Logic cannot be otherwise. Falsification cannot be otherwise. You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so. —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby “Define meta-logical truths” (There aren’t any) —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.) To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons. —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that. At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful. I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”— If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position, The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear. Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism. And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment. -Cheers 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548089728 Timestamp) IT’S THE AGE OF LIES THAT’S HARD TO OVERCOME – PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T THAT DIFFICULT by Neil A. Bucklew I am a working class person; 10 years in the marines; general labor almost all of my life. i study math and science and tech as a hobby. In no way could anyone consider me a genius. I do not have much trouble understanding Curt at all. I merely have to check some sources on things I have little knowledge in. It has been said we live in an age of mysticism. but that is a euphemism for lying. we live in an age of lies. we live in a cult of escalating lies, and have done so for over a century. holding on to lies makes understanding truth more difficult. You do not have to have a giant brain or iq to understand propertarianism is. just stop lying to yourself. lies are information that take processing time. You don’t let them in your computer, so don’t let them in your head.

    (CD: I think the issue that makes the difference is life experience. Military and work with common folk is educational in ways that the academy, bureaucracy, and white collar privilege create ignorance.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548262235 Timestamp) —“Much of leftism is about projection and subversion. Leftist beta soyboys are very much lacking in the sack, and their women know it. Also, women tend to badmouth one’s sexual status and performance when disagreed with, especially if they can deceive themselves about it (over the internet, everyone is an incel). The other reason is that it’s a cheap shot, literally below the belt, which makes a right-winger pause with shock in what ought be a serious discussion of policy.”— Nikola Dzhilvidzhiev

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548213602 Timestamp) —“You’ve been repeating that Rothbard is a liar recently though in the past you said he couldn’t have been a liar, just mistaken. What’s the lie?”— This is one of those deceptively simple questions on its face that once deflated and operationalized makes you question the frame in which we ask the original question. It depends on point of demarcation of agency vs tradition, intuition vs biology. … I(we) use a higher standard of intent: failure of due diligence. Do women know what they do when they sh-t test or is it biology? Did Rothbard and mises? What about those men that invented the tradition of lying (pilpul) both operated under? Is a carrier of a lie responsible? In law, one causes harm or not and is responsible for failure of due diligence, not intent, and must pay restitution for the failure of due diligence. If intentional an additional punishment is levied on top of the restitution. However the entire marx/rothbard/trotsky-strauss … set of anti-white movements, consist of a continuation of undermining the host civilization (‘revolutionary spirit’), the use of sophism(pilpul) and critique (straw manning an undermining) and authoritarianism (monopoly class interests) in opposition to western tripartism. So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome? So which standard of lie, or set of standards of lying, are we to use? The question is harder than at first appears. How could a man of that learning err so widely? Is he a fool or a liar, or a fraud? Women engage in conspiracies of common interest when they undermine, to the detriment of the host males. What does this say about rothbard mises, hoppe et al?

  • (FB 1548209928 Timestamp) (read and understand)

    (FB 1548209928 Timestamp) (read and understand)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548266844 Timestamp) WHY WE FAILED So you see, the reasons the west could not defeat the rise of pseudoscience (marxism) and sophism (postmodernism) and denialism (feminism) is because of: (1) we spoke in religious, philosophical, and moral middle class language, and; (2) because our group strategy and reason for success is eugenic,; (3) our organizing principle is actually our law (martial and judicial class) and tripartism, not our philosophy(middle class) universal or religion (administrative class) universal; (4) we lacked understanding of our organizing principle and its difference from other civilizations; had no practice in using it against administrative and middle class moralisms, sophims, supernaturalisms, and pseudosciences, and; (5) universal enfranchisement in a single house majoritarian democracy is logically and empirically counter to the tradition of our law (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty), our group strategy (sovereignty, tripartism, commons and eugenic evolution). In retrospect it isn’t complicated but in the process it was chaos. But now we know. Truth is enough.