Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • SORRY, NO ONE WILL EVER “DESTROY” ME IN HONEST ARGUMENT. WON’T HAPPEN. —“E Mic

    SORRY, NO ONE WILL EVER “DESTROY” ME IN HONEST ARGUMENT. WON’T HAPPEN.

    —“E Michael Jones [would destroy] Curt’s sandcastle he spent all day building”—

    Dream on buddy. 😉 Never, ever, happen.

    Why? Which was the greater influence on the uniqueness of, and success of, the west? The Military, The Engineers and Metalsmiths, the Entrepreneurs(risk takers), The Law, The Philosophers, or the Church?

    We SURVIVED Christianity. We were not made by it.

    You see, choosing one grammar (model) allows cherry picking and justification. But choosing ALL models doesn’t. Victor Davis Hanson is right. “The Other Greeks”. The only criticism is, that evidence shows, the greek aristocracy were western Aryans practicing ancient aryan sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, contractualism, and law.

    It all begins with the militia.

    And the militia begins with the Yamna and Cattle Raiding.

    Our militia order survived christianity. The farther north the more it survived. The farther south the more it was defeated by the church’s corruption.

    That which one perceives as good (survivor bias) may not in fact be good. I this case, while religions (myths, feasts, festivals) are in general a good thing. Abrahamic religions bring forth dark ages, ignorance, death, and decline. No matter how many men in those times try to desperately preserve our ancestral knowledge. No matter how many needles you find in christian, jewish, and muslim haystacks, they will never ever reach anything close to the achievements of western man in the ancient and modern worlds. EVER.

    The Christians were destroyers – we just managed to conquer the Church when it’s corruption was not longer tolerable. The Jews were destroyers and still are – by undermining every (109) host country they have been evicted from. The muslims were and are destroyers and still are – by raiding, invasion, and population replacement. Abrahamic religions are the greatest evil ever to befall mankind other than the great plagues and natural disasters. Not even the mongols come close – because they were only greedy – not hateful.

    Truth is enough. The Law is enough. Imposition of the Law by organized violence is enough. The organized violence of the militia of men who would be sovereign is enough.

    That is the lesson of history.

    See The Following Walk Through History:

    ==============================

    David Reich’s “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”

    JP Mallory’s “In Search of the Indo-Europeans”

    David Anthony’s “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World”

    Eric Cline’s “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed”

    Karen Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions”, “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence”

    Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”, “The Western Way of War”, “The Soul of Battle”, “Carnage and Culture”, “The Father of Us All”,

    John Keegan’s “The History of Warfare”,

    Martin Van Crevld’s “The Culture of War”

    William Lind’s “4th Generation Warfare Handbook”

    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 16:34:00 UTC

  • THE FRAGILITY OF CURRENT STOIC RESTORATION MOVEMENT —“Curt, it looks like the

    THE FRAGILITY OF CURRENT STOIC RESTORATION MOVEMENT

    —“Curt, it looks like the Daily Stoic has taken a Left Turn. Can you take a look?”—

    One of my followers has complained about what she perceived as a ‘turn to the left’ by the Daily Stoic. She asked if I would investigate, since I am advocating the restoration of stoicism as required education – a restoration of our ancient personal religion so to speak.

    My followers are unlikely to need training in stoicism in large part because they already practice the habits under indirect guise. Their interest and mine is political, economic, and evolutionary. The cognitive discipline (habits) Stoicism provides, produces superior polities.

    Those polities are superior because they are less dependent upon falsehoods to govern. So the direction of the Stoic Restoration has more than trivial importance to me, and to them.

    But what troubles me when I survey your (collective) approach, which is the imbalance between defensive self help and detachment – the trap fallen into by the Buddhists – and disciplined self-authoring in the excellences (‘virtues’), and in achieving one’s life’s goals (change).

    In other words, without the COMPETITION between rational distance from your emotions, and pursuit of achievements in life, all one does is recreate abrahamic and buddhist detachment from reality. This produces no excellences, only defenses – submission to circumstance.

    Western civilization was unique in that we developed Heroism, Individual Sovereignty, Truth and Duty, The Natural Law (of tort), and Markets in all aspects of personal, academic, intellectual, commercial, civic, and political life – avoiding theocratic or bureaucratic monopoly.

    It was this set of traits that allowed us to develop all the paradigms (disciplines) all of which were united only by those few criteria above. This meant that law > jury > reason > empiricism > science > technology > medicine could evolve …

    … and with them we could – in the ancient and modern if not medieval worlds – drag mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the victimization by uncaring nature.

    The means by which we achieved all of this was competition (markets). And the means by which the stoic virtues can be achieved without causing the same catastrophe that reverses the western achievement, is by both increased independence from our animal intuitions, and …

    … application of that mind, emotions, and body, freed of those limits, to achieve the heroic at whatever scale of heroism the individual is able – no matter how large or small. To make the most of the one life we have available to us, in a manner must desirable to us.

    Leaving this competition between unsaid, is to leave stoicism incomplete. And to fall into the errors we have seen in prior eras, which slowly cause a people to descend into what is emotionally comforting but in demonstration of consequence indifferent from nihilism.

    In Sincerity and With Affection

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute.

    ( From twitter stream: https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1068232096496390144)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 14:55:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin “The commons” was initially used (or at least at the time of corp

    by Bill Joslin

    “The commons” was initially used (or at least at the time of corporatism in Germany) to mean the people. We are a product of the commons and a part of the commons – the primary part – the core.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 13:18:00 UTC

  • IMPERIALISM VS COLONIALISM (from elsewhere) I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job.

    IMPERIALISM VS COLONIALISM

    (from elsewhere)

    I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. It’s a dirty job policing sophists. But someone’s gotta do it.

    im·pe·ri·al·ism

    [imˈpirēəˌlizəm]

    NOUN

    a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

    co·lo·ni·al·ism

    [kəˈlōnēəˌlizəm]

    NOUN

    the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 12:16:00 UTC

  • NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS (repost) a) legit criticisms of my work,

    NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS

    (repost)

    a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not.

    It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism.

    The correct criticisms of my work are:

    1 – it’s not published (while it’s all up on line, it’s not in book format, or edited, or published, so fellow professionals can’t justly criticize it – that’s true).

    2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.)

    3 – The propertarian project consists of multiple components. I conflate (not on purpose) (a) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with (b) political advocacy (market government) with (c) the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism.

    4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. I will work on that after the technical work is done.

    5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it *is* actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.

    6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision.

    7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst.

    But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.

    And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions.

    Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context.

    In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 08:02:00 UTC

  • well that doesnt even tell me we are referring to the same thing

    well that doesnt even tell me we are referring to the same thing.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 01:49:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067958688122658817

    Reply addressees: @frederick_3210

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067957622278692864


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067957622278692864

  • what about capitalism?

    what about capitalism?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 01:44:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067957454074511361

    Reply addressees: @frederick_3210

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067957071390363648


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067957071390363648

  • so what would we disagree about?

    so what would we disagree about?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 01:27:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067953181378924544

    Reply addressees: @dagmar_schmitt @myth20c

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067951587002245120


    IN REPLY TO:

    @GudistGrug

    @curtdoolittle E. Michael Jones, @myth20c had an interesting conversation with him here: https://t.co/SEG330REBn

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067951587002245120

  • “I would love to see EMJ destroy you in a debate.”— Twittiot Who is EMJ?

    —“I would love to see EMJ destroy you in a debate.”— Twittiot

    Who is EMJ?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 00:57:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067945644759891969

  • (I’m up to debate anyone worthy of it.)

    (I’m up to debate anyone worthy of it.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 00:54:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067944846290296832

    Reply addressees: @frederick_3210

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067942554015027200


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1067942554015027200