Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • STOREY TRIES TO PULL THE STAKE FROM THE ROTHBARDIAN VAMPIRE AND FAILS. —“The s

    STOREY TRIES TO PULL THE STAKE FROM THE ROTHBARDIAN VAMPIRE AND FAILS.

    —“The state, being a judicial monopolist, is an irrational system of government because of the self-contradictory violation of private property rights required to establish or maintain it. “—

    That’s illogical (irrational) since no rights can exist until an insurer is brought into material existence to insure them. There exist no property rights until they are constructed. We may NEED possessions, the norm of property, and rights of restitution from an insurer of property, but no rights can be brought into existence without an insurer capable of de-facto insuring them.

    —“Praxeological jurisprudence and the doctrine of dialogical estoppel provide the rational framework to show that, where there is incentive for rational consistency in the law, estopping the activities of state government and, rather, employing private judicial services is the only rationally viable option.”—

    The value of constructing increasingly competitive cooperation requires the suppression of the imposition of costs upon the investments of others so that retaliation is avoided, and all individuals must limit themselves to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality. Otherwise the incentive of the strong is to prey upon the weak through killing, takings, or serfdom or enslavement rather than cooperation.

    —“rational consistency in the law,”—

    The purpose of rational consistency in the law is to prevent the jurist from favoritism, and to remove incentives to enter into conflict, so that extra-judicial violence and retaliation cycles are prevented.

    —“private judicial services”—

    There is a vast difference between an independent, private, professional judiciary and a polylogical law. All polylogical law societies have failed. They cannot suppress sufficient desires for retaliation to eliminate demand for prior restraint, or the extermination of deviations from norms, or invasion by peoples with lower trust (allowing greater parasitism in law).

    The rest of the article is nonsense as well And here is why:

    1) you rely on praxeology, meaning, through sequential analysis of incentives and choices from them.

    2) you refrain from arguing your point praxeological, and instead do so ideally.

    In other words, your argument is ridiculous because it relies on one logic but demonstrates another. THIS IS HOW THE COSMOPOLITANS learned to lie from the practice of PILPUL (excuse making) in jewish law. The use of excuse making in christian doctrine (hermenutics).

    3) you are relying on the existence of an enforced order (state, normative law, tribal law, cult law) as a prior cause if you even mention the words Estoppel. In other words, you’re just repeating hoppe/what’s-his-name, in that you’re assuming a contract of cooperation at the point of negotiation (legal argument) when a state or equivalent must exist to construct the institution of property or demand rational discourse, or truth. Instead, we start with the permanent opportunity for predation, flight, or cooperation, and there exists no promise of truth or non-contradiction, or even rationality of argument – only a negotiation of demands, one of which is that if the negotiation fails, is violence.

    So your argument starts out with a pyramid of some combination of lie, error, and falsehood, as such all that yo produce from false premises is merely error.

    In other words. it’s a circular argument. A bit of sophomoric nonsense sold by rabbis, rothbard, hoppe and the like to simpletons indoctrinated into abrahamic fictionalism so deeply that they cannot but fall victim to it themselves.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    (Ps: libertinism is just common-property marxism. Another abrahamic fiction constructed of Pilpul (lies). Time to grow up. Marxism, Libertinism, Neoconservativsm are dead, and we are in the process of killing postmodernism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 16:17:00 UTC

  • BOOKS ON THE PRESS (left wing slant) The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in Amer

    http://observer.com/2017/01/these-books-explain-the-media-nightmare-we-are-supposedly-living-in/INTERESTING BOOKS ON THE PRESS

    (left wing slant)

    The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America by Daniel Boorstin In 1960, before talk radio, before Fox News or blogs, Boorstin wrote a scathing indictment of the deliberately false reality molded around us by our media culture. Consider the constant talk of “the narrative” in media, the way we cover premieres and press conferences. These are not real things—they become real only by nature of their media coverage. And the public plays its role in the farce. Boorstin was the Librarian at the Library of Congress—he knows his history and he knows what matters. You can’t read this book without beginning to see the ways you are manipulated by politicians and organizations on a daily basis.

    Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business / Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman The spiritual sequel to The Image is Amusing Ourselves to Death. Postman says that culture conforms to fit the constraints of its dominant cultural medium. In his era it was television—which meant compelling visual events, developing stories you must stay tuned for, it meant style and appearance over actionable information. You realize that the last thing we have to fear is a malicious Orwellian news industry, because what we have is so much worse: culture incentivized to be as shallow, fabricated and captivating as possible, at the expense of what is actually real or true or meaningful. Technopoly, Postman’s next book, is equally compelling; it tells us why the inventors of a technology are absolutely the worst people to listen to when it comes to deciding how to use it.

    The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser In The Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser warns of the danger of living in bubbles of personalization that reinforce and insulate our worldview. Pariser is a great media thinker and has also written some important work recently on fake news. The only criticism one might have of the filter bubble is that his creations, Moveon.org and Upworthy are hugely responsible for creating their own versions of the problem.

    Getting It Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism by W. Joseph Campbell The media loves to puncture every myth but its own. Even some of the most seminal books on media repeat easily disprovable myths like Hearst’s “you furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war,” Edward Morrow taking down McCarthy, the New York Times suppressing the Bay of Pigs and LBJ saying “We lost Cronkite, we lost Middle America.” Authors use them like filmmakers use well-known songs in nostalgic movies: instant, inarguable mood setters. But they are not true. Taking the time to destroy these false images is important work. It reminds you that the media can’t get its own history right, let alone the rest of the world’s. That it sees itself occupying a role in society and culture that it does not quite deserve. This will help you with your news diet today—and add a touch of salt to it. Campbell’s book on yellow journalism is also a great, evenhanded biography of the controversial moment in media time.

    Within the Context of No Context and My Pilgrim’s Progress: Media Studies, 1950-1998 by George W.S. Trow Rich Cohen described Trow’s work to me as half brilliant and half insane. I think that’s right. Within these pages are some of the most cogent analysis of the 50s, of our media culture, of what a world looks like when the current generation grew up on garbage television and no important traditions. Within the Context of No Context first appeared as an essay in the New Yorker—a rare instance for the magazine to devote a significant chunk to one single piece of writing—and was later published in book form. It is his best known work and examines the destructive effects of television on American culture; the book was later described as “a cold description of where things are going. There aren’t many books that are unafraid to be that negative.” My Pilgrim’s Progress analyzes the cultural state of the U.S. in the 1950’s and is a tough book to read, but I am glad I did.

    Winchell: Gossip, Power and the Culture of Celebrity by Neal Gabler I knew Walter Winchell’s name and I knew he was a famous journalist, but that’s it. I had no idea that he was unquestionably the most famous media figure of the 20th century (2/3 of American adults read his column daily. It was syndicated in 2,000 newspapers. Even FDR took his advice). I also had no idea that he was basically a monster. This biography is a fascinating look at the way that ambition and power eats at the human soul. It’s also a reminder that there have always been problems in the media and that fake news is not new. (In fact, something like 50% of his column was inaccurate or partly inaccurate). There was great stuff in this book on McCarthyism, Damon Runyon, the Roaring 20s and the Golden Age of Hollywood. I followed it up by reading Winchell’s autobiography, Winchell Exclusive. It was interesting to watch him essentially prove all the negative things said about him in the biography—he was vindictive, cruel, shallow, self-obsessed, but of course, also creative and compelling. Both are important reads for anyone in media. The other Stoic lesson for me in these two books was to read about all the gossip and the scandals of some of the most famous people in the world…and how almost none of them turned out to matter in anyway. A sobering reminder for sure. If you want a shorter read on Winchell the fictional take on him in Sweet Smell of Success: And Other Stories by Ernest Lehman is great (perhaps the greatest fictionalization of a journalist or PR person too—though I also love The Harder They Fall and All The King’s Men). This book is actually a collection of short stories, two of which are about Hunsucker, a ruthless and cruel journalist and the press agent who does his bidding. It’s wonderfully written because it was written by Ernest Lehman, who would go on to write the screenplays for “Hello Dolly,” “The King and I” and “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”

    News from Nowhere: Television and the News; Between Fact and Fiction: The Problem of Journalism; The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood by Edward J Epstein In Trust Me, I’m Lying I used economic reasons to explain why bloggers act the way they do. I could not have done this without the father of this line of thinking, Edward Jay Epstein. From his 1973 Harvard thesis, which was later published as News from Nowhere, that pioneered the study of network news (the first and last person to get access to their inner sanctum) to his wonderful books on the movie business, Epstein finds, exposes, and explains the hidden economic factors that determine the courses of entire industries. I followed in his footsteps for my book at almost every turn. I had the privilege of meeting him, which only increased my advocacy for his methods. I am morally obligated to press his books into your hands just as they were pressed into mine by my mentors.

    Lincoln and the Power of the Press: The War for Public Opinion by Harold Holzer Not very often do I find a book that combines the two things I have studied with great effort over the last few years: media and the Civil War. I was very excited to read this book and found it utterly fascinating (though admittedly not for everyone). As you can see from my much longer Observer piece about it there are a lot of parallels between Lincoln’s media environment and the toxic one we live in today. Then, as now, it’s the media who manipulates itself and often, a good president must in turn figure out how to play it, just to get back to even. If you want a slightly lighter take on the role of media during the Civil War, then you might really like Junius and Albert’s Adventures in the Confederacy: A Civil War Odyssey which is about two Civil War reporters taken prisoner during the battle of Vicksburg.

    It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News by Drew Curtis There are few people who have read more news stories than Drew Curtis, founder of Fark.com. Creating and running one of the web’s first and biggest news aggregators gave him one of the best perspectives you could hope for in a book about the media. Plus, he’s actually funny—not a boring, old and condescending media studies nerd. Everything you need to know about spotting, catching and protecting yourself from media fluff and sensationalism is in this book. Read it.

    Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann This is a seminal text in media studies and the first place to coin the term ‘manufacture of consent.” It is, like Sinclair’s The Brass Check, still relevant all these years later—there’s a reason James Carey considered it “the founding book of modern journalism.” Lippmann’s belief was that intellectuals and government had an important and essential role in shaping public opinion—and that if they were to fail in their job, the fabric of society crumbles. There is a lot of blow back today against the ‘elites’—Lippmann’s book explains why they matter. And what we’re seeing right now is a good example of what happens when their role is diminished (we get chaos).

    The Journalist and the Murderer by Janet Malcolm This book famously opens with “Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.” I would argue that this the first self-aware and self-critical book I’ve come across in all the reading I’ve done about media. We need more like it.

    Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky This book is like the works of Ayn Rand—if you don’t go any further after reading it, it arrests your development. Chomsky’s most important concept here is what he calls Tacit Collective Action. Media outlets, no matter their ideological positions, are shaped much more by their similarities as businesses and as a social clique. In this way, they collaborate and conspire together, even when they are not aware of doing so. It’s this action that builds up a Trump candidacy—even when they claim to be repulsed by it. It’s this that delivers trivialities over real information, or makes the press generally subservient to power (they crave access). Anyway, this is an important book, but I’ve listed it last because it must be paired with others.

    Further, further reading:

    In terms of shorter related reads, I suggest Fakes in American Journalism by Max Sherover, a 100 year old manifesto of media criticism which stands up incredibly well. This Scribner’s article on privacy and journalism is important—it was cited by Brandeis in his famous “Right to Privacy” article. Michael Schudson’s Discovering the News is great and so is Manufacturing the News by Mark Fishman. Eric Alterman’s book on the rise of the pundit class is good—even he couldn’t have predicted their horrible offspring of “surrogates.” It’s also worth reading Jonah Berger’s book on why things spread virally (for instance, the number one predictor of viral New York Times articles is how angry they make a reader). My last recommendations would be biographies of the news barons. The Uncrowned King, about the newspaper years of William Randolph Hearst is good. So is Bennett’s New York Herald which is about the forgotten media genius whose paper Herald Square in New York City is named after.

    Ryan Holiday is the best-selling author of Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. Ryan is an editor-at-large for the Observer, and you can subscribe to his posts via email. He lives in Austin, Texas.

    http://observer.com/2017/01/these-books-explain-the-media-nightmare-we-are-supposedly-living-in/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 20:24:00 UTC

  • 12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are n

    12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect”

    terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,

    abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of

    whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from

    privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold

    among university professors, who have secure employment with

    comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white

    males from middle-class families.

    13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of

    groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American

    Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists

    themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit

    it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely

    because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with

    their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE

    inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

    14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as

    strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women

    may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

    15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,

    good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western

    civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The

    reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not

    correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West

    because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so

    forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in

    primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he

    GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points

    out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in

    Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the

    leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates

    America and the West because they are strong and successful.

    16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”,

    “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and

    leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,

    pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them,

    take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense

    of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy

    his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of

    competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

    17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to

    focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an

    orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope

    of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that

    was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

    18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,

    objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally

    relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the

    foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the

    concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that

    modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians

    systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply

    involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack

    these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one

    thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent

    that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More

    importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they

    classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and

    other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings

    of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification

    of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or

    inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the

    concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are

    antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior

    because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or

    inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or

    blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is

    “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been

    brought up properly.

    19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of

    inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,

    a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith

    in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but

    he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,

    and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant

    behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings

    of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as

    individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the

    leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization

    or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

    20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists

    protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke

    police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be

    effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but

    because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist

    trait.

    21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion

    or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the

    leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle

    cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too

    prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.

    Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of

    benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.

    For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black

    people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or

    dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a

    diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal

    and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative

    action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take

    such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.

    Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems

    serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and

    frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black

    people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white

    majority tends to intensify race hatred.

    22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would

    have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse

    for making a fuss.

    23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate

    description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only

    a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:42:00 UTC

  • (Silas, what is the significance of the white flower in the lower corner that I’

    (Silas, what is the significance of the white flower in the lower corner that I’m seeing here and there?)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 10:59:00 UTC

  • JOINS CLINTON IN SOROS FUNDING (soros is western culture’s enemy number one)

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/19/exclusive-soros-clinton-linked-teneo-among-donors-to-mccain-institute/MCCAIN JOINS CLINTON IN SOROS FUNDING

    (soros is western culture’s enemy number one)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 07:28:00 UTC

  • “If it begins for real, the combined forces of the national guard and all the ar

    —“If it begins for real, the combined forces of the national guard and all the armed forces will shut down the US under martial law. Fortunately, it will kill the idiots who oppose the government.”—

    Interesting why you would think that when the evidence is the opposite

    Baltimore riots. LA Riots. Civil Rights Movement Riots. FDR’s caving in anticipation of riots….

    Or that it works if you do it….. look around the world. reacting to the mob merely accelerates the effect

    In fact, the entire objective is to bring the military into the streets.

    Nothing exhausts a military faster.

    So how do you win? Demand changes to the status quo that can be met.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 05:49:00 UTC

  • ( reminder. I don’t approve empty socks. I can’t. too many idiots in the world.

    ( reminder. I don’t approve empty socks. I can’t. too many idiots in the world. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 15:37:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID —No but you have a real penchant for wordplay and putting

    YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID

    —No but you have a real penchant for wordplay and putting words in peoples mouths to evade criticism— Jordan Kert

    Well, there is True criticism and False criticism, expression of ignorance, and mere expression of dissatisfaction masquerading as criticism.

    So here is the deal. (dipshit) There is nothing I propose that is not in the law and has not been practiced by the law for thousands of years. what I have done is increase the precision of that form of law we call tort, and specifically that subset of tort we call ‘fraud’, just as many other generations before me have increased that precision.

    The law operates by protocols: processes. Hence the term “Due Process Of Law”.

    Try not to be ignorant and stupid. Although, if there were no ignorant and stupid people I would have fewer excuses to explain solutions to intelligent but merely ignorant people.

    I have pity for the stupid. I do not have pity for the stupid’s evasion of dunning kruger.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 12:33:00 UTC

  • Damn. I love that header. Great idea. Clear Message. (Nice work)

    Damn. I love that header. Great idea. Clear Message. (Nice work)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 19:07:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:00:00 UTC