Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • “Traces are still being done on the two firearms recovered at the scene — an SK

    —“Traces are still being done on the two firearms recovered at the scene — an SKS rifle 7.62 (which is a Chinese-made AK variant) and a 9 mm pistol, a law enforcement source tells CNN.”—

    no. an SKS is NOT an AK variant. It is a much more primitive weapon.

    The AK was invented to replace it.

    In technological terms, the sks is a clip-fed rifle like the M1 Garand. The AK is a magazine fed rifle like the M16.

    FWIW: to develop the SKS the russians downscaled the design of the mechanism of a german artillery weapon. (Someone said russian, but I’m pretty certain the history is german artillery ->russian artillery -> russian rifle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:58:00 UTC

  • ME? NO. NOT LIKE RAND OR ROTHBARD. NO. I don’t view it anything like Rand. I vie

    ME? NO. NOT LIKE RAND OR ROTHBARD. NO.

    I don’t view it anything like Rand. I view it like aristotle, Lock, Smith, Hume, Darwin and Nietzsche. The fact that she also relies upon them but advocates low trust individualistic jewish separatism via reason, while I advocate high trust SOVEREIGN production of commons via reason, is perhaps similar to someone who’s read rand. But my influences are really Artificial Intelligence > Popper > Hayek > Hoppe and the philosophy of mathematics more than anything else. My influences are science, economics, law, and mathematics.

    Simple people think in terms of value, reason, and choice. I think in terms of measurement, calculability and decidability. That’s a very big difference.

    The competitive advantage of the west is the use of truth to produce commons better, faster, and cheaper than any other people even imagine possible.

    The competitive advantage of judaism, is to extract the maximum possible from other people’s commons and concentrate it in the tribe, returning as little or nothing to the commons.

    So no. I’m the OPPOSITE of rand and rothbard and marx.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:38:00 UTC

  • THE BIG QUESTION FOR PETERSON, THAT HARRIS COULDN”T FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK —“Pe

    THE BIG QUESTION FOR PETERSON, THAT HARRIS COULDN”T FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK

    —“Peterson manages to inspire me without coming across as foolishly optimistic or unrealistic in expectation. That’s really quite an accomplishment.”—

    (That is because you already agree with him. – Who *doesn’t* agree with him? Why? I read all the same research that he does. I just read very different LITERATURE from that which he does. )

    RESOLVING HARRIS’ QUESTION

    I want to resolve the same question Harris does, but I am capable of asking in more articulately than Harris.

    THE QUESTION FOR JORDAN PETERSON

    “Jordan, given the portfolio of Myth, Literature, History, and Science and Tort Law (record of existential disputes), why does one have to preserve political conflation (combining myth, law, history), choice conflation (the useful, the preferable, the good, and the true) and fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, occultism)?

    In other words WHY DO YOU NEED TO PRESERVE LYING when it is by conflation and fictionalism that the west was destroyed in the ancient world; medieval man was trapped in illiteracy and superstition for a dark age – ended by literacy and restoration of our ancient thought; four great civilizations have been destroyed by islam and descended into ignorance; jews were unable to build a territory and institutions, and despite being literate contributed nothing good to human history, and in the modern era, kant, the french and the cosmopolitans, the marxists and the postmodernists have done nothing but attempt to produce a series of counter-enlightenments preventing the completion of the ‘restoration’ (enlightenment) by its extension to the social, political, and juridical sciences?

    Why do we need to circumvent reason, and rely upon lying, when the secret by which the west in the black sea, aegean, Mediterranean, north-baltic sea (hansa), atlantic, and seven-seas eras, dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, disease, and tyranny by the use of Martial Epistemology (Truth), Sovereignty, Heroism, and Markets?

    Why isn’t the battle between good and evil, that between the use of truth in pagan aristocracy and the use of lies in monotheistic underclass socialism?

    Isn’t the battle that we have had for 6000 years, between (a) the revolutionary invention of truth, paternalism, sovereignty, markets, and transcendence of the limits of mind and body, and (b) the counter-revolution against it and the preservation of the primitive? Isn’t the enlightenment and the ongoing counter-enlightemnent just a continuation of the cycle between truth and deceit?

    How is history reducible to anything other than two rare peoples, each at opposite ends of the eurasian continent, (europe and china) inventing reason, and everyone between them retaliating against them in a series of cycles and counter-cycles?

    How is it even conscionable to perpetuate that which was invented and has served as the primary means by which civilization has been reversed, regressed?

    I mean. How is it in any way morally conscionable to advocate the preservation of the greatest cause of murder, suffering, destruction, poverty, ignorance, and dysgenia, – even greater than the black plague – when there is no demonstrable need to do so other than to appeal to the baser elements of man?

    What is the difference between marketing the dream state by saturation in endorphins by hacking man’s submission-to-the-pack instinct, and saturating those endorphins by the use of opium?

    What is the difference between the British sale of opium to the chinese, and the state, academy, and church’s sale of the opium of endorphins to the west?

    Why aren’t constantine and justinian, the middle eastern purveyors of the same thing to the west that the British were to the east?

    What moral justification can you give for what appears to be nothing more than one of the greatest crimes, if not THE greatest crimes, in history: the invention of zoroastrianism-abrahamism? The use of conflation to overload reason as a counter-revolution AGAINST truth and reason?

    THERE ISN’T ANY MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, IS THERE?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:26:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/are-we-nearing-civil-war/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 21:11:00 UTC

  • TO JORDAN PETERSON (sent today) (sentence structure simplified for readability)

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/13/open-letter-to-jordan-peterson/EMAIL TO JORDAN PETERSON

    (sent today) (sentence structure simplified for readability)

    —

    Dr Peterson

    If we have the choice of using descriptive myths (history), hyperbolic myths (‘myth’ proper), supernatural myths (conflating ideal and supernormal),or ideal myths (the ideals/platonism)to teach wisdom (how to understand and succeed in the world), then why is it necessary, or even useful, if not harmful, to choose to teach those wisdom literatures that have been used to subvert truth-telling (via the supernatural, and ideal) in both the ancient worlds (Abrahamic Religions), and modern worlds (Marxism/Postmodernism/Esoteric-Occult)?

    In other words, if it is so difficult to grasp the hierarchy of { transcendence > monomyth > ‘the plots’ of storytelling > archetype > virtue }, do we refer to those collections of myth which contain falsehoods via conflation of wisdom, truth, and law, using supernaturalism and idealism, when we can constrain ourselves to those collections of myths that contain mere magnifications of the real, that claim only wisdom, not truth or law, and rely only on hyperbole (super-normalism) and drama (super-normalism)?

    Why not instead teach people the differences between the honest literature wherein gods, demigods, heroes, saints, and the common man are subject to the laws of the universe, and where no claim is made that there exists utopias, ideals, and the supernatural that holds dominion over the physical universe?

    If the story can be told through illustration (dramatization) rather than fictionalism (lying) then why tell a story otherwise?

    Why not instead, use hyperbole and dramatization as ‘good’ using Archetypes and virtues, and teach fictionalism using idealism, supernaturalism, and conflation of wisdom, truth, and law, with those same archetypes as ‘bad’, and the the difference as the primary means of illustrating the ultimate conflict between good (True) and evil (lies)?

    Thanks. (a great deal)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    (longer treatment here, in more analytic form, but it won’t contribute substantially to the question.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 18:27:00 UTC

  • @jordanbpeterson I would love it if you would answer this question on your use o

    @jordanbpeterson I would love it if you would answer this question on your use of Fictionalism in Myth. https://propertarianism.com/2017/06/13/open-letter-to-jordan-peterson/ Troubles me.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-13 17:36:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874681916410261505

  • MADE MY DAY. ANOTHER TRIBE “GETS IT”. —“It’s weird, I find myself agreeing wit

    MADE MY DAY. ANOTHER TRIBE “GETS IT”.

    —“It’s weird, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what white nationalists say and I can’t dispute their conclusions but I think the best thing for me to do is improve my own nation. Thanks to what I’ve learned from you I know quite a bit on what needs to be done”— A Friend

    That’s what I want to do. Stop us from fighting each other for dominance, and to take care of our own.

    (And stop white people from fucking up everything for the purpose of self congratulatory virtue signals.)

    Every people can transcend.

    The problem is just the number of people at the bottom of each nation preventing the possibility of forming institutions that allow the rest to ascend.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 13:11:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 02:15:00 UTC

  • FWIW I would love to ‘fix’ his remaining NAP infection. But he’d have to ask me

    FWIW I would love to ‘fix’ his remaining NAP infection. But he’d have to ask me on to talk with him.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 00:48:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874065842018951168

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/874062976868691968

    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/874062976868691968

  • “There are no such thing as races, subraces…99% of anthropologists agree…”–

    —“There are no such thing as races, subraces…99% of anthropologists agree…”—

    Appeal to majority fallacy. Appeal to authority fallacy. Appeal to self reporting fallacy. Appeal to statistics fallacy. (Do I need to list more of them?)

    1) is it possible to classify people into categories of major races, minor races, subraces, tribes, clans, and families. (yes evidently so. it’s been done on geographic, linguistic, cultural, archeological migration, morphological, blood type, and genetic testing and is remarkably consistent)

    2) do these classifications carry visibly morphological or empirically genetic correspondence (yes)

    3) How many samples of a kin group do we need to trace their relations (~1000 to get within 3%), (why? genes are complicated and we do not know the causal relations, we can only now identify a few common markers, so we must output-test morphology (evidentiary features)as well as input test our limited understanding of markers.

    4) what degree of precision do we need to falsify morphological, historical, linguistic, cultural differences? (given the colloquial measure that we are very little different from chimps, the degree of precision necessary to genetically falsify categories is ‘near complete’.)

    5) do these evident categories correspond to evolutionary, reproductive, linguistic, and cultural records? (yes)

    6) do people self identify with these categories? (yes)

    7) do people demonstrate preference in association for these categories. (yes, in all walks of life)

    8) do people demonstrate kin selection according to these classifications? (yes)

    9) do people in democratic countries vote by these categories (yes, when demographic distributions are to their advantage)

    10) do people in all countries report preferences (surveys) differently from how they demonstrate preferences (economic, marital, dating, friendship, phone calls, text messages, business relationships) (yes, universally – which is why the polling industry is in such a crisis)

    11) do people in the the media, academy, state, and church historically lie about scientific theories and facts that would cause them disfavor with their customer bases? (yes, always and everywhere)

    12) do people in the academy and the sciences demonstrate paradigm anchoring so severely that that they block research that contradicts their investments, and often paradigm reformation occurs only after prior paradigm authors have died? (yes)

    13) do people in the social sciences demonstrate the highest rates of falsehood in the publications of papers, books, and articles? (yes)

    14) does all the evidence lead us to conclude that reported opinions by social scientists differ from the scientific evidence? (yes).

    99% of psychologists *report* that iq has no meaning.

    Pretty much the entire social science profession other than economics is pseudoscience.

    In economics we know (finally) why much of economics is pseudoscience. (data. method. cherry-picking and selective accounting. political bias, moral bias, class bias. gender bias..)

    Don’t get me started on ‘global warming/cooling/climate change’. Or that we don’t have too many people living on the planet, or …..

    Please do not come to a gunfight with a squirt gun. I don’t like having to waste my time defending myself against the room-temperature-iq crowd. You’re clearly a well intended useful idiot indoctrinated into marxist and postmodern pseudoscience just as the church indoctrinated centuries of idiots before you.

    But thanks for forcing me to make this list so that I can use it over and over again.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 17:43:00 UTC