( You know, when I challenge people to fight me, I’m not kidding. I’m a middle aged short guy. I have asthma. I’ve survived serious illnesses. But I still subscribe to the duel. And I’m willing to die. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 08:36:00 UTC
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
COMMUNIST? OK. WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? —“Die you Communist bastard”— Blai
COMMUNIST? OK. WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?
—“Die you Communist bastard”— Blaine Mack
So, just how stupid, ignorant, and lazy would you have to be to call me a communist????
Yesterday someone called me a SJW? WTF?????
Where the f-ck do these people come from?????? lol
I am as far right a libertarian as you can possibly be, without stepping over the line into fascism. And even then, I understand that fascism is necessary in times of voluntary transformation or involuntary warfare.
Natural law = reciprocity.
But to conduct reciprocity you must have something to trade. No matter how poor we are, we all have something to trade. What we have to trade is leaving one another’s attention, body, and property alone, and the preservation, maintenance, and improvement of the commons whether territorial, physical, normative, or institutional.
HERE, DEFINE YOURSELF:
What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer?
– Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information
– Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information.
– Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information.
– Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons.
– Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics.
– Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property.
– Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information
– Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information.
CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in.
PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language.
The frankfurt school modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.
( PS: Did you see how I made use of full accounting of markets and political disciplines by using series, and then supply demand between the male and female curves? See? Methodology at work.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 07:23:00 UTC
-
ON BRAGGADOCIO. I use this technique to taunt opponents. I learned from hayek wh
ON BRAGGADOCIO.
I use this technique to taunt opponents. I learned from hayek what NOT to do (be a gentleman), and I learned from Friedman what you should do (be a relentless antagonist). So what I do is basically trash talk as a means of taunting people into argument. I used this strategy to promote Propertarianism, and it made more sense to restore the manliness of sport and war to the discourse than continue the effeminate model of the academy.
So while it comes fairly natural to me, I chose this particular strategy to market to a candidate audience.
Why?
Don’t ask. Don’t appeal. Don’t beg. CHALLENGE.
Stand on the hill and take all comers worthy of the fight.
I use many voices when I write. I experiment. Braggadocio, Taunting, reasonableness, empathy, and analytic argument.
And I use them in response to the approach of the person or audience I’m addressing.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 05:33:00 UTC
-
CRITICAL THEORY IS A CRITICISM WITHOUT A SOLUTION – THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF STR
CRITICAL THEORY IS A CRITICISM WITHOUT A SOLUTION – THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS
—“Critical theory is no ideology by itself, it’s just a method to destroy value systems. It doesn’t really replace those values. Cultural Marxism is the girlfriend who always whines; if you ignore her everything is fine, otherwise she will leave you after some time.”—Daniel —“Critical theory is no ideology by itself, it’s just a method to destroy value systems. It doesn’t really replace those values. Cultural Marxism is the girlfriend who always whines; if you ignore her everything is fine, otherwise she will leave you after some time.”—Daniel Daniel SeisSeis
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 05:19:00 UTC
-
THE ORIGINS OF CURTPOSTING (Why is Curtposting Funny?) Curtposting: the aestheti
THE ORIGINS OF CURTPOSTING
(Why is Curtposting Funny?)
Curtposting: the aesthetics of order.
I learned the technique from (a) Karl Popper(tables), and (b) Gary Stanley Becker (Equilibria), and (c) I added programming (operations) – to complete the set of dimensions necessary to describe reality. My original goal was to produce Becker’s degree of parsimony.
When I was in college I did a series of paintings of mathematical formulae and geometric proofs. I took off on Rothko’s colors, and did proofs over the top of them, arguing that this was beautiful as well – and they were, and are.
Reality consists of only so many actionable and comprehensible dimensions
A point, a noun, a verb,
A line, a comparison or contrast
A curve, a series, a set,
A set of curves, an equilibrium
A set of actions, a set of transformations, operations
A set of causes, a set of incentives
The incentives are always acquisition of some sort of asset to the life form, man.
When I develop definitions, series, tables, equilibria, I’m getting as close as possible to a description of social phenomenon using the same extreme parsimony as gary stanley becker.
Why? These are PROOFS. A proof doesn’t make a truth claim, but it says something is possible by these means, and that other things are not possible by that same means. And that any competing explanation would have to be even more parsimonious. Parsimony is hard to refute.
I look to create PROOFS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (cooperation). And so I draft (test) a lot of proofs as I go along. I refine them like a poet refines poetry one subtle bit at a time. Or, as software people call it – refactoring.
Once we have PROOFS we can then create narratives that explain them.
I create proofs, and usually, other people explain them somewhat better than I do for each MARKET For understanding.
I other words, I supply formulae, and others use them to construct arguments for various markets for understanding.
Or stated differently: I DESCRIBE LAWS, and JUDGES apply them.
DO YOU SEE NOW????????
I am trying to find JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, of natural law.
— why is it funny —
Because what I see when people play with curt-posting is
(a) those paintings from college of proofs.
(b) used as memes and green frogs.
(c) and even in that form they have value.
(d) and I love the fuckers who make them.
So I see it as ‘my people’, the people I love, kicking my ass for not serving their market.
The problem is their market is too costly for me alone.
So I must produce a raw material that others can use to serve them, in their own language.
I love trash talking. I love my people. I love men willing to fight. I love that our men are finally fighting.
But you know, we gotta make heavy weapons to defeat Cultural Marxism, and I’m the anti-marx and I”m making the anti-frankfrurt school. See????
I love my people but you know, I could use a little love back now and then. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 04:53:00 UTC
-
by James Augustus —“I don’t really think that you got the answer you were look
by James Augustus
—“I don’t really think that you got the answer you were looking for. It seemed more of an observation that the church failed along with other institutions, but not specifically *why* the church failed, which I think is not to difficult to explain.
The church failed because in a market for lies, the most comforting lies (Cultural Marxism) will out-compete less comforting lies (Christianity), not to mention uncomfortable truths (Aristocracy).
The solution, of course, is what you state, and repeatedly: truth.”—
And there we go. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 04:24:00 UTC
-
Today’s winner is!…. —“To be fair almost no institution stood up to cultural
Today’s winner is!….
—“To be fair almost no institution stood up to cultural Marxism. The church evolved as required and bested all comers for quite a while. “–Greg Hamilton
I was looking for this all day.
YOU CAN’T FIX A PROBLEM UNTIL YOU KNOW THE CAUSE.
So, now that we’ve had to pull some teeth today, how do you fix the church so that it can compete with cultural marxism?
Why do people love cultural marxism? Who does?
See how easy that was?
(Damn.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 17:30:00 UTC
-
“The short history of Neo-Marxism was apparently motivated by the obvious failur
—“The short history of Neo-Marxism was apparently motivated by the obvious failure of the communist East to build a better world, as evidenced by their brutal expansionism and mass slaughters of civilians. They also realized that the West was moving further and further away from appropriating Marx’s doctrines, so they started to concoct new plans. Just as Mao replaced Marx’s concept of the proletariat (trained factory workers) with the masses of unskilled survival farmers, the neo-Marxists foresaw that the Western “proletariat” would never go that route. Hence they started pushing the idea of the revolutionary potential of ALL MINORITY FRINGE GROUPS, such as the Unskilled Third World masses, the feminists and gender benders, the SJW, and lately also the BLM’s and others. They set up the dialectics in such a way that there is one core enemy: whites (esp attacking the traditional concepts of masculinity and feminity). What whites must learn if they are to survive, is that the debate about white survival has been put on the table by people with only one purpose in mind: destruction. The Muslim masses have come to play a central role in this. The core lessons are that these radicals should not be allowed to debate it (well they don’t really debate but shout and cry), and also that the ballot is NOT the forum to decide this.”—Tobie Louw
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 14:29:00 UTC
-
I DELETE NON-ARGUMENTS 1 – pre-rational expressive 2 – pre-rational sentimental
https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/27/a-hierarchy-of-argumentative-structures/REMINDER: I DELETE NON-ARGUMENTS
1 – pre-rational expressive
2 – pre-rational sentimental
3 – pre-rational normative
And I humiliate Pseudo-rationalism
4 – Rationalism in place of ratio-empiricism.
And especially:
Using Mems and Music as substitutes for reason.
SEE ATTACHED HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTS
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 12:48:00 UTC
-
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM?” —“I would love to find out yo
https://propertarianism.com/2017/02/20/the-final-word-on-rand-and-objectivism/”Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM?”
—“I would love to find out your thoughts on Objectivism? Have you written about it in the past?”—A Friend
if you are a young male and you do not read rand’s novels you are missing out. Rand is a doorway to philosophy for those who must enter it by means of fictional narrative. And in that function she does well. But it is a children’s book – so to speak- level of discourse on philosophy, just as philosophy proper is a young adult’s discourse on law, science, and history.
Young men are ambitious but weak and lacking resources and alliances. Rand provides a literary philosophy for the ambitious but weak who lack alliances and resources. However, the strong are strong because of numbers, and rand like all semites cannot seem to envision or comprehend the commons that numbers can produce.
And the commons is the means by which the west defeated the rest: we can produce them. Almost no one else can.
So, read her novels when young, and move on. Only silly people are attracted to Objectivism. If you understand Rothbard, then hoppe, the me (or jump right to propertarianism) you will see the evolution of Rand’s childishness and jewish lower class philosophy, through Hoppe’s german middle class philosophy, to my anglo aristocratic class philosophy. And then realize that they were weak and making excuses. I describe defacto how the west outraced the rest.
Use violence to Rule and possess sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy, or choose not to, and be ruled by those who deprive you of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.
Aristocracy: the organized use of violence to produce sovereignty by denying all others any alternative.
in other words: natural law.
SELFISHNESS IS A PLAY ON WORDS
https://propertarianism.com/2011/04/14/ayn-rands-selfishness-is-a-play-on-words-in-order-to-hook-your-attention/
FINAL WORD ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM
https://propertarianism.com/2017/02/20/the-final-word-on-rand-and-objectivism/
HOW TO LEARN PHILOSOPHY (the science of choice)
https://propertarianism.com/2015/08/07/q-how-do-i-learn-philosophy/
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 17:20:00 UTC