Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Would Libertarianism Exist Without Marx?

    —“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart (a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone. The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again. But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication. Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons. Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.

  • Would Libertarianism Exist Without Marx?

    —“Are you specifically maintaining there would be no libertarianism without marx, or merely that most contemporary libertarian rhetoric derives from the marxist tradition? For example, libertarian class theory preceded marx, and marx explicitly borrowed from it.”— Skye Stewart (a) there is no ‘libertarian’ theory that I know of prior to the 20th century, even though there were libertine and anarchist theories. (b) western liberty movements sought to preserve contractualism, but never decried commons – classical liberalism was a movement to do MORE with the commons, rather than privatize it by the nobility. To gain peerage with the nobility. An aristocracy of everyone. The western liberty movement peaks under jefferson’s natural law contractualism. And the rent seeking began all over again. But Marx restated jewish history “of the unwanted” as a universal, and cast the aristocracy as oppressors rather than domesticators and defenders – a tradition continued by the Frankfurt school. He created a class theory of oppression rather than domestication. He sought a revolution against the aristocracy, and an inversion of the aristocratic order. And he sought to do it by depriving the aristocracy of property as its means of domestication. Rothbard only changed the strategy; deprive the aristocracy of commons and retain your private property, and you will destroy the principle asset of western man: his unique ability to construct commons. Do I think marx and rothbard, as well as freud, mises, and boaz (jews), have any more of an idea what they’re doing than women do when they undermine our civilization? Do gypsies? Do Muslims? I don’t think these people operate by reason but by intuition, and they all intuit that the west is something to be preyed upon – and do so.

  • CRAIG ROBERTS ON THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/from-nuisance-to-threat-the-high-cost-of-truth/PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS ON THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 20:26:00 UTC

  • The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences (

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries.

    “The People Who Lie and Defraud.”

    yeah, we arent exactly saints and teh british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial.

    Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law.

    Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man.

    The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency.

    We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered.

    Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 17:19:00 UTC

  • What Happened to the Right?

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RIGHT? —“What *happened* to the right? Despite the fact that I lean right I often find myself embarrassed by the state of modern conservative thought and its aggressively anti-intellectual tendencies. Today’s conservatives can’t seem to accept evolution or articulate a coherent vision of right-wing principles and theory, yet they descend from De Maistre, Evola, Burke, Mises, Rand, and similar thinkers. Other than you, Moldbug, and a handful of libertarians like Tom Woods and Bob Murphy there is almost nothing interesting happening. What went wrong?”— A Friend They couldn’t find an answer to social darwinism and the fact that western civilization is in fact, darwinian – and that this Darwinianism is the reason for our success. What do you do when you tell the lie of democracy and at the same time have to tell the truth of darwinian evolution? You talk nonsense That’s what —“Ah. So if we don’t want to squander the promise of the Western Aristocratic tradition there’s no avoiding social Darwinism?”— Bingo. We have to TELL THE TRUTH.

  • What Happened to the Right?

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RIGHT? —“What *happened* to the right? Despite the fact that I lean right I often find myself embarrassed by the state of modern conservative thought and its aggressively anti-intellectual tendencies. Today’s conservatives can’t seem to accept evolution or articulate a coherent vision of right-wing principles and theory, yet they descend from De Maistre, Evola, Burke, Mises, Rand, and similar thinkers. Other than you, Moldbug, and a handful of libertarians like Tom Woods and Bob Murphy there is almost nothing interesting happening. What went wrong?”— A Friend They couldn’t find an answer to social darwinism and the fact that western civilization is in fact, darwinian – and that this Darwinianism is the reason for our success. What do you do when you tell the lie of democracy and at the same time have to tell the truth of darwinian evolution? You talk nonsense That’s what —“Ah. So if we don’t want to squander the promise of the Western Aristocratic tradition there’s no avoiding social Darwinism?”— Bingo. We have to TELL THE TRUTH.

  • Response: Method To Verbal Attacks

    THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.

  • Response: Method To Verbal Attacks

    THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS. I teach everyone the same strategy: 1) return ridicule or criticism, 2) restate the central argument 3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct. 4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition. Ergo, (in response to ad hom) 1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument. 2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms. 3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face. 4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind. See how that works? See? Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences. However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument. And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers. To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life. The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.

  • Peterson is a Only a Third (Meaning via literature). The Rest is Doolittle (Law), and Taleb (Measurement)

    William Butchman (et all), Peterson’s claim is where he’s going wrong:  trying to justify his priors.

    • Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.
    • Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.
    • Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.
    • Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.
    • Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.
    • Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.
    • Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.
    • And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).

    BUT…

    • 1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.
    • 2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.
    • 3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.

      Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.

      It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.
    • 4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.

      And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.

      Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.
    • 5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.

    CLOSING We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth. That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Peterson is a Only a Third (Meaning via literature). The Rest is Doolittle (Law), and Taleb (Measurement)

    William Butchman (et all), Peterson’s claim is where he’s going wrong:  trying to justify his priors.

    • Yes, we can imagine and experience the world consisting of various combinations of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values.
    • Yes we can develop our own mental models out of those arrangements (philosophies). Yes we can seek or create an existence in which we comfortably role play with others. Yes we can seek to produce social environments that achieve these ends.
    • Yes we can attempt to accomplish this “private construction of personal reality”, “interpersonal construction of interpersonal reality”, and “Social Construction of social reality”, and even political and institutional construction of political reality.
    • Yes we can construct these sets of objects, properties, relations, transformations, and values out of dream state experiences, supernatural, mythical, literary, extra-rational (pseudorational, pseudoscientific), historical(existential analogical), and various minimalist (scientific) narratives by which we construct explanations of causal relations making use of our objects, properties, relations, transformations (actions), and values.
    • Yes we can perform ideation (envision possibilities for additional desirable experiences) using each of these methods, and navigate through life by these different narratives.
    • Yes, the ‘cost’ of more parsimonious (minimalist, and deflationary) is higher in rational (autistic) terms and provides lower experiential (solipsistic) returns.
    • Yes, the most able can choose ANY of these methods by which to obtain satisfaction, and yes, the less able require increasingly experiential means, and yes the better able are more able to obtain by less experiential means. And yes, while the most expensive, the most demanding, and perhaps the most rewarding is a portfolio : a combination of solipsistic (rich) experiences, along with autistic (parsimonious) understanding of them.
    • And Yes the negative consequences of those narratives consisting of the Dream state, occult, supernatural, mythic, literary, pseudorational, pseudoscientific, socially constructed, can be mitigated by sufficient historical (scientific), narratives (explanations).

    BUT…

    • 1) the material opportunities that arise from them empirically demonstrate that increasing precision, increasing correspondence, therefore increasingly deflationary and minimalist, and therefore more historical narratives, are far higher than all other methods combined.
    • 2) that in matters of conflict people will grant priority to physical safety, opportunity, and comfort; kin safety, opportunity, and comfort; material safety, opportunity and comfort; psychological safety, opportunity, and comfort, normative safety, opportunity and comfort, and institutional safety, opportunity, and comfort in precisely that order. And therefore they demonstrate the superiority of the material in fact as far as they can, then demonstrate status and reputation and self worth, then demonstrate the psychological as far as they can. And all seeming exceptions, under scrutiny will eventually fall to this explanation: costs to them.
    • 3) the function of the darwinian (historical, scientific, minimalist) model is to provide decidability ACROSS those narratives when we need them, and WITHIN those narratives if we choose to need them. In other words, darwinian (scientific) world-views, just like religion in the past, allow us to cooperate at larger scales across those narratives, making use of the range of people and range of experiences that those narratives can provide us with, while at the same time providing decidability across and between people making use of such narratives.

      Group Strategy > Religion > Literature > Philosophy > Science > Law.

      It is in the resolution of our disputes in law and war, and the preservation of non-retaliatory peace post-conflict that we define what is true. It is in the resolution of our disputes in all narrative structures that funnels down, over time, into every greater precision, leaving science (the most parsimonious, deflationary truth) that we ever-drive ourselves toward correspondence with reality no matter how undesirable. Because while we may seek cheap comforts of the mind, we will always fight expensively for material reality that allows us to preserve those fantasies.
    • 4) since those narratives are profoundly easy to use to conduct frauds, deceits, manipulations, defeats, and conquests, we can use the parsimonious, minimalist, scientific, historical to analyze (criticize) propositions within and across these models.

      And since the great challenges of our ancient world (monotheistic deceit), and the great challenges of the present world ( cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism, and puritan pseudo moralism, and outright lying ) stem from our failure to develop both the methods of providing decidability (truth) across those new more advanced deceits (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda), and the institutional means of preventing such deceits (law), then we are in greater demand for deflationary, minmalist, historical (evidentiary, existential) means of decidability – that which Peterson calls “Darwinian”.

      Ergo as the diversity of narrative, diversity of developmental range, role in group, class, trades, and specialization increases, the demand for decidability across them increases.
    • 5) Darwinian judgement in particular tells us of the long term, unintended consequences of accumulated short term actions. It does not tell us our limitations. It explains why we engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudosicence, literary loading, framing, and overloading; propaganda, and outright deceit – for darwinian ends.

    CLOSING We generate opportunities with richly conflated narration, and we generate decidability with minimalist, deflationary truth. That is the difference between the good (desirable) within any context and the true (decidable) across any and all contexts. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine