Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good i

    THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM

    — Libertarianism has good ideas —

    And arsenic has good uses as well.

    Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man.

    But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources;

    As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.

    Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western social order.

    THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:31:00 UTC

  • Please sign and share. Watching Curt dismantle Walter Block would be great to se

    Please sign and share. Watching Curt dismantle Walter Block would be great to see.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 07:36:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/832050626351738880/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=Roman_Skaskiw&utm_content=832978238649561089

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 06:07:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/831926812317990912/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=Roman_Skaskiw&utm_content=832978283885105152

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 06:07:00 UTC

  • ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general popu

    ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC

    ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general population, other than to save the working and middle classes from the lies of the left and the parasitism of the financial and political sector.

    ^ Every social science experiment requires asymmetry of information (playing dumb), or it would not work, you silly git.

    ^ if you can’t learn, cant understand, then that is the only criticism you can make. Someone writes in code, another in algebraic expression, another in a foreign language, and another in a formal logic, and you don’t understand it, then is that a criticism of the authors or one of you?

    ^ when I publish something I learn a lot by the people who respond and how they respond. This tells me how to improve my work for clarity. But I do not seek to reduce the knowledge requirement for understanding it. Only to improve the clarity with which I write it.

    ^If you aren’t the audience then just use arguments that you can. But dont expect me to make a ‘dummies’ version. Someone else will undoubtably do that.

    ^All that most people need to understand is that it is possible to modify the constitution and to modify how the treasury distributes liquidity, and to reduce copyright, until the financial entertainment media and political sectors are starved of cash, and we use the new law to prosecute them every time they lie until no opportunity to lie remains, because we have built a body of case law that limits people to truthful speech in the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:27:00 UTC

  • “Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my pers

    —-“Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my personality is to ask “How did you go about this? [but you don’t go into enough detail, and I want to learn, becuase I sense ‘something is not right’ in what I have been taught”. —- A friend

    I heavily edited the end there so that I could quickly get the point across.

    It’s very simple from my end. I can only afford to do so much one on one tutorial so to speak. And when I do, I want to make sure (a) i’m informing others as I’m doing it, rather than just you, and (b) i’m improving my skill by doing it. Otherwise it is a sunk cost for me and I’m very conscious of my time left on this earth and the amount of work I have left to do.

    There are very simple things I talk about, and very complex things.

    I see no problem in explaining western civilization using a very small number of ideas that I think people can understand if they have a bit of reading and education behind them, and if they want to think hard a bit for a while.

    But I think it is very, very, very hard to explain epistemology to people. And while it is personally one of my favorite topics because it is one of the hardest philosophers have dealt with, and probably one of my more important insights, I actually don’t think it is possible (or a good use of my time anyway) to get into comparative truth with most people at the epistemological level. I think it’s FINE at the group evolutionary strategy level so that we can differentiate between parasitism and production between peoples. But you know, you just don’t need to know that stuff, and … it’s only useful for the category of problems i’m solving

    All you need to know is that when you justify reasoning, a moral action or legal action, that’s because you are trying to demonstrate honesty, morailty and due diligence – that you are cooperating.

    But when you are talking about discovering a truth rather than adhering to a rule, we cannot ‘justify’ truth statements. We must see if they survive all forms of criticism – we must see if they survive in the battle of ideas. This is how we discover truth candidates.

    We create proofs in math and logic and programming to show that we adhered to the rules. We create rational, moral, and legal justification to show that we adhere to the rules. Why? Because the rules are very simple and well known: the causal density of the rules is fairly low)

    When we conduct scientific inquiry in the social or physical world, the rules (the causal density of reality) is very high. So we the size of the problem is very different, and we must test not our intentions, not the rules we followed, but everyting regardless of our intentions.

    But we evolved as social creatures and we lived cooperative lives that required us to communicate in the language of cooperation, and to discuss things that were actionable and perceivable at human scale.

    So in the 19th century as we developed many tools and techniques and logics, and equations, we had to change our thinking from spending most of our time in the logic of cooperation: justification, to the logic of ‘everything bigger than that’, meaning science.

    In other words, we humans moved from a world of JUSTIFIABLE RULES at human scale, to a world of THEORIES at post-human scale. And frankly we have not evolved for it.

    So we are still in the process of converting people from thinking in simple human scale terms of justifications of those things we can act upon and experience, to participating in a society consisting of things we largely cannot perceive or act upon, except in very subtle ways.

    So the ‘alienation’ we experience in post village, post-tribal, post-familial civilization is caused not only by the movement of people to capital instead of capital to people, and the loss of all those human relationships that allow us to rely upon instinctual justification of our actions, but we live in a market society where there is very little feedback, and we think in concepts of very large scale, and we (almost all of us) lack the education necessary to THINK at large scale sufficiently to understand how we fit into that vast but alienating world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 16:54:00 UTC

  • “A while ago, I was asking questions about masculinity. You unfriended me after

    —“A while ago, I was asking questions about masculinity. You unfriended me after that and never answered. I thought you were superbusy and me asking questions was an insult – a parasitic behaviour since I want some piece of digested information from you, but, have nothing to exchange the given information with.”—-

    I don’t unfriend people who ask what I think are honest questions. I unfriend people for very simple reasons: (a) wasting my time unapologetically, (b) engaging in trolling or ridicule, or posting memes and other adolescent behavior (c) criticizing out of ignorance from a position of arrogance, rather than asking questions from a position of curiosity. i mean basically I am generous with my time but I don’t want it wasted. I’m not running a social club or a form. this is my work.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 16:27:00 UTC

  • “Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED W

    —“Hi, Curt! Reading your latest piece on Facebook starting as “DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD”. Interesting piece. I wanted to learn math on my own to accompany my job in life sciences, but was always taken away from the simplistic nature of perspective. I wonder, how do you approach about learning logic, the ternary “science” as you suggest? I know you are right, at least on an intuitive level, but I would like to know more.”—- A Friend.

    Um. I think you might stump me with this because my ability to discern differences in logic is something I am pretty sure I was born with. My brain just sort of ‘does stuff’ and then wakes me up when it finds a new toy so to speak. It could take a few minutes, a few days, a few months, or even years. Then ‘ping’. “Oh. Hello! Thank you.”

    But that said, I came to my current understanding primarily because in my work, I’ve studied arguments in literally every field. BUT I have spent most of my time in computer science, which sits as bridge between engineering and mathematics. And so if you think in science, in engineering, in computer science, in mathematics, in logic, and in philosophy, and in law, you just come into contact with all these terms that everyone uses in each discipline that when studied whole simply refer to very different conditions. And by trying to resolve the conflicts between these disciplines you sort of get the insight into what ‘was wrong’.

    I don’t think anything i’m saying here is terribly radical, in fact, I think it’s all understood. But no one has put a comprehensive argument together that includes testimony and reciprocity before (that I know of) while at the same time relying upon falsificationism (survival of an idea in the market for criticism).

    Honestly there isn’t much more to know than:

    a) what is the difference between an axiomatic and justificationary proof, and a theoretic and critical hypothesis? What is the difference in information in each formulation of argument.

    I mean really, if you get that, then you just ignore anyone who uses the word ‘true’ until you figure out if they mean:

    1) clearly stated (non conflationary)

    2) logically possible (at least non contradictory)

    3) axiomatically provable(justficationary) OR operationally constructable(critical)

    4) theoretically survivable (externally correspondent)

    5) morally reciprocal

    6) fully accounted (did you consider all the inputs outputs costs of transformation, and externalities, such that you know the limits of your proposition.

    Then you can go back to the previous article you just mentioned and look at how the word true is used. and you say, “Well they mean they can construct a proof of possibiilty, but that’s just justificationary, we don’t yet know if that survives external correspondence yet” etc.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 16:22:00 UTC

  • “The Quest in reactionary circles is to how to manage the good impulses within u

    —“The Quest in reactionary circles is to how to manage the good impulses within us and bad ones outside of us.”—Jaromír Miškovský

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 15:43:00 UTC

  • GOOD TERMS FOR NEWBS —“The Cult of Non-Submission” must be one of your all-tim

    GOOD TERMS FOR NEWBS

    —“The Cult of Non-Submission” must be one of your all-time greatest hits, ranking right up there with “Market Fascism.”—Nathaniel Graham

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 14:21:00 UTC