https://t.co/gQGylcvTp0Retweeted Rafael Valera (@DefendVenezuela):
Greetings from #Venezuela! Here’s my latest article for @ForoLibertad https://t.co/gQGylcvTp0
@curtdoolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 10:46:00 UTC
https://t.co/gQGylcvTp0Retweeted Rafael Valera (@DefendVenezuela):
Greetings from #Venezuela! Here’s my latest article for @ForoLibertad https://t.co/gQGylcvTp0
@curtdoolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 10:46:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 06:32:00 UTC
The cost of the underclass.
https://www.facebook.com/7NewsBrisbane/videos/1420432344636280/
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 05:20:00 UTC
And I feel that I have done sufficient due diligence to testify that WE ARE CORRECT. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 01:40:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831679656487170049
Reply addressees: @Realistic_Right @jordanbpeterson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831557575745236995
IN REPLY TO:
@Realistic_Right
@curtdoolittle & @jordanbpeterson, 2 of the world’s greatest thinkers, both say the foundation of Western Civ is TRUTHFUL SPEECH.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/831557575745236995
Josh Jeppson Any chance you’d want to debate some Ancaps on on a call tomorrow night? (I”m booked already)
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 15:15:00 UTC
—“You may do all the virtue signaling you can afford to pay for yourself.”—Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 10:21:00 UTC
ON CRITICISM BY THE LESS-THAN-HUMAN ANIMAL, MAN.
I love it when some f–king idiot criticizes me because (a) I”m not finished with a scope of work that has stumped thinkers for 2500 years, (b) I can’t reduce that scope of work to a powerpoint presentation that some idiot can make use of in restating all history with ten minutes of investment of his time, and (c) that the said idiots can’t understand it, or much of it, given the limits of their current knowledge, and limits of their cognitive abilities. (d) especially when there ARE people who grasp various components of it and understand the consequence of the work.
I mean, WTH? I’ve spent the majority of my life trying to solve a single problem – avoidance of human conflict – and hundreds if not thousands of other men before me have tried to solve this problem, and some of the greatest thinkers in modern history century couldn’t solve it – in particular – among them non-trivial thinkers like Durkheim, Hayek, and the great synthetic historians. And while I feel an intellectual kinship with Hayek, I am fully aware that the only reason I have solved a problem that they didn’t is that I lived a life made possible by Turing, and identified the pattern that they, and specifically Hayek, didn’t.
So if I spent my life on it, and am still working on simplifying it, and applying it to the infinite little eddies of human thought; and if great minds from Aristotle to Hayek, Livy to Spengler could make progress but not solve it, then what the H— makes John Doe Baseball-Cap think he’s going to grasp it with any less effort than say, learning to program operating systems, or learn the law sufficiently to write and argue contracts, or learn mathematics well enough to use calculus to solve problems of inter-dependent motion.
I mean, just ’cause you can live life while avoiding those problems, and you can’t live life avoiding cooperation, conflict, law, and war, doesn’t mean the means of understanding cooperation, resolution, and war, are any less complicated than those forms of logic that you CAN avoid. In fact, if you have to learn any one of those skills the most important to learn is that of cooperation, conflict, resolution, and war: natural law.
I mean, I suppose if you can’t grasp this rather obvious statement, and still expect some simpleton’s shortcut (like The N’A’P’) or your own moral intuition, as if your moral intuition is sufficient for learning history, law, programming, and mathematics, then that failure in and of itself probably disqualifies you from participation in rational debate on matters of cooperation, conflict, resolution and war: natural law.
And in fact, probably disqualifies you from discourse in general. So please be a good domesticated animal and go back to your amusements and enjoy them, and let humans and adults get back to the business of civilization.
(Exasperated).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 08:47:00 UTC
—“Talkin’ crap with nimrods is the best part of being superior”—Nick Heywood
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 07:26:00 UTC
—“Marxists: it’s not the distribution of production, it’s the DISTRIBUTION of IQ”—Kashif Vikaas
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 20:45:00 UTC
(When I use the term “88’er” I’m referring exclusively to the people who try to justify the hitler cult who lack intelligence to do so, and rapidly resort to insults and spamming when their sophism runs into the brick wall of reason, logic, science, and the institutions necessary to produce and maintain a polity its economy, and its commons.)
Basically I’m ok with anything as long as it’s not false or impossible. And for a polity, it’s economy, and its commons, the chickens come home to roost eventually. The less more correspondent your rules of decidability, the more survivable and durable your polity, economy, and commons. The less correspondent your rules of decidability the less survivable and durable your polity, economy, and commons.
NSDAP was a non-correspondent momentum play – an attempt to create a religion (cult) to use remaining property-in-toto, to create an empire that would provide survivability where the status quo would not. That I agree that this aesthetic was beautiful, and the strategy was a brilliant use of new media, propaganda, and irreproducible time-and-place, is very different from saying it was either survivable or repeatable. The Nazis innovated using new technology to take advantage of time and place. If you want to create a new aesthetic in this time and place, you need to innovate in aesthetic, use new technology, that will produce similar ends in this time and place.
IMHO this is not possible because NS was a working class movement that competed against the communist working class movement. And frankly we no longer possess such a working class, nor one that can be motivated by such means, in this time and place. The era where we could rally the peasantry, rally the working class has been gone, and we are left with the opposite vulnerability – others are rallying the under-and-immigrant-classes (the opposition) using the strategy the NS made use of.
Right now we have a full spectrum of the New Right emerging with a language for every class. And as is usual in the west, instead of speaking with one class voice (the working class under NS, the peasantry under christianity), we are speaking with all voices of all our classes.
Yet, each class makes the mistake that their language is sufficient for the motivation of other classes. They live in their own cognitively biased world. And so we may in fact need various languages of inspiration and motivation for each of the classes – I certainly don’t intend to inspire the working class, only to fight for his interests in my own classes.
So rallying around a singe ideology is very difficult. And it will be difficult until we have a solution and a plan of achieving it. But when we have a solution and a plan of achieving it, each class can modify it’s message to support the plan or some variation of it.
This is what is preventing the right from coalescing into a single movement. It’s why the current administration bought us time, but may not have been as helpful as being backed against the wall as the left now feels.
I am certain my solution of modifying the constitution will produce the ends we desire over a fairly short if not rapid period of time. And it will work – not because it will produce a shared belief – but because it will prevent the formation of competing solutions, and it will use the same selfish market incentives in the prosecution of anti-westerners as we westerners have used to create our other ‘markets in everything’.
Just as simpletons talk about people, average people talk about events, above average people talk about ideas – in revolutionary context, simpletons talk about beliefs (if we all believe or value x), average people talk about education or policy (if we can only get x done), above average people talk about institutions and incentives (if we only do x the rest will follow).
There may exist some other possible means. But as far as I can tell, we have lost our numbers due to the intentional invasion of the west by the underclasses for the purpose of creating demand for authority, for the purpose of ending western aristocratic civilization, and the great experiment of the anglo saxon peoples in contractualism, sovereignty, and rule of internally consistent externally correspondent reciprocally moral, Natural Law. The only system of self governance that makes possible Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 08:33:00 UTC