Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM

    (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    He’s using the ancient technique of stating a Half Truth for the purpose of “suggesting” a lie.

    Cultural Marxism is taught in nearly all classes. The fact that the Paleos all use Marx and Marxism as a bucket-label for Marxism(social science), Communism(politics), Socialism(economics), Freudianism(psychology), Boazianism(anthropology), cultural marxism(aesthetics), Rothbardian libertinism(normative communism), Straussian neo-Conservatism(Zionism), is just a matter of verbal convenience. Which is obvious once you rattle off all those pseudosciences. We just say Marx and Marxist, and Marxism. What we should say is “Cosmopolitanism”: Jewish Pseudoscientific Enlightenment – the second “Great Lie”. The Counter-Enlightenment against completion of the enlightenment by Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Poincare.

    So ask the question differently: show me where they teach natural law? You won’t find it outside of a few Christian universities, and they don’t even understand that “Natural Law= Social Science”. They teach it as philosophy or religion – not science.

    I don’t know why I have to apologize every day for my ancestors failed colonialism, despite dragging humanity out of ignorance, starvation, poverty, superstition, and disease, yet the other tribes don’t need to apologize for the damage done by their reactions to the enlightenment.

    (Please don’t jump on the anti-Semite bus ok? I care about fixing problems. I don’t think jews know what they’re doing any more than we do, women do, or any other group does. It’s all information problems and genetic adaptation problem. Both of which can be solved by institutions that transform us away from deception and closer to truth.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 05:56:00 UTC

  • Interesting direction here, Curt. What are your thoughts?

    Interesting direction here, Curt. What are your thoughts?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-21 16:22:00 UTC

  • (Excellent S02E01!) Dear Writers: Very old and wise people take time to search t

    (Excellent S02E01!)

    Dear Writers:

    Very old and wise people take time to search their memories before responding. This is missing from the characters and it plays hell with suspension of disbelief.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 14:01:00 UTC

  • GOOD WORK

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zYp4yH4PoQPRETTY GOOD WORK

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 20:51:00 UTC

  • Q&A: The  Importance of Aristotle?

    —“Hi, Curt. Currently going through your reading list. Trying to make myself the best propertarian I can so I can help spread the message. There are plenty of libertarians and conservatives who would take to propertarianism if they got the message. My question is to you what do you think the significance of Aristotle’s work is from a propertarian perspective?”— Well, Aristotle is as close as we come to the first ‘scientist’, Social: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith and Hume, Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim. -vs- physical: Archimedes, Galileo, Copernicus, Davinci, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein Now, the way I use natural law was a product of the Stoics, not of Aristotle. And I tend to see the greek era as a combination of spartan aristocracy in law rationalized by the Romans, and Aristotelian intellectuals rationalized by the stoics. I would say that Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume and Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim, and Hayek, represent the attempt (and near failure) to make the case that natural law, discovered by judges by trial end error, is what constitutes social science. And that economics is an empirical branch of that science, as are evolutionary biology, and cognitive science. But those are explanatory fields, whereas natural, judge discovered, common law is a purely empirical field. And this is why I think of my work as uniting philosophy, morality(Ethics), science, sociology, psychology, and law, into a single universal language – as locke suggested – reducible to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property defined as that which humans demonstrate as property. So to summarize, I would say Aristotle is the father of western thought in this sense, and that between Aristotle’s idealism, stoic reason, and roman pragmatism, and finally English empiricism, we developed a chain of reasoning that nearly came to fruition in the last century – but Hayek, Popper, Mises, Brouwer, and Bridgman simply failed. Just as the conservatives failed to produce a competitor to cosmopolitan pseudosciences. And they failed because they subconsciously had to work around the truth: they were not benevolent Christians, but self-justifying Aryans (elites), and middle-class capitalism like middle-class voting, was a net negative for the simple reason that the success of the western model is reducible to truth, but that as a consequence our political system is reducible to benevolent domestication of animal man. And that was inconceivable to classical liberals so proud of their defeat of the aristocracy that had made their prosperity possible.

  • Q&A: The  Importance of Aristotle?

    —“Hi, Curt. Currently going through your reading list. Trying to make myself the best propertarian I can so I can help spread the message. There are plenty of libertarians and conservatives who would take to propertarianism if they got the message. My question is to you what do you think the significance of Aristotle’s work is from a propertarian perspective?”— Well, Aristotle is as close as we come to the first ‘scientist’, Social: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith and Hume, Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim. -vs- physical: Archimedes, Galileo, Copernicus, Davinci, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein Now, the way I use natural law was a product of the Stoics, not of Aristotle. And I tend to see the greek era as a combination of spartan aristocracy in law rationalized by the Romans, and Aristotelian intellectuals rationalized by the stoics. I would say that Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume and Jefferson, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim, and Hayek, represent the attempt (and near failure) to make the case that natural law, discovered by judges by trial end error, is what constitutes social science. And that economics is an empirical branch of that science, as are evolutionary biology, and cognitive science. But those are explanatory fields, whereas natural, judge discovered, common law is a purely empirical field. And this is why I think of my work as uniting philosophy, morality(Ethics), science, sociology, psychology, and law, into a single universal language – as locke suggested – reducible to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property defined as that which humans demonstrate as property. So to summarize, I would say Aristotle is the father of western thought in this sense, and that between Aristotle’s idealism, stoic reason, and roman pragmatism, and finally English empiricism, we developed a chain of reasoning that nearly came to fruition in the last century – but Hayek, Popper, Mises, Brouwer, and Bridgman simply failed. Just as the conservatives failed to produce a competitor to cosmopolitan pseudosciences. And they failed because they subconsciously had to work around the truth: they were not benevolent Christians, but self-justifying Aryans (elites), and middle-class capitalism like middle-class voting, was a net negative for the simple reason that the success of the western model is reducible to truth, but that as a consequence our political system is reducible to benevolent domestication of animal man. And that was inconceivable to classical liberals so proud of their defeat of the aristocracy that had made their prosperity possible.

  • (Probably too subtle a bit of logical humor)

    (Probably too subtle a bit of logical humor)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 11:12:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777827729009938432

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777826505212637185

    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/777826505212637185

  • Sorry. Will do

    Sorry. Will do.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 09:37:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777803850111647744

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx_V2 @Wasian_NRx

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777702277201133568

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Wasian_NRx_V2

    @curtdoolittle Can you unblock me on my other account @Wasian_NRx ? Sorry for the trolling. Anyway what’s the ETA on the book?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777702277201133568

  • Frank Answers A Critic (Brilliantly)

    (Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.) 1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes. (Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law. 2. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use). 3. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property. Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method). 4. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently). 5. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it. 6. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule. 7. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave. 8. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority. —“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser? 2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories. 4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst. 5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework. 7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role. 8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—

  • Frank Answers A Critic (Brilliantly)

    (Questions at the bottom, answers here. The answers are excellent on their own.) 1. That’s included in the cost of incrementally suppressing parasitism. Yes, if you ban toys that include poisonous cadmium, then Chinese toy manufacturers won’t be able to operate in your country, and this negatively impacts your economy (at least in the short term). This is part of the cost we pay to keep the commons clean. In Curt’s conception of In Curt’s conception of market for commons, different classes negotiate for their favored commons. For example, the house that represents industrialists may negotiate lower taxes in exchange for accepting certain regulations demanded by the aristocratic class. We have limited resources and different commons must compete for those resources in order to ensure cooperation of classes. (Curt’s marketplace for the commons idea is not made very clear yet, this is my interpretation of it). Eds: Curt: Yep. That’s the right interpretation. In market government I don’t say what you can or should exchange, only that it may not be parasitic – a violation of natural law. 2. Again, you can’t prove reason using reason. Reason validates itself through reality. Curt’s epistemological theory (testimonialism) validates itself through its performance in reality (it is already validated in hard sciences, he’s not actually inventing something new, he’s integrating and generalizing methods that are already in use). 3. Game theory actually is a deductive science. Prisoner’s dilemma holds universally when its assumptions are satisfied. Logic of cooperation for humans discovers actual real life conditions and applies deductive game theory reasoning on them for full accounting. Then everything follows deductively. When Curt says ‘Judge discovered parsimonious law’, I believe he’s talking about a Judge resolving a dispute by discovering law, which is discovered just like a scientific law is discovered, i.e. by putting it to the test of six categories and peer review. The most pertinent part here is accounting for all forms of property (unlike the limited scope of libertine intersubjectively verifiable property), including informational and genetic property. Note that this is really a formalization of Natural Law and the method by which it’s discovered. (You can’t falsify the scientific method, you can only falsify scientific theories (proto-laws) discovered by the scientific method). 4. You may not like a theory, but if you can’t prosecute it via testimonialism, you can’t condemn it. This is approximately the same principle we have in law. When we prosecute someone for murder, we put the claim to certain tests and demand a very high standard of proof. The same applies when prosecuting for polluting the commons (whether informational, genetic, or environmental). There are necessarily false positives and false negatives, but this the best we can do (and this is what we already do currently). 5. Again. Logic of cooperation is objective. Determine all forms of property involved in a dispute to the best of your knowledge. Account fully for all damage done to all forms of property involved. Prosecute. This is partially what we do already. Judges use testimony and try to determine harm to property, which is narrowly defined as intersubjectively verifiable property. This doesn’t account for all property, so Curt fixes it. 6. Prosecutors prosecute each other. Judge discovered law is peer reviewed by other jurists. There’s ineluctably human error involved in this process (which is true for all human run systems). If the intellectual caliber of the aristocratic class is not sufficient to understand testimonialism and adhere to honor (on average), this obviously won’t work. This is true for any system. Checks and balances is a lie. At the end of the day, if the jurists are corrupt or dumb, you’re doomed. That’s why low IQ polities are hopeless. There’s no magic system/mechanism that will make sure a low trust polity starts following rules — you have to violently suppress parasites, which is the essence of Aryan Aristocratic rule. 7. This is not a matter of ‘should’. It’s a matter of ‘is’. Reality: lower classes are dependents and they can’t be made independents, especially when it comes to deciding veracity of an information, because they have low IQs, and IQ is largely heritable. You protect and look after your lower classes. In exchange, they abstain from polluting the genetic commons (or pollute less) and they behave. 8. You can’t reason parasites into not being parasites (it’s not in their interest). You violently suppress them. Drop the slave cuck morality and endow yourself with the moral authority to suppress fraud, parasitism, lies and theft. That’s what Curt is giving us: moral authority. —“ERIC: 1. If I am a smart phone manufacturer and I have to decide where to build a factory, am I going to choose to build it in a location where I face greater legal repercussions for defective products, or lesser? 2. “We observe that some theories that are existentially possible but not operationally constructed are false.” Okay, well then unless Curt’s epistemological theory can be operationally constructed it is false.3. You claim that his “logic of cooperation” is objectively discoverable, i.e. falsifiable. Are the basic propositions of his logic really universally applicable? No, he is rather playing the arbiter of a system of cooperation that, so far, has not actually been implemented. If we cannot falsify his claims until he builds his ideal society then the construction of that society has to be conducted in large part on faith, really not dissimilar to the communists who await the realization of a true socialist polity to validate Marx’s theories. 4. When scientific breakthroughs first occur their proponents are often universally condemned. Sometimes it takes decades for the scientific community to catch up and for the innovator to be exculpated. To presume that Curt’s legal system would be able to recognize a paradigm changing theory as genuine before the scientific community is optimistic at best and naively credulous at worst. 5. The lynch pin of this is Curt’s moral criteria. Since Curt has said that failure in any one of these six dimensions amounts to falsification this implies that anyone who has anything to say that contradicts Curt’s own moral theory is automatically false. Curt has hardly published enough argumentation to render his moral views axiomatically certain.6. If he ever establishes his system do you really think that the mechanisms would be in place for him to actually be held accountable? One of the basic elements of his system are these “six criteria”, and you’ve already said that they cannot be evaluated by their own logic. Since it is his epistemological schema that is used to adjudicate propositions at least one of his central dogmas is structurally immune to criticism within his legal framework. 7. The lower classes should be subordinate, but not dependent. They accept subordination to a higher source of authority so that they might be molded more to its image, not so that they can suckle at its tit. To attempt to shelter children from the dangers of the world rather than to prepare them for its dangers is an involution of the paternal role. 8. He’s given himself a tall order and I doubt he’ll be able to actually fill it philosophically, but I don’t doubt that he’ll be able to persuade fools into committing violence for him if that’s what he wants- that was one of his professional roles after all.”—