Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT O

    THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT OF HOW PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL, OR THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL?

    1) while I must understand how people came to their group strategies (habitual, normative, traditional, intellectual, institutional, and technological), I must also understand the outcomes (externalities) produced by those strategies.

    2) if the world dislikes you and your people and their behaviors and their externalities, they must have a reason for it.

    3) So the question is, if you and your people have failed in every social, economic, political, and technological, possible dimension except malthusian reproduction, and the world dislikes you, do they have a reason to?

    4) People invent excuses for employing their group strategies. Otherwise those strategies would cause mental and emotional labor, and openness to failure of that strategy.

    We all just negotiate on behalf of our personal, gender, class, and group strategies.

    5) Our feelings then are mere reflections of success with or failure of our actions in correspondence with our justifications(habits). So the excuses (justifications) we use are a measure only of correspondence with our strategies, but that tells us nothing about the good/bad, morality/immorality of our actions and our strategies. Or more simply put, our emotions are reflections of the competitiveness of our strategies.

    6) So as westerners we tend to consider the individual and his emotions, yet his emotions are just a reflection of the success or failure of his strategies. As such, what are those strategies and are they good/moral/constructive, or bad/immoral/destructive?

    7) War and Genocide have an illustriously successful history. And islam and judaism have been more destructive than all other forces combined other than the great plagues and diseases. You have to get to the black plague even if not malaria before you’ve killed enough people to match the death, destruction, and dark ages created by islam, judaism(communism), and christianity(anti-aristocracy). Communism has been murderous under the pretense of ‘good’, and Islam has been nearly ten times as murderous under the pretense of ‘good’. Christianity was spread as a means of undermining the western empire from within by the syrians and byzantines, and ‘old europeans’. Islam was spread by force, and resulted in the destruction of the great civilizations: egypt, north african, levantine, mesopotamian, persian, roman, and eventually byzantine.

    8) Despite its beginnings in the 600’s, islam had conquered and exhausted the assets of the great civilizations of the ancient world by 1200, and declined rapidly thereafter, brought only into survival by the migration of the turks and their adoption of islam.

    9) At present we are fighting judaism(communism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism), postmodernism(French catholicism), and islamic fundamentalism, all of which originate with rabbinical judaism. (Christianity is a Jewish heresy and Islam a Christian heresy).

    So by the logic of caring ‘what people feel or think’ instead of “what is the result of what people feel and think” we should allow our civilization to be overrun as were all other great civilizations, and leave only the chinese, japanese, and koreans holding back the tide of dysgenia, ignorance and violence?

    Islam has been at war with the west for 1400 years and if you do nothing more than review an animated history of islamic raids and conquests in europe and the number of deaths they perpetrated, and the change in standard of living under those conquests, and the absolute destruction of all knowledge after 1200, then our conquest of the americas pales by comparison – if for no other reason than we used the wealth generated by it to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of the ignorance produced by judaism, christianity, and islam.

    We were able to resist islam only because of our advanced technology, and because the turkish empire had exhausted itself under islam as well – and could not develop a european network under rule of law, or an asian network under rule of professional bureaucracy, or an indian network under rule by cast and religion. Instead, islam created iteratively dysgenic ignorance and tribalism.

    Islam, south america, india and africa, all have the same problems: by adopting political systems favoring the increase in the size of the underclass, those underclasses are such a heavy burden that they cannot participate in the modern world economy.

    If we stack countries by IQ we find their economic performance.

    If we stack people by economic, and social class, we find IQ, personality, and physical attractiveness largely rise and fall in concert, with the upper middle class the peak, and the upper class consisting of random outliers.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 09:20:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) 1 – Russians murdered millions of ukrainians, ukrainians didn’t

    (from elsewhere)

    1 – Russians murdered millions of ukrainians, ukrainians didn’t murder millions of russians.

    2 – Russians invaded ukraine with ‘little green men’, ukraine didn’t invade russia.

    3 – Ukrainians west of the Dnieper were prosperous, peaceful, members of the Austrian and Polish empires, and had their assets taken, their property taken, the graves despoiled, their traditions and culture destroyed, by russians, but ukrainians didn’t do that to russians.

    4 – Russians (The Kingdom of Muscovy) conquered east ukrainians (today’s southern russians) and converted them to russian speakers, or ‘resettled them’. Ukrainians didn’t do that to russians. (Most russians do not understand that southern russians spoke ukrainian.)

    5 – Russians relocated ethnic russians to eastern european lands in order to put (underclass) people who could easily be ruled (who had been sefs just one or two generations before), into lands with middle classes (who could not be easily ruled) and destroyed those middle classes. Ukrainians didn’t do that to russians.

    6 – Russians used secret police and prisons to ‘make people disappear, and nearly everyone in ukraine today has a relative in living memory who was ‘made to disappear’. Ukrainian’s didn’t do that to russians.

    7 – Russians set eastern europe back a century, failed, and caused devastation across the former (((soviet))) empire, and have neither solved the problem of ukrainian oligarchs, but put the people into greater submission to them.

    8 – Russians paid 200 uah to poor people to vote for Yanukovych and then paid Yanukovych to undermine the ukrainian military so that the country could be easily conquered – ukrainians didn’t undermine russians so that they could be easily conquered, or pay to interfere in their elections. (russians did that themselves).

    9 – Ukrainians are governed by the Oligarchs (gangsters) who are jewish and russian, and the government is just a proxy for the corruption. Ukrainians want to follow the poles into peaceful transparent democracy, but russians want to force ukrainians into remote russian corruption instead of Intermarium (polish-ukrainian) conservative democracy. (Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are slowly developing the Intermarium, and Ukraine will very likely join them as soon as poland decides to expand its military.

    10 – Ukrainians do not speak russian but ukrainian, just as poles do not speak ukrainian. Ukrainians and poles, the baltics, and the Old Europeans (Southern Slavs) are culturally european, and russians were conquered by and then conquered their mongol rulers – and the mongolian ethics. Muscovites and Kievans are only distant relations. Muscovites were the barbarians that conquered kiev the same way that the mongols had.

    Because I understand russian struggles, love russian culture, and respect russian people, and very much understand that russia is right to resist democracy and the (((disease))) of ‘progressivness’ I am a russophile by any measure.

    But until russians understand that their ‘mythos’ was as bad as the mongols, and that the germans were in the right to oppose the soviets, and that russia did far worse to themselves and the world than the germans ever imagined doing, then this russian fantasy will continue.

    Europe ends at the Dnieper until russians learn to speak the truth no matter what the consequences, because that is what separates the ‘naive’ west, from the ‘cruel and dishonest’ east.

    Clean your own dirty house first. Then the world will stop trying to contain you.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 08:57:00 UTC

  • natural law is what it is. the scientific method is what it is. the argument is

    natural law is what it is. the scientific method is what it is. the argument is what it is. either the information is conclusive or not. it isn’t conclusive. either make the opposing argument or refrain from non-argument (shaming).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 00:54:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988581823977607169

    Reply addressees: @Paleophile @katewong

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988580618152939520

    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/988580618152939520

  • Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.

    SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.

  • Self Ownership Must Be Constructed From A Commons.

    SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation). So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible. The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false). Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war. So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional). And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds. So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights. And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy. And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.

  • Ending the Libertarian Fallacies of Argumentation and Estoppel

    ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives. 2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers). 3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer. 4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof. 5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity. This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise. As Eli Says: —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”– In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict). The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost. Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument. Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories. in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking. The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced. Thus Endeth The Lesson. Apr 23, 2018 11:43am

  • Ending the Libertarian Fallacies of Argumentation and Estoppel

    ENDING FALLACIES OF ARGUMENTATION AND ESTOPPEL: THE LESSON 1) You cannot OWN anything without an insurer (violence) capable of insuring it against all *anticipatable* alternatives. 2) You can possess something in fact without an insurer (numbers). 3) You cannot possess a right of enforcement (property right) without an insurer. 4) Ownership consists of a normative and institutional contract (or demand) for the suppression of parasitism, and the insurance thereof. 5) Therefore ownership can only exist as a social and political construction, with ownership in fact and property ‘rights’ agreed to among the members of the society and polity. This is why terms matter so much when making arguments. If your premises are false so will be your conclusions. The premise of self ownership is false. Your body possesses your mind, and your mind exerts control over your body. But whomever owns your body and your mind is determine by those who possess the force necessary to do so. It can’t be otherwise. As Eli Says: —“non-aggression is a ground rule of argument. (If someone commits aggression it’s no longer an argument, but something else)”– In other words by cooperating in argument rather than boycotting argument, and forgoing violence, you are demonstrating cooperation. There exist only three possible relations (avoidance, cooperation, conflict). The problem is that people largely engage in falsehood in argument, so in that case are we cooperating, or are we in conflict at lower cost. Hoppe is stating a TAUTOLOGY (a circular definition). So again, hoppe is stating a requirement (law) that is necessary in the construction of Law proper. It’s entirely circular. It’s a SHOULD argument not an IS argument. Eli is showing that if you make an IS argument, (one that is externally correspondent, rather than only internally consistent) then you can only create a polity with liberty with violence, and economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words, you can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. As such one only possesses liberty by permission of powers, who grant such liberties to excess population in exchange for the labor and investment of settlement of borderland territories. in other words, all libertarianism is just another (((diasporic))) people’s fantasy of preserving (((pastoralism))) and a normative and cultural bias in favor of consumption rather than investment in the commons. So just as communism eliminates private property by wishful thinking, libertarianism eliminates required common property by wishful thinking. The Militia produces sovereignty in fact, not liberty by permission for its members, if sufficient investment in commons and sufficient prevention of defection is produced. Thus Endeth The Lesson. Apr 23, 2018 11:43am

  • The Impossibility of Anarchy

    THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.

  • The Impossibility of Anarchy

    THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANARCHY 1) You can only create a polity with liberty using violence, and 2) economic necessity dictates that you can only produce sufficient violence to repel competitors with sufficient wealth, and; 3) you can only produce sufficient wealth with commons. 4) And you can only produce commons if people cannot defect from payment for those commons in both service (fighting) and resources. In other words: You can’t produce a libertarian polity that can survive market competition for territory with other polities, which is why there have never existed such polities except on the frontier of a state powerful enough to prohibit competitors to the territory, yet insufficient wealth to settle, police, govern, and provide infrastructure for it. Hence why the only examples of antyng approaching a libertarian fantasy are borderlands of empires. We develop taxation and governments to preserve our interests. The question is not whether we need taxes (fees), and governments(production of commons), but how to prevent their misuse. And in the prevention of misuse since we rarely know the right answer, and we are all cognitively biased, the only solution is markets in the production of commons.

  • SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS. Well, self own

    SELF OWNERSHIP CAN’T EXIST IT MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMONS.

    Well, self ownership can’t exist, it can only be constructed as an informal institution(norm) or formal institution( legislation).

    So you can desire to construct a thing, and once you construct a thing, use that thing to produce goods, but it does not exist independently of construction – it’s impossible.

    The reason to use the word principle is always and everywhere a fraud – an attempt to attribute to law (existential) or axiom (declaration) that which is arbitrary. Any time a person uses ‘principle’ they mean arbitrary. Any time they use natural or physical law they mean inescapable, and any time the use axiom they mean ‘declared’ since we can declare any axion (premise) arbitrarily. So all attempst to argue from principle are arbitrary (false).

    Recirpocity provides decidability whether we like it or not, and that is why it is the bases of all law, and in particular, international law – since there is no means of enforcing international law other than war.

    So once you choose reciprocity, whether empirically or arbitrarily you will end up producing the institutions of possession, property(normative), and property rights (institutional).

    And once you follow me long enough you will understand the technique called ‘pilpul’ by which the ignorant are fooled into cherry picking a set of self confirming excuses, and hence why all justificationism (like numerology, and astrology, and scriptural interpretation, and rationalist philosophy that evolved from them) as a hierarchy of elaborate frauds.

    So no. We must construct a condition of reciprocity (commons) via informal and formal institutions, from which we incrementally produce the institutions of property and property rights, and possibly even the luxury of human rights.

    And that is how property evolved – as a luxury of the incremental suppression of free riding , theft, fraud, and conspiracy.

    And libertarianism is just another excuse for free riding.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 14:41:00 UTC