Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Invasion vs Immigration

    by John Dow

    1. Imagine two hypothetical nations.. Let’s call them Nation A and Nation B.
    2. They have different cultures.. Let’s call them Culture A and Culture B.
    3. And because of these different cultures, they have different sociopolitical structures.. Let’s call them Sociopolitical Structure A and Sociopolitical Structure B.
    4. Now, if a bunch of people from Nation A all decide to force their way into Nation B for the purpose of altering Nation B’s sociopolitical structure, we correctly call this an invasion.
    5. However, if a large number of people from Nation A immigrate to Nation B, they will gain sociopolitical influence, and because they have Culture A, they cause the sociopolitical structure to alter akin to Nation A.In both scenarios, people from Nation A are occupying Nation B and altering their sociopolitical structure.

      So really, a military invasion and mass immigration differ only in method, but have the same result.

      If someone aides a foreign power to invade their own nation, this is called treason, so why do we tolerate those who endorse and facilitate mass immigration?

  • I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and

    I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy.

    Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input).

    I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence.

    But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 16:27:00 UTC

  • 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.

  • Stay with Arguments To The End

    STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.

  • Stay with Arguments To The End

    STAY WITH THE ARGUMENT UNTIL THE END (nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet) Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image. YOUR ORIGINAL (FALSE) STATEMENT [–]despicable_secret https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ -1 points 7 days ago For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Propertarianism IF YOU HAD THE GOOD MANNERS NOT TO ASSUME YOU ‘UNDERSTOOD’. (a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works… (b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why? (c) Because it damages the informational commons. (d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo. (e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law. Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns. So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*. The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption. And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan. Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire. But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons. Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait. Why? Because the ego lies. You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours. Cheers.

  • NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT

    NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT NATURAL LAW IS ONLY POSSIBLE UNDER ARISTOCRACY

    btw: (important)

    I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality.

    The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism.

    As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale.

    Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:19:00 UTC

  • THE ANSWER YOU”RE LOOKING FOR IN TWO PARTS 1) In no small part, a male is produc

    THE ANSWER YOU”RE LOOKING FOR IN TWO PARTS

    1) In no small part, a male is produced by damaging the gender-neutral fetus in utero, so that males mature more slowly, and develop a bias toward specialization while females a bias toward generalization.

    This ‘damage’ by the mother in utero (likely due to testosterone), produces both less sensitive and therefore less ‘struggle for life’ by male infants, plus delays verbal and other sensitive development, which is why males both specialize (they must learn rather than feel), and why males mature more slowly than females both physically, emotionally, and mentally. But in exchange gain more ‘agency’ (less victims of emotion) and greater ability to perceive the physical world ‘as it is’.

    So, males have a lower survival rate.

    2) Plus (as others have mentioned) the benefit of male children decreases as the ratio approaches 1 to 1.

    3) Males are genetically expendable (and women treat us as such) since the genome improves if only the fittest survive. This may explain why we are still evolving but it is possible that we reached ‘peak human’ already, and that since agrarianism, and later, with urbanization, (because cities are defect creators).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-14 14:01:00 UTC

  • William Butchman (et all), This claim of Peterson’s is where he’s going wrong by

    William Butchman (et all),

    This claim of Peterson’s is where he’s going wrong by 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

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 22:35:00 UTC

  • THE STRATEGY FOR OPPOSING FRAUDS IS A COSTLY INVESTMENT IN THE PRESERVATION OF T

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-12 11:04:00 UTC