Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Look, if you aren’t producing a replacement generation: a marriage with (2+kids)

    Look, if you aren’t producing a replacement generation: a marriage with (2+kids), producing goods services and information: owning and managing a business, or managing a territory: a governor, you’re just a consumer of other people’s generational investments, productive investments, and commons investments. I can understand having a ‘house of peasantry’ for the unproductive classes, but I see no reason that the votes of each class have equal weight. That’s absurd.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 12:30:00 UTC

  • OUTLAW POLLING – ALL SELF-REPORTING IS FRAUDULENT PROJECTION JUST AS PSYCHOLOGY

    OUTLAW POLLING – ALL SELF-REPORTING IS FRAUDULENT PROJECTION JUST AS PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY ARE FRAUDULENT PROJECTIONS.

    Time to outlaw political polling and label it for what it demonstrates itself to be: propaganda and deception to manipulate the public. Require warranty of that information prior to entry into the public and then it’s done.

    (for the few scientists among us, it is possible to conduct certain surveys and tests under certain conditions, but if and only if the test or polling includes a large number of questions, at least one sixth of which are lie or contradiction detectors.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 10:32:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE VOTE AS RACE AND CLASS AND GENDER BLOCKS OF COMMON INTEREST. THEREFORE TH

    PEOPLE VOTE AS RACE AND CLASS AND GENDER BLOCKS OF COMMON INTEREST. THEREFORE THE HOUSES OF GOVERNMENT -IF WE ARE TO HAVE THEM – MUST REFLECT RACES AND CLASSES AND GENDERS SO THAT TRADES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED – NOT MAJORITIES IMPOSED.

    Overwhelming continued evidence of the reproductive and genetic results of majoritarianism: colors and single women, against men and married white women.

    We might as well just have parties for each race and be done with it, rather than perpetuate the lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-09 10:25:00 UTC

  • Then apparently we need to limit voting to those who had four grandparents here

    Then apparently we need to limit voting to those who had four grandparents here before the Voting Rights Act.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 23:59:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796140114703433728

    Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter @RichardBSpencer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795833821501460480

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AnnCoulter

    If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795833821501460480

  • “Democracy is stable if and only if it is less costly than violent conflict, to

    —“Democracy is stable if and only if it is less costly than violent conflict, to those capable of winning a violent conflict.

    But high time preference people discount the future cost of their present demands.

    Even if they WANTED to preserve democracy and its boons for themselves by limiting their rapacity (that is, if they understood what is at stake and why) they would still lack the perspective necessary to know how much.

    Violence is the only way to provide that, the only way to communicate that.

    If they demand death and destruction, we simply prefer to supply it now, rather than later.

    That way, they may get what they desire, and we may get what we desire – to go back about our business unmolested.

    Win-win.”— Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 18:01:00 UTC

  • Well you know I don’t think reducing relative equality of material condition is

    Well you know I don’t think reducing relative equality of material condition is a bad thing. I think that doing it by command at the point of a gun, whether by one tyrant, a tyrannical oligarchy, or a majority tyranny, makes no difference. Most of us will prefer it if we obtain behavioral payment in exchanges, so that our commons both physical and human improves. If one cannot produce in the commercial economy that does not mean one cannot produce in the normative, economy of behavior, nor in the production of commons – which is almost entirely one of casual daily maintenance and care. The Russians didn’t get it all wrong you know. The build a good commons economy with the working and underclass, just like we built a good commercial economy with the working and middle and upper middle classes. But monopoly of economic models makes no more sense than a monopoly provision of commons by majority rule. There is no reason we cannot have commercial, commons, and normative economies, each operating with different members and different methods of compensation. Becuase the normative, common, and commercial all depend upon each other.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:40:00 UTC

  • NO: DOLLARS ARE NOT MORE INNOCENT THAN VOTES. —“Dollars are not at all like vo

    NO: DOLLARS ARE NOT MORE INNOCENT THAN VOTES.

    —“Dollars are not at all like votes. A vote may be a slight thing in a large electorate but is, nevertheless, a proactive, illiberal, gratuitous, coercive move against others but spending a dollar, by contrast, is not coercive at all; not even one iota.”– David McDonagh

    Assuming however, that rule of law limits the externalities that can be produced by the spending of that dollar to those that are productive, and that the transaction involving that dollar is reciprocally productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntary.

    Libertarians seem to have a problem with complete sentences despite the first principle of economic theory: the broken window’s demand for full accounting. Yet libertarians speak in incomplete sentences using not full accounting but rational justification. And they do so in order to rely upon suggestion: causing the audience to subjectively substitute that information that is not provided in the incomplete sentence. So this obvious conflict between the first principle of economics which requires full accounting, and the use of justificationary rationalism to circumvent it by means of incomplete sentences and suggestion is the reason for the failure of the program to produce intellectuals that produce meaningful results, rather than simply attracting justificationists: free riders.

    It is not market activity that creates demand for authority and then state. But the externalities to the transaction that create demand for authority and the state.

    Why? Because humans retaliate, even at high cost, against any imposition of any investment that they have made. So liberty is constructed by the suppression of any activity that causes retaliation.

    Ergo, this is why the NAP is a fraud. Because it does not specify the scope of the prohibitions one may not aggress against without encouraging retaliation (demonstrated interest), and therefore generates rather than suppresses demand for the state. Hence why the only existential semi-libertarian polities have existed in border regions under the defense of states and empires, who tolerate free riding on the commons in exchange for holding territory in the state’s name at a discount – thereby preventing other states from doing the same without invoking retaliation.

    One may not impose a cost upon that for which others have borne a cost. And that constitutes every form of capital that humans produce. And since some capital is strategic rather than productive, then that which demarcates competition between preferences is TRUTH content.

    ERGO: votes are proxy for violence. Dollars are a proxy for expenditures of time, mind, effort, and resources – usually from the proceeds of trade that created a surplus because of a division of knowledge and labor.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 10:10:00 UTC

  • YES YOU SHOULD VOTE: NO ROOM FOR VIRTUE SIGNALING IN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTY. —Q&

    YES YOU SHOULD VOTE: NO ROOM FOR VIRTUE SIGNALING IN ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTY.

    —Q&A: “Curt: Have you always voted? What’s the greatest argument you find most appealing as to why you choose to?”—

    Yes, by and large, I’ve always voted other than when in Ukraine.

    Just because you don’t get it your way, doesn’t mean you should assist others in getting it their way by giving them a discount on it – that’s just stupid.

    The whole purpose of incremental suppression is to increase the costs of parasitism.

    So vote to increase the costs of parasitism.

    And agitate, and revolt to raise the costs further.

    Like many libertarian fallacies, the principle of not voting is counter-productive virtue-signaling in order to simply take a discount on effort- just like the opposition uses.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 09:17:00 UTC

  • NO. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ORGANIZED AND INSTITUTIONALIZED APPLICATION O

    NO. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ORGANIZED AND INSTITUTIONALIZED APPLICATION OF VIOLENCE FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF HARM, THEFT, FRAUD, PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND LIES.

    —“How do we realistically become less tolerant of these lies. Reading the culture of critique was pretty eye opening. But whenever I try to have conversations about this stuff with people they tend to shut down pretty hard. Is there anything we can do to get rid of pseudoscience that doesn’t involve violence?” —Pepper Le Angus

    No. All increases in criminal ability are solved by violence distributed by various forms of institutions: education, sheriff, police, judge, courts, politics, and war.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 11:38:00 UTC

  • OF COURSE IT’S THE COSMOPOLITAN JEW’S FAULT FOR THE SECOND GREAT LIE, BUT ITS OU

    OF COURSE IT’S THE COSMOPOLITAN JEW’S FAULT FOR THE SECOND GREAT LIE, BUT ITS OUR FAULT FOR BEING OUT-GUNNED BY IT. ESPECIALLY BY THEIR ALLIANCE WITH OUR WOMEN AND PURITANS.

    There is blame for everyone in the enlightenment – perhaps the jews and French the most. As I say, don’t blame the innovator in warfare, blame those who are losign from not developing superior countermeasures because of underinvestment in weaponry.

    —“Ezra Pound had many clever ideas, but his faulting “Big Jew” was not one of them.”— Boris Miroslav Spacek

    He was correct that the cosmopolitans were the originators of the second ‘religious’ conquest of the west, this time by pseudoscience rather than by authoritarian mysticism.

    We have Aesop, Homer, Alexander, Aristotle, Aurelius, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Menger, Nietzche, Hayek, and all those in between.

    But the cosmopolitans reacted to them with the Pseudoscientific Counter-Enlightenment: Boaz (anthropology), Freud (psychology), Marx (economics and sociology), Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economic pseudoscience), Adorno/Frankfurt( anti-aristocratic aesthetics), Rand and Rothbard (anti-commons).

    And sold the pseudoscience to the female and underclass populace as a utopian scheme via the academy for profit, just as the mysticism was sold to the female and underclass via traveling preachers for profit: to rebel against the aristocracy that domesticated them out of ignorance, mysticism, tribalism, and poverty.

    So this is all merely a fact of history now, and the consequences of the first great lie: authoritarian mysticism, and the second great lie of critical pseudoscience are empirically observable as the destruction of common capital in all its forms.

    So no, he was not wrong.

    What he was wrong about, and what all subsequent generations have been wrong about, is that when one is confronted by an act of warfare wether by arms, by immigration(displacement), by economics, by conversion, or by information (falsehood), that one can be out-gunned-out-germed-out-steeled by immigration, economics, conversion, or informational propaganda as well as by force of arms.

    So that the failure to adapt to a new form of warfare is OUR FAULT, rather than the fault of the innovators of the new form of warfare.

    And this is not complicated.

    We have built western civilization into the FASTEST evolving civilization by the domestication of humans under our domain, through nothing more than the use of the common, natural, judge-discovered law, and the use of truth, empiricism, reason, arms and technology despite small numbers to do so. And we have dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of mysticism, ignorance, poverty, and starvation, and disease with those tools – and we profited from it. And there is no shame in that profiting.

    Compare the consequences of the use of western truth to domesticate man, and the consequences of the first reaction to aristocracy (scriptural religion), the second reaction to Aristotelian aristocracy (scriptural monotheism), and the third reaction to Baconian empiricism (pseudoscientific cosmopolitanism).

    Are jews responsible for the second and third great lies and the harm that they have done? Of course they are.

    Are we responsible for not yet advancing our law so that such lies are impossible to propagate through as aggressive punishment of that method of war and crime as every other method of war and crime?

    Yes, we are.

    So the jews are certainly to blame for much of the world’s reliance on the great lies, and the conflicts therefrom. But we are responsible for tolerating the great lies.

    The interesting question is… why are we tolerant of the great lies, either supernatural great lies, or pseudoscientific great lies?

    And why is it that the jews have learned to specialize in ‘the big lies’ as the Russians and Germans have so frequently observed?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-07 09:26:00 UTC