Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • No, la libertad religiosa no puede ser un derecho natural

    Texto original de Curt Doolittle

    Traducido al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    La libertad religiosa es un derecho fundamental- La Heritage Foundation

    Esto no puede ser lógicamente verdad, Ningún derecho fundamental puede existir si viola la ley natural. 
    La religión debe ser compatible con la ley natural, o si no, no es religión sino política disfrazada de religión o guerra. Pero no es ninguna forma de religión.

    Así que es una contradicción afirmar que las religiones son incompatibles con la ley natural puedan ser derechos naturales- Eso quiere decir que no hay derechos naturales.

    Así que estoy en desacuerdo con la libertad religiosa y la libre expresión, en vez de ello: Requerir que el discurso honesto y la religión honesta sean compatibles con la ley natural.
    La religión permanece honesta a pesar del uso de los mitos, las parábolas, alegorías, escrituras y rituales. Siempre y cuando es´ten de acuerdo con principios que se rijan por esas analogías: compatibilidad con ley natural.

    La cristianidad es compatible con la ley natural. El polimoralismo y la ética dual no son compatibles con la ley natural.

    La cristianidad nos aconseja cómo actuar en concierto con la ley natural. El Islam, el judaísmo y otras religiones nos recomiendan acciones para expresamente contravenir la ley natural. Y esas religiones establecen que contienen leyes para su cumplimiento y seguimiento – el Halacha judío, y la Sharia islámica claman ser leyes divinas, y aun así so incompatibles con la ley natural. 

    Los cristianos han sido tolerantes con las herejías, y religiones que compiten con ellos para poder prevenir el mandato de una religión estatal. y por ende proteger la ley natural, y que la independencia de la sabiduría religiosa basada sobre la ley natural protege el daño que podrían causar los hombres. 
    Ni la cristianidad ni la ley natural nos prohíben la purga de las religiones inmorales que violan la ley natural. 
    Ni estamos prohibidos de las filosofías que violan la ley natural: De haber derrotado el marxismo leninismo más temprano que debimos haberlo hecho, habríamos salvado un millón de almas de sufrir. 
    Permitimos que el islam caiga sobre Europa occidental por su violencia e inmoralidad, y hemos fracasado de execrarlo de la Europa del este, áfrica del norte y Bizantium, Miren lo que ha causado nuestro fracaso.

    Estamos en el medio de llegar al segundo más grande engaño después de la conversión forzosa de los romanos: un intento seudocientífico de colonización occidental: antropología boaziana, psicología freudiana, sociología marxista, platonismo cantoriano matemático, economía correlativa marxista keynesiana,, ilustración igualitaria, y las esquinas filosóficas del marxismo leninismo, neo conservadurismo trotskistas, straussiano, y libertarianismo rothbardiano-randiao, y el feminismo neo-puritano-postmoderno. 

    Y hemos entrado en contacto con una tercera ola, esta vez no ejercida por la fuerza (la conquista islámica), no por la conversión religiosa (cristiandad judaica), ni por la conversión pseudocientífica (cosmopolitismo judío), ni por el engaño evidente (postmodernismo, feminismo, y propaganda)

    El conflicto actual está despertando, y la voluntad para execrar este segundo intento de colonizar occidente, a pesar de nuestro siglo de tolerancia. La tolerancia que ha sido abusada por todos.

    NO existen reglas generales ilimitadas. Nuestro retraso en descubrir la teoría de la relatividad nos ha enseñado esto. No hay premisas ilimitadas. No hay teorías deontológicas infinitas que no sean tautologías. 

    El límite de la tolerancia religiosa es la ley natural.

    Todo lo demás es sólo un acto de guerra usando la máscara de la religión para engañarnos al depredar nuestro altruismo.

    Nosotros somos el pueblo que inventó la honestidad. Rescatamos a la humanidad de la ignorancia, el misticismo, enfermedad y pobreza usando nuestra tecnología honestidad: ciencia y ley natural.

    Nosotros somos el único pueblo que lo ha hecho

    Los otros lo odian.
    No debemos perecer en esta tierra

    Curt Doolittle
    Kiev, Ucrania

    El instituto propietarista 

  • No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    [T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law. Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion. So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights. So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law. Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law. Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law. Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law. Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men. Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law. Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering. We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed. We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism. And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda). We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated. There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies. The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law. Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism. We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law. We are the only people to have done it. They others hate it. We must not perish from this earth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Keiv, Ukraine

  • No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    [T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law. Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion. So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights. So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law. Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law. Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law. Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law. Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men. Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law. Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering. We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed. We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism. And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda). We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated. There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies. The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law. Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism. We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law. We are the only people to have done it. They others hate it. We must not perish from this earth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Keiv, Ukraine

  • NO, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT. (read it) (learn

    NO, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT.

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    This cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law.

    Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion.

    If a religion is incompatible with Natural Law, then it is the merger of politics and religion – yet defense of the separation of church and state is the reason for our tolerance of religions.

    So it is a logical contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights.

    So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law.

    Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law.

    Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law.

    Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Talmud and the

    Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men.

    Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law.

    Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering.

    We threw Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed.

    We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism.

    And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda).

    We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated.

    There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies.

    The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law.

    Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism.

    We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law.

    We are the only people to have done it.

    They others hate it.

    We must not perish from this earth.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Keiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 09:04:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism: Could The Government Be Considered As A Powerful Landowner And Could Its Power Be Justified On These Grounds?

    A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.

    At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.

    Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies,  creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts,  all of whom are accountable under the common law.

    So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts.  And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market. 

    The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?”  I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it.  (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds

  • Libertarianism: Could The Government Be Considered As A Powerful Landowner And Could Its Power Be Justified On These Grounds?

    A lot of things can be ‘considered’ but they must be ‘accepted’ in order for us to agree to act upon them together, and they must survive while performing their function without failing to provide their promised ends.

    At present the ‘government’ (state) is ‘considered and accepted’ to function as a corporation, and citizens as common shareholders.

    Most libertarians feel that both the corporate state and the corporate business are mistakes, because they are managed using democratic voting, using monopoly bureaucracies,  creating legislation, and the members of the government are protected from prosecution under the common law – rather than private property (a partnership), competing private providers of services, who can only create contracts,  all of whom are accountable under the common law.

    So in short, libertarianism does not rely on economic aggregates, ‘common goods’, ‘states’, all of which are … let us say, pseudoscientific concepts.  And instead, we prefer ‘calculable and testable’ human relations that mimic the market. 

    The question has been “How do we create such post-state institutions?”  I don’t think that until I came along anyone had solved it.  (Really. If they did I couldn’t find it.)


    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Libertarianism-could-the-government-be-considered-as-a-powerful-landowner-and-could-its-power-be-justified-on-these-grounds

  • (from elsewhere) 1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Mea

    (from elsewhere)

    1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Meaning that the purpose is not to change behavior but to forcibly remove people from the commons, the social order, and the gene pool, and continue the ongoing incremental suppression of aggression, and long term pacification of aggression in the world.

    2) As far as I know the death penalty has little impact on certain demographics, possibly because it is statistically improbable that one will suffer it. However, through about 1900 we hung about .5-1% of people a year and the argument is that this was responsible for the genetic advantage of northern europeans everywhere they went in the world – the people who were otherwise were culled.

    3) The evidence from the field, from sheriffs, from police, from prosecutors, is that the three strikes policy has been disproportionately effective. It has for example caused vast migrations between states of the organized petty crime conducted by the methamphetamine trade. And in the northwest its a common complaint that lower tolerance drives Idaho criminals into eastern Washington for example.

    4) Conformity in this case is Non Aggression against Property En Toto. It is somewhat hard to argue that non-aggression is something we avoid conforming to. (If you have some other logic at hand I would love to understand it.)

    One cannot create an intertemporal disincentive for the inter-temporally challenged and cognitively impaired. We can however, cull them if they engage in aggression, and if not we can pay them to behave.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 04:48:00 UTC

  • BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMON

    BREASTFEEDING IN PUBLIC MUST BE MODEST AND SHOW RESPECT FOR PURITY IN THE COMMONS.

    ( https://www.facebook.com/JoeySalads/videos/549083008591884/ )

    Had she picked a spot with limited privacy it would be one thing. Had she placed a blanket over her shoulder, that would be another. But they picked a spot where she was ADVERTISING and that’s quite different. It’s disregard for purity in the commons.

    We all have different disgust and purity responses. Those disgust and purity responses are genetic in origin. And the vary for a very good reason, just like most of our moral instincts vary for a good reason.

    As far as I know the public is fine with blankets over your shoulder and tucked in a corner. Otherwise the public forum is not your home. We worked very hard for thousands of years to create higher demand for behavior in the commons than in the home and bedroom.

    I realize it we all like to think we are ‘normal’ but we are not. That’s a cognitive bias we evolved in order to give us confidence in the face of our distributed instincts.

    Demand for ‘pure’ commons behavior is an advanced technology we created just like high trust.

    Those cultures that did not do so, did not develop high trust – and in most if not all cases, no commons. And certainly no civic societies.

    Primitivism is primitivism and should not be considered tolerance. It’s just primitivism.

    Sorry. Just how it is.

    PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM THREE LOW TRUST GENE POOLS AND CULTURES IN THIS VIDEO. (PROLES)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 09:39:00 UTC

  • capitalism moral? Walter Williams says yes, it is the most moral philosophy mank

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJr2RO7g7jI—-Is capitalism moral? Walter Williams says yes, it is the most moral philosophy mankind has ever pondered! Do you agree?—-

    It is, if:

    (a) it doesn’t occur under a representative government open to special interests that can seek rents, and instead operates by either direct democracy if people are marginally indifferent, or economic democracy if they are substantially different, or by different houses using either direct or economic democracy for diverse polities.

    And (b) if there is rule of law (universal application) whose decidability in law is against parasitism,

    (c) and where there exists universal standing (universal right of suit), so that groups of individuals can punish organizations that engage in parasitism either directly, or via the state.

    Capitalism is moral ( non-parasitic and produces rational, voluntary, cooperation ) if and only if there are no means available FOR IT TO BE USED IMMORALLY.

    There is no common good other than cooperative non parasitism. After that it’s all a matter of market choice in production of consumption or commons.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 08:54:00 UTC

  • Is Keynsian Economics Better For America Than Austrian Economics?

    THIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US.

    1 – Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of knowledge so that people can cooperate voluntarily under the optimum possible conditions.  So as a movement, Austrian economics was a social science.  In other words, they want to improve our information.

    2 – American (Chicago) economics seeks to identify rule of law, so that economics can be constructed as a formula under rule of law – eliminating discretionary toying with the economy, just as rule of law eliminates discretionary toying with the polity.  In other words, they want to manipulate information as little as possible.


    3 – Saltwater (New York/California) economics seeks to identify the maximum disinformation that the government can insert into the economy with which to farm taxes, consume, and redistribute them, while preserving the incentive to keep working and risking capital (the hamster wheel), and to create sufficient knowledge of how to use disinformation that policy makers have full discretion.


    https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics