Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • We Are Still Waiting for A Substantive Criticism of Propertarianism and … We Never Get One.

    Oct 7, 2019, 9:35 AM Here is another straw man (or what I call ’empty hat’).

    —“I am not sure what you want them to criticize. What has propertarianism accomplished? Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments. Some ideas based on statistical data sure, but no statistical data of a deployment of P in a real world government and/or legal system. Until such a time as this can be done people are left in a situation not unlike the pre Bolshevik era in which many people can speculate but have no real evidence. Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation. I do think it’s interesting that anybody who disagrees just doesn’t “understand.” Now that is a Marxist echo if I ever heard one.”— Clifton Knox

    I can criticize Marx on his first premises, and so can anyone else, we all know that the premises are false. Try to criticize P on any such premise. Go ahead.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    Same thing I can say for hoppe and rothbard, right? So how is that a defense of their work vs mine? P is a continuation of the anglo rule of law by creating the long-sought-after means of strict construction free of interpetation of the law. Pretty much the entire anglo world runs upon it (although with weak constitutions everywhere). You can’t claim rule of law isn’t practiced, only that P-law applied to speech isn’t practiced. And even there that’s questionable because we do it all the time in commercial cases.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    How long did it take Smith/Hume, Marx, Aristotle to be applied? Darwin is still struggling against the entire abrahamic project? How is that a criticism? I haven’t even published yet. Although we ARE teaching it and our movement is growing.

    —“Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments.”—

    P consists of multiple works. The logic of cognitive science, logic of social science, the logic of language, and the logic of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, how to construct a range of constitutions under it, and an explanation of why it evolved in the west, but could be imitated by any group able to construct a sufficient demographic by use of soft eugenics. P is a continuation of the anglo tradition of rule of law by the common law, where the common law is reducible to tort. It is the most continuous form of government in europe, the tradition, at least in the northern realm, is somewhere near 5000 years old. So rule of law, particularly by monarchy, and houses of the classes, was discovered in northern europe during the middle ages, but it’s not like we havent practiced it in some form or other for millennia. P is most analogous to a programming language – operational logic, which is where I took the model from – You can construct ANY form of government with it as long as it consists of articulation as reciprocity and trades within reciprocity. I know this because I”ve tried. Aristotle, and the Founders wrote a constitution, why didn’t Hoppe or Rothbard? That’s the only argumentative ‘test’ of a theory of politics, isn’t it? Even if survival of a polity under it is the only empirical test. If you can’t write a constitution you are just talking smack. Aristotle did, the founders did, and I am doing it.

    —“Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation”—

    Well you know, how is that a criticism vs hoppe and rothbard? It’s very easy to test P-logic and P-law. so far it’s flawless. P is a formal OPERATIONAL logic, and the first formal operational logic of social science, that can be used to compose constitutions, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. Mises didn’t understand (and neither does Hoppe) that all logics are falsificationary, and operational logic the most falsificationary possible by human beings because it requires we falsify every dimension of consistency (constant relations) perceivable by man. You can test P over and over again as many of us have now: try to state a falsehood in testimonial form, operational language. Do it and illustrate that you can. For example, both ordinary language logic and formal logic (symbolic) can be criticized, empiricism can be …. I’ve written an argument (“Ruling”) for every substantial question of political conflict I can find, in some degree of completeness. I know. I’ve done it. And people are always blown away by them. they just take time. What you have done so far is use a STRAW MAN. SO:

    (a) yes rule of law has been tried and is successful – its the holy grail of all peoples. We live under it. (b) every one of P’s operational logics is open to criticism by falsification. Go ahead and try. If it’s LAW it must be open to logical analysis. It’s not an empirical question. (c) all constitutions will produce conflict because we all seek advantages over others with different abilities and interests. However, rule of law (and the constitution I’m writing) prohibit the use of via-positiva coercion and force people using via-negativa-law into the markets for cooperation rather than tolerating imposition of costs upon others.

  • We Are Still Waiting for A Substantive Criticism of Propertarianism and … We Never Get One.

    Oct 7, 2019, 9:35 AM Here is another straw man (or what I call ’empty hat’).

    —“I am not sure what you want them to criticize. What has propertarianism accomplished? Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments. Some ideas based on statistical data sure, but no statistical data of a deployment of P in a real world government and/or legal system. Until such a time as this can be done people are left in a situation not unlike the pre Bolshevik era in which many people can speculate but have no real evidence. Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation. I do think it’s interesting that anybody who disagrees just doesn’t “understand.” Now that is a Marxist echo if I ever heard one.”— Clifton Knox

    I can criticize Marx on his first premises, and so can anyone else, we all know that the premises are false. Try to criticize P on any such premise. Go ahead.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    Same thing I can say for hoppe and rothbard, right? So how is that a defense of their work vs mine? P is a continuation of the anglo rule of law by creating the long-sought-after means of strict construction free of interpetation of the law. Pretty much the entire anglo world runs upon it (although with weak constitutions everywhere). You can’t claim rule of law isn’t practiced, only that P-law applied to speech isn’t practiced. And even there that’s questionable because we do it all the time in commercial cases.

    —“Where has it been applied in a meaningful way that can be measured? Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P?”—

    How long did it take Smith/Hume, Marx, Aristotle to be applied? Darwin is still struggling against the entire abrahamic project? How is that a criticism? I haven’t even published yet. Although we ARE teaching it and our movement is growing.

    —“Which governments have based their foundational documents and legal systems on P? Of those, how many have gathered meaningful statistical data on P itself in practice? So far, all I have ever seen is a shit load of thought experiments.”—

    P consists of multiple works. The logic of cognitive science, logic of social science, the logic of language, and the logic of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, how to construct a range of constitutions under it, and an explanation of why it evolved in the west, but could be imitated by any group able to construct a sufficient demographic by use of soft eugenics. P is a continuation of the anglo tradition of rule of law by the common law, where the common law is reducible to tort. It is the most continuous form of government in europe, the tradition, at least in the northern realm, is somewhere near 5000 years old. So rule of law, particularly by monarchy, and houses of the classes, was discovered in northern europe during the middle ages, but it’s not like we havent practiced it in some form or other for millennia. P is most analogous to a programming language – operational logic, which is where I took the model from – You can construct ANY form of government with it as long as it consists of articulation as reciprocity and trades within reciprocity. I know this because I”ve tried. Aristotle, and the Founders wrote a constitution, why didn’t Hoppe or Rothbard? That’s the only argumentative ‘test’ of a theory of politics, isn’t it? Even if survival of a polity under it is the only empirical test. If you can’t write a constitution you are just talking smack. Aristotle did, the founders did, and I am doing it.

    —“Propertarianism until such time is unsubstantiated speculation”—

    Well you know, how is that a criticism vs hoppe and rothbard? It’s very easy to test P-logic and P-law. so far it’s flawless. P is a formal OPERATIONAL logic, and the first formal operational logic of social science, that can be used to compose constitutions, amendments, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. Mises didn’t understand (and neither does Hoppe) that all logics are falsificationary, and operational logic the most falsificationary possible by human beings because it requires we falsify every dimension of consistency (constant relations) perceivable by man. You can test P over and over again as many of us have now: try to state a falsehood in testimonial form, operational language. Do it and illustrate that you can. For example, both ordinary language logic and formal logic (symbolic) can be criticized, empiricism can be …. I’ve written an argument (“Ruling”) for every substantial question of political conflict I can find, in some degree of completeness. I know. I’ve done it. And people are always blown away by them. they just take time. What you have done so far is use a STRAW MAN. SO:

    (a) yes rule of law has been tried and is successful – its the holy grail of all peoples. We live under it. (b) every one of P’s operational logics is open to criticism by falsification. Go ahead and try. If it’s LAW it must be open to logical analysis. It’s not an empirical question. (c) all constitutions will produce conflict because we all seek advantages over others with different abilities and interests. However, rule of law (and the constitution I’m writing) prohibit the use of via-positiva coercion and force people using via-negativa-law into the markets for cooperation rather than tolerating imposition of costs upon others.

  • Peterson, Moly, Yarvin, Macdonald, Duchesne, Dutton and Doolittle

    Oct 7, 2019, 10:25 AM Peterson is a therapist telling you it will all be ok if you take the buddhist strategy and retreat into changing yourself. Molyneux is a therapist feeding you information, moral confirmation, and emotional sedation. Yarvin is a storyteller explaining that what you’re sensing is wrong with the world, is indeed wrong, and why. MacDonald is an academic explaining the cause of what’s wrong and why. Duchesne is telling us why and how and why we were uniquely successful. Dutton is telling us the science of why we were right. And Doolittle (me) is a jurist telling you we were right, the solution to the restoration, and how to force it’s implementation. Learn from everyone. But the end of your Journey is Propertarianism: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Markets in Everything. Start with John Mark. Follow Brandon and Michael Hayes for contributions from the propertarians. Learn from the Sheepdogs. Take our course in Foundations. It’s time to return to rule. Of yourself, your polity, and the world, in self defense.

  • Peterson, Moly, Yarvin, Macdonald, Duchesne, Dutton and Doolittle

    Oct 7, 2019, 10:25 AM Peterson is a therapist telling you it will all be ok if you take the buddhist strategy and retreat into changing yourself. Molyneux is a therapist feeding you information, moral confirmation, and emotional sedation. Yarvin is a storyteller explaining that what you’re sensing is wrong with the world, is indeed wrong, and why. MacDonald is an academic explaining the cause of what’s wrong and why. Duchesne is telling us why and how and why we were uniquely successful. Dutton is telling us the science of why we were right. And Doolittle (me) is a jurist telling you we were right, the solution to the restoration, and how to force it’s implementation. Learn from everyone. But the end of your Journey is Propertarianism: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Markets in Everything. Start with John Mark. Follow Brandon and Michael Hayes for contributions from the propertarians. Learn from the Sheepdogs. Take our course in Foundations. It’s time to return to rule. Of yourself, your polity, and the world, in self defense.

  • No More Ancap Lies

    Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,

    a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.

  • No More Ancap Lies

    Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,

    a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.

  • Lunatics, Addicts, and Liars All Show Their Colors Eventually

    Oct 11, 2019, 1:40 PM

    —” About the Error #1, I submit the following: America itself with those 40 million people with 400 million guns are proving that it is possible. THEY, not the US Military, are protecting the homeland from boots-on-the-ground invasion. I am for saving the Republic not overthrowing it. Indeed the starting point is “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.— Gunther Schadow

    Yes but they don’t want an anarchic polity. They want a restoration of the constitution of natural rights. There is no evidence that they don’t want the classical liberal tradition. I am for saving the republic as we did during the last civil war by forcibly altering the constitution regardless of the political process such that necessary reforms are permitted. So you lied again that I want to overthrow the government and replace it rather than reform the constitution and modernize it.

    —“At this very moment, your P is as much a non-existing utopia as Hoppe’s A. Nothing that you say can change that. So all your arguments about “has never been done” and “cannot be done” do not apply. You may dream up something as the lone dreamer that you are, and you can claim all you want, and you can collect minions on the internet all you want. And you can refuse to consider arguments that do not adopt your autistic language first.”—

    Well that’s not true. The only difference between the current constitution and mine is strict construction, precise enumeration, and the extension of the current prohibition on false and fraudulent commercial speech to fraudulent political speech, and from criminal speech (conspiracy) to criminal political speech. The rest is just choices of the series of means of separation that permit local specialization of policy while providing unified defense as the framers intended. I mean, P is a methodology, but effectively the constitution I’m proposing just adapts the construction of commons to current conditions.

    —“But the reality is that you are but one man with a bunch of crazies on the internet dreaming of his great revolution in which for some reason his faction would win.”—

    And you are one man without crazies. And hoppe and rothbard have crazies that have failed for forty years now. and contributed to western failure. All revolutionaries are crazies, that tells us nothing. You’d have called Darwin a crazy, and happily killed aristotle as well as socrates.

    —“No, until then, you need to be held responsible to the belching and farting of your minions who you sit together in a room with dreaming your pipe dreams. All those “dealing with the Joo Qoo” and “Hitler was right” and that crude Hitlerian anticapitalist sentiments you are grooming around you (like one guy actually told me that “the economy shouldn’t have priority over the people” when I pointed out how foolish it is to round up and deport people who immigrated after 1965, shit like that.”—

    You are welcome to disagree on truth vs falsehood. If you want to disagree on preferable vs not then that’s not important here. I do truth, not preference. (I leave like and dislike for women and half men.) —-“When your minion-knights actually ride out in their attempt to assume power, there will be lots and lots of other powers who compete with you, and you have nothing to prove you would fare any better than Hoppe. Except you have a bunch of fascists around you who may be good with the rapid radical and murderous ascension to power, followed by foolishly squandering away the resources that they have violently and illegitimately conquered.”— Well you know, you are just venting your frustration. What will happen is ALL factions will ride out, and chaos will ensue and people will gravitate to a solution that appeals to them.

    —“I came here EXCITED about the IDEA and PROMISE of using formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful DILIGENT speech using operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity in America and world wide. “—

    That’s a lie right? You came here an ancap at worst, a civnat at best, a continental and a christian. You cam searching for a way to enforce what you wanted. I supplied away to enforce truth, reciprocity, and competitive necessity – which falsifies some of your wants. You just don’t like it. Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and America world wide, are you? Which of those have you complained about? None. What have you complained about? Every single time, the application of truth to TABOOS. Why? Why are you afraid of the truth such that you can’t speak of the taboos? And what have you offered us to repair the current conflict except the same silly political tweaks that have been proposed for fifty years? Nothing. So what you want from me is to stop falsifying and stop undermining falsehoods. And to simply agree with your sentiments. You are worried about people being OFFENDED and asked to LEARN. I am doing the opposite. I’m worried about TEACHING PEOPLE regardless of whether they’re offended by the truth or not. Because that’ is what ‘western’ means: truth regardless of cost. That’s what Kant said. THat’s what Aristotle said. That’s what I say.

    —-“””However, as soon as I noticed you are full of mythological shit and can’t let go of your Aryan master race mythology and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word, and you refuse to teach your minions to not be fascists while you fire them on while at the same time denying it (you are a liar actually) I got turned off. I don’t need to waste 10 thousand web pages of time to study any further and neither will 90% of those 40 thousand gun owners in America.”—

    What you mean is that I am looking for a way to reform our religion of christianity such that it is no longer a means by which our people are made vulnerable to the abrahamic methods of deceit we see in feminism, postmodernism, and marxism, as well as judaism, christianity, and islam. I want to outlaw this form of lying in public speech.. This offends you. Because it forces you to put truth before comfort regardless of cost. No philosopher achieves his ultimate end, but by discovering the ultimate ends, he moves the polity some number of steps toward them.

    —“You and John Mark (who won’t show his face, why?) “–

    My understanding is that people are doxxed and it affects their income. I no nothing at all about him. I don’t need to. Either a man’s words are true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal.

    —“are playing with fire. Your minions are using some of that same rhetoric as the NZ mosque shooter, accelerationism. And one day you’ll have a few 100 men stupid enough to begin with aggression (all perfectly justified by your ideology). “—

    Where do you see that? You mean, instead, that there are people who come here because I truthfully discuss the Taboos, and so THEY are whacky. All of our people are trying to restore the need to fight to the anglo liberty tradition because of the failure of rothbardian and hoppeian pacifism. And I am at least, Eli is as well, saying that the solution is no longer possible democratically because it is no longer possible demographically. Regardless you are again GSRRM instead of asking whether P is true, you’re just lying again. So I’ll repeat what I said earlier: Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and america world wide, are you? Which of those have you complained about? None. You’re a liar. You are a liar by failure of due diligence. A carrier of others lies because of your failure of due diligence. And you don’t do your due diligence because either you are lazy, psychologically incompetent, or intellectually unable.

    —“And then the fascist tyranny that’s already siting at the levers of power will have enough to persecute all of the dissident right. “—

    Well, you know, that’s because you don’t know that what I’m proposing in the constitution is very hard for all but ideological leftists to disagree with. A scientists has to discover limits. That doesn’t mean you make use of them.

    —“But they aren’t as stupid as your minions are. It’s going to be a slow boiling death. Your crowd here for whom you are responsible fits the definition of terrorism and your ethno Aryan master race bullshit has gambled away all your moral authority already.”—

    Well, as far as I know I’m trying to restore the jeffersonian constitution under threat that if we don’t, then we will quite happily do something far less desirable. This is to remove the negotiation position like I have said for years. Sorry man, but the evidence is that (a) we have superior demographics, (b) superior balance of neoteny, depth of maturity, and dimorphism. (c) are the only people who have produced testimonial truth and reason, science and medicine, and have done so with a small population in a remote portion of euroasia, at the edge of the bronze age. (d) and have single handedly in this world and the ancient, dragged mankind out of ignorance and poverty hard work, disease and suffering with that civilization and genetic distribution. Sorry man, but the semitic religions are a crime against humanity and I’m trying to find a way to replace them with something that supplies demand but doesn’t include the Semitic cancers. My insight is truth and truth alone. And truth is unforgiving. So to say we are superior is simply true. To say that other people can imitate at least our truth and rule of law and eugenics and they will also become superior in a few generations, is also true.

    —“And there is even the big question how come that John Mark suddenly appears on the scene with that big boom and is your herald? Where does he come from? What funds do you have? “—

    Do a search. I’m a serial entrepreneur. I retired in my late 40’s to do this full time. That said, on purpose, donations pay for the institute and its costs. It’s a trivial cost. We collect trivial donations. Mostly from regulars. Why? I never want to have to modify my work to suit an income stream. Lots of people come and go. It has always been our strategy that I would do the R&D and others would take it to market, for reasons that are relatively obvious – mostly comprehensibility. John decided this was the answer he wanted to promote. So did eli. so has everyone else.

    —“Why doesn’t your stuff get blocked on YouTube? The thought that this is a honey trap is not at all far fetched. “—

    Ok now you have gone from borderline to full fledge lunatic. The reason I don’t get blocked is rather obvious. I don’t do hate speech. And I don’t post videos on controversial taboos. I only post on philosophy – and moreover, partly by design, they aren’t intellectually accessible to many. So others get blocked. The newest guy did yesterday. But as we continue to grow I expect to maintain technical content myself, others to education, others to rally, and others to test the margins.

    —“And why are you Curt siting in the Western Ukraine where the Stepan Bandera emblem wearing Nazis are celebrating their comeback aided and abetted by the deep state that is also running the coup against Donald Trump? So many questions that need to be talked about on common terms, not on your terms.”—

    Who says I’m in Ukraine. I’m in the states. I formed the institute and my companies in Ukraine, and as far as I know I’m married and a resident there. However, Ive been here in the states (a) restoring my health, and (b) taking care of a seriously ill parent. (c) investing in a revolution I’ve been predicting for fifteen years now. HERE IS THE REAL ISSUE Be a fucking gentleman, ask questions, and seek to understand. You clearly don’t understand that I work through prosecution of ideas reducing them to first principles, that must be true, rational, and reciprocal. And you’re an ignorant arrogant immature, loudmouth trying desperately to have someone agree with you or educate you on your terms at their cost. I’m the real deal. I’m exceptional good at what I do. As far as I know there is no other man living that has made anywhere near the progress I have. So If…

    You want an ideology go find one. You want a secular theology go find one. You want a religion go find one. I do truth, which means science, which means true, rational and reciprocal – regardless of costs. And if there isn’t a market for it in this decade there will be in another. And stop wasting my time. Your argument isn’t over truth it’s over preference – and I do truth.

  • Lunatics, Addicts, and Liars All Show Their Colors Eventually

    Oct 11, 2019, 1:40 PM

    —” About the Error #1, I submit the following: America itself with those 40 million people with 400 million guns are proving that it is possible. THEY, not the US Military, are protecting the homeland from boots-on-the-ground invasion. I am for saving the Republic not overthrowing it. Indeed the starting point is “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.— Gunther Schadow

    Yes but they don’t want an anarchic polity. They want a restoration of the constitution of natural rights. There is no evidence that they don’t want the classical liberal tradition. I am for saving the republic as we did during the last civil war by forcibly altering the constitution regardless of the political process such that necessary reforms are permitted. So you lied again that I want to overthrow the government and replace it rather than reform the constitution and modernize it.

    —“At this very moment, your P is as much a non-existing utopia as Hoppe’s A. Nothing that you say can change that. So all your arguments about “has never been done” and “cannot be done” do not apply. You may dream up something as the lone dreamer that you are, and you can claim all you want, and you can collect minions on the internet all you want. And you can refuse to consider arguments that do not adopt your autistic language first.”—

    Well that’s not true. The only difference between the current constitution and mine is strict construction, precise enumeration, and the extension of the current prohibition on false and fraudulent commercial speech to fraudulent political speech, and from criminal speech (conspiracy) to criminal political speech. The rest is just choices of the series of means of separation that permit local specialization of policy while providing unified defense as the framers intended. I mean, P is a methodology, but effectively the constitution I’m proposing just adapts the construction of commons to current conditions.

    —“But the reality is that you are but one man with a bunch of crazies on the internet dreaming of his great revolution in which for some reason his faction would win.”—

    And you are one man without crazies. And hoppe and rothbard have crazies that have failed for forty years now. and contributed to western failure. All revolutionaries are crazies, that tells us nothing. You’d have called Darwin a crazy, and happily killed aristotle as well as socrates.

    —“No, until then, you need to be held responsible to the belching and farting of your minions who you sit together in a room with dreaming your pipe dreams. All those “dealing with the Joo Qoo” and “Hitler was right” and that crude Hitlerian anticapitalist sentiments you are grooming around you (like one guy actually told me that “the economy shouldn’t have priority over the people” when I pointed out how foolish it is to round up and deport people who immigrated after 1965, shit like that.”—

    You are welcome to disagree on truth vs falsehood. If you want to disagree on preferable vs not then that’s not important here. I do truth, not preference. (I leave like and dislike for women and half men.) —-“When your minion-knights actually ride out in their attempt to assume power, there will be lots and lots of other powers who compete with you, and you have nothing to prove you would fare any better than Hoppe. Except you have a bunch of fascists around you who may be good with the rapid radical and murderous ascension to power, followed by foolishly squandering away the resources that they have violently and illegitimately conquered.”— Well you know, you are just venting your frustration. What will happen is ALL factions will ride out, and chaos will ensue and people will gravitate to a solution that appeals to them.

    —“I came here EXCITED about the IDEA and PROMISE of using formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful DILIGENT speech using operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity in America and world wide. “—

    That’s a lie right? You came here an ancap at worst, a civnat at best, a continental and a christian. You cam searching for a way to enforce what you wanted. I supplied away to enforce truth, reciprocity, and competitive necessity – which falsifies some of your wants. You just don’t like it. Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and America world wide, are you? Which of those have you complained about? None. What have you complained about? Every single time, the application of truth to TABOOS. Why? Why are you afraid of the truth such that you can’t speak of the taboos? And what have you offered us to repair the current conflict except the same silly political tweaks that have been proposed for fifty years? Nothing. So what you want from me is to stop falsifying and stop undermining falsehoods. And to simply agree with your sentiments. You are worried about people being OFFENDED and asked to LEARN. I am doing the opposite. I’m worried about TEACHING PEOPLE regardless of whether they’re offended by the truth or not. Because that’ is what ‘western’ means: truth regardless of cost. That’s what Kant said. THat’s what Aristotle said. That’s what I say.

    —-“””However, as soon as I noticed you are full of mythological shit and can’t let go of your Aryan master race mythology and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word, and you refuse to teach your minions to not be fascists while you fire them on while at the same time denying it (you are a liar actually) I got turned off. I don’t need to waste 10 thousand web pages of time to study any further and neither will 90% of those 40 thousand gun owners in America.”—

    What you mean is that I am looking for a way to reform our religion of christianity such that it is no longer a means by which our people are made vulnerable to the abrahamic methods of deceit we see in feminism, postmodernism, and marxism, as well as judaism, christianity, and islam. I want to outlaw this form of lying in public speech.. This offends you. Because it forces you to put truth before comfort regardless of cost. No philosopher achieves his ultimate end, but by discovering the ultimate ends, he moves the polity some number of steps toward them.

    —“You and John Mark (who won’t show his face, why?) “–

    My understanding is that people are doxxed and it affects their income. I no nothing at all about him. I don’t need to. Either a man’s words are true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal.

    —“are playing with fire. Your minions are using some of that same rhetoric as the NZ mosque shooter, accelerationism. And one day you’ll have a few 100 men stupid enough to begin with aggression (all perfectly justified by your ideology). “—

    Where do you see that? You mean, instead, that there are people who come here because I truthfully discuss the Taboos, and so THEY are whacky. All of our people are trying to restore the need to fight to the anglo liberty tradition because of the failure of rothbardian and hoppeian pacifism. And I am at least, Eli is as well, saying that the solution is no longer possible democratically because it is no longer possible demographically. Regardless you are again GSRRM instead of asking whether P is true, you’re just lying again. So I’ll repeat what I said earlier: Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and america world wide, are you? Which of those have you complained about? None. You’re a liar. You are a liar by failure of due diligence. A carrier of others lies because of your failure of due diligence. And you don’t do your due diligence because either you are lazy, psychologically incompetent, or intellectually unable.

    —“And then the fascist tyranny that’s already siting at the levers of power will have enough to persecute all of the dissident right. “—

    Well, you know, that’s because you don’t know that what I’m proposing in the constitution is very hard for all but ideological leftists to disagree with. A scientists has to discover limits. That doesn’t mean you make use of them.

    —“But they aren’t as stupid as your minions are. It’s going to be a slow boiling death. Your crowd here for whom you are responsible fits the definition of terrorism and your ethno Aryan master race bullshit has gambled away all your moral authority already.”—

    Well, as far as I know I’m trying to restore the jeffersonian constitution under threat that if we don’t, then we will quite happily do something far less desirable. This is to remove the negotiation position like I have said for years. Sorry man, but the evidence is that (a) we have superior demographics, (b) superior balance of neoteny, depth of maturity, and dimorphism. (c) are the only people who have produced testimonial truth and reason, science and medicine, and have done so with a small population in a remote portion of euroasia, at the edge of the bronze age. (d) and have single handedly in this world and the ancient, dragged mankind out of ignorance and poverty hard work, disease and suffering with that civilization and genetic distribution. Sorry man, but the semitic religions are a crime against humanity and I’m trying to find a way to replace them with something that supplies demand but doesn’t include the Semitic cancers. My insight is truth and truth alone. And truth is unforgiving. So to say we are superior is simply true. To say that other people can imitate at least our truth and rule of law and eugenics and they will also become superior in a few generations, is also true.

    —“And there is even the big question how come that John Mark suddenly appears on the scene with that big boom and is your herald? Where does he come from? What funds do you have? “—

    Do a search. I’m a serial entrepreneur. I retired in my late 40’s to do this full time. That said, on purpose, donations pay for the institute and its costs. It’s a trivial cost. We collect trivial donations. Mostly from regulars. Why? I never want to have to modify my work to suit an income stream. Lots of people come and go. It has always been our strategy that I would do the R&D and others would take it to market, for reasons that are relatively obvious – mostly comprehensibility. John decided this was the answer he wanted to promote. So did eli. so has everyone else.

    —“Why doesn’t your stuff get blocked on YouTube? The thought that this is a honey trap is not at all far fetched. “—

    Ok now you have gone from borderline to full fledge lunatic. The reason I don’t get blocked is rather obvious. I don’t do hate speech. And I don’t post videos on controversial taboos. I only post on philosophy – and moreover, partly by design, they aren’t intellectually accessible to many. So others get blocked. The newest guy did yesterday. But as we continue to grow I expect to maintain technical content myself, others to education, others to rally, and others to test the margins.

    —“And why are you Curt siting in the Western Ukraine where the Stepan Bandera emblem wearing Nazis are celebrating their comeback aided and abetted by the deep state that is also running the coup against Donald Trump? So many questions that need to be talked about on common terms, not on your terms.”—

    Who says I’m in Ukraine. I’m in the states. I formed the institute and my companies in Ukraine, and as far as I know I’m married and a resident there. However, Ive been here in the states (a) restoring my health, and (b) taking care of a seriously ill parent. (c) investing in a revolution I’ve been predicting for fifteen years now. HERE IS THE REAL ISSUE Be a fucking gentleman, ask questions, and seek to understand. You clearly don’t understand that I work through prosecution of ideas reducing them to first principles, that must be true, rational, and reciprocal. And you’re an ignorant arrogant immature, loudmouth trying desperately to have someone agree with you or educate you on your terms at their cost. I’m the real deal. I’m exceptional good at what I do. As far as I know there is no other man living that has made anywhere near the progress I have. So If…

    You want an ideology go find one. You want a secular theology go find one. You want a religion go find one. I do truth, which means science, which means true, rational and reciprocal – regardless of costs. And if there isn’t a market for it in this decade there will be in another. And stop wasting my time. Your argument isn’t over truth it’s over preference – and I do truth.

  • Ex-Propertarians Always Sound Like Jilted Ex-Girlfriends

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Ex-Propertarians always sound like jilted ex-girlfriends:

    –“and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word”–

    Operationalizing abrahamism is easy…high verbal IQ (median about 129) combined with low visual-spatial (there goes the calculating for physical costs and forces…) care-harm fundamentalism produced by high openness to experience (often correlated with high schizotypy) and agreeableness, moral module predisposes to vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism (or callous-unemotional as a stand-alone construct), and the predictably high dispositional envy that accompanies it, leading to reversal of hierarchy (the good are evil and the bad are good) — Christianity is Jewish hatred’s most delicate flower of ressentiment rather than its repudiation. All of these things have been operationalized with as much precision as you can find in good psychometrics anywhere. What I’m interested in is in operationalizing sex differences as inherently relative to race (to say nothing of species) rather than considering them as stand-alone constructs. For example, East Asian masculinity and Ashkenazi masculinity and Caucasian masculinity must always be operationalized and studied together and can only ever be separated analytically. sort of like how some lemur species are female-dominant for biological reasons. Most lemur species are female dominant, but only most. So we can speak of mouse lemur (microcebus)-femininity, dwarf lemur (cheirogaleidaes)-femininity, mongoose lemur (lemuridae)-femininity as female dominant instances whereas brown lemur-femininity is more submissive.

  • Ex-Propertarians Always Sound Like Jilted Ex-Girlfriends

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Ex-Propertarians always sound like jilted ex-girlfriends:

    –“and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word”–

    Operationalizing abrahamism is easy…high verbal IQ (median about 129) combined with low visual-spatial (there goes the calculating for physical costs and forces…) care-harm fundamentalism produced by high openness to experience (often correlated with high schizotypy) and agreeableness, moral module predisposes to vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism (or callous-unemotional as a stand-alone construct), and the predictably high dispositional envy that accompanies it, leading to reversal of hierarchy (the good are evil and the bad are good) — Christianity is Jewish hatred’s most delicate flower of ressentiment rather than its repudiation. All of these things have been operationalized with as much precision as you can find in good psychometrics anywhere. What I’m interested in is in operationalizing sex differences as inherently relative to race (to say nothing of species) rather than considering them as stand-alone constructs. For example, East Asian masculinity and Ashkenazi masculinity and Caucasian masculinity must always be operationalized and studied together and can only ever be separated analytically. sort of like how some lemur species are female-dominant for biological reasons. Most lemur species are female dominant, but only most. So we can speak of mouse lemur (microcebus)-femininity, dwarf lemur (cheirogaleidaes)-femininity, mongoose lemur (lemuridae)-femininity as female dominant instances whereas brown lemur-femininity is more submissive.