Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547244310 Timestamp) LIES OF RIGHT ABSOLUTISTS AND LEFT ABSOLUTISTS ARE STILL JUST LIES – AN ADMISSION OF FAILURE. The difference between this article and some bit of occult nonsense by Evola is simply the flavor of sophism. No one disputes that language makes possible a multitude of paradigmatic lies of coercion, but it makes only one most parsimonious paradigmatic truth of decidability. The Pretense of Wisdom in the Tempo of Syllables, and the power of suggestion by loading and framing inarticulate and untestable prose. “Woo Woo” for the post-theological era. Science requires knowledge. “Woo” takes advantage of ignorance. Leftist or right lies are indifferent. No one disputes the relationship between consciousness and language – only the degree. It still does not justify that the history of man is a long filter of anthropocentric perception and intuition as we gradually eliminate ignorance, error, bias and deceit – despite the priests. Termination of lies and liars regardless of herd or pack is in the interest of both herd and pack. https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-anthropoetics-of-power/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547242782 Timestamp) EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE

    1. Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some artificial moral license to property rather than that property produces a division of labor that is more rewarding than predation (for the able) and is the only reason for the able to cooperate, and the only means of cooperation at scale.

    2. In the Free Rider Problem, the answer is that if you are a free rider you are consuming opportunity and resources that could by replaced by those who DO contribute to the commons that they benefit from. This is in fact what people demonstrably do: outcast free riders.

    3. We inherit the investments of our ancestors we do not free ride upon them because they are ours by inheritance, in exchange for persisting the genes, civilization, culture and investments of those previous generations, just as we hope following generations will preserve ours.

    4. —“must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government”– No, it is because it is an unsubstitutable good. There is no restitution for lost life nor substitution for risk of life. NONE.

    … I can’t even continue refuting rothbard because it makes me so angry that we have lost two generations to (((more lies))). EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A (((LIE))) DEFENDED BY A HALF TRUTH, AND APPEAL TO REASONABLENESS. …. EVERYTHING. YES, ….. EVERYTHING. Rothbard is only useful in so far as we can study his excellence at Straw Manning, Undue Praise, Pilpul and Critique, and by that study, understand why we moral men are vulnerable to that category of (((lies))). It’s just lies. ROTHBARD IS JUST (((A LIAR))) THAT SUCKERS MIDDLE CLASS YOUNG MEN, LIKE MARXISM WORKING CLASS MEN, LIKE POSTMODERNISM WOMEN AND NON-MEN. Everything he says is false. Study rothbard to learn how to lie, so that we can end lying to our people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547316451 Timestamp) THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE. by Bill Joslin The biological argument for religiosity I find is flawed. Aaron Hill presented this to me a week or two ago. The mutual exclusion of reason and commitment which is often presented as the result of selection pressures due to religion. I’d offer an alternative hypothesis. we’ve evolved to err on the side of false positives and projected intention because this affords better risk management in regards to predation pressure. Whereas reason/investigation to ferret out a false positive would increase risk of predation. example to illuminate what I mean. An ape in the savanah hears a rustling in the grass beside them. Assuming the rustling is a predator (projected intention) opposed to the wind and fleeing would offer, on the aggregate, a better chance of surviving than investigating to verify the initial assumption wasn’t a false positive. This provides a selection pressure toward “faith” over reason and why reason does not come easily to us. (in other words the biology behind faith is not due to religion but rather predation pressure) Now, to take the biological responses we’ve inherited toward projected intention and false positives as justification for religiousity et al is to jump the is-ought gap. Just because we have these predilections (the “is”) doesn’t mean we “ought” to embrace them. The evidence is in – the incremental extrapolation of social and formal functions away from the church, religiosity and intuition allowed humans to break out of the Malthusian trap, move out from under discretionary rule and begin cultivating markets for agency across scale (individual – organizational, middle class). In short, the placebo effect and predilection for faith doesn’t warrant embracing obfuscation of causal relations when human progress has resulted from disambiguation across multiple domains.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547316451 Timestamp) THE BIOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR RELIGIOSITY? NOPE. by Bill Joslin The biological argument for religiosity I find is flawed. Aaron Hill presented this to me a week or two ago. The mutual exclusion of reason and commitment which is often presented as the result of selection pressures due to religion. I’d offer an alternative hypothesis. we’ve evolved to err on the side of false positives and projected intention because this affords better risk management in regards to predation pressure. Whereas reason/investigation to ferret out a false positive would increase risk of predation. example to illuminate what I mean. An ape in the savanah hears a rustling in the grass beside them. Assuming the rustling is a predator (projected intention) opposed to the wind and fleeing would offer, on the aggregate, a better chance of surviving than investigating to verify the initial assumption wasn’t a false positive. This provides a selection pressure toward “faith” over reason and why reason does not come easily to us. (in other words the biology behind faith is not due to religion but rather predation pressure) Now, to take the biological responses we’ve inherited toward projected intention and false positives as justification for religiousity et al is to jump the is-ought gap. Just because we have these predilections (the “is”) doesn’t mean we “ought” to embrace them. The evidence is in – the incremental extrapolation of social and formal functions away from the church, religiosity and intuition allowed humans to break out of the Malthusian trap, move out from under discretionary rule and begin cultivating markets for agency across scale (individual – organizational, middle class). In short, the placebo effect and predilection for faith doesn’t warrant embracing obfuscation of causal relations when human progress has resulted from disambiguation across multiple domains.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547596423 Timestamp) How much longer are we going to have to tolerate butt-hurt libertarians? Give it up kids. Malinvestment like the rest of us. Move on. PATH OF MATURITY Democrat > Classical Liberal > Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalism > Neo Reaction > Propertarianism. Propertarianism = Perfect Government. 1) Algorithmic Natural Law, and an Independent Judiciary of the law, and a ready, trained, militia. 2) Choose: Nationalistic (eugenic) or Anti-Nationalistic (dysgenic) 3) Choose your means of producing commons: Monarchic, Oligarchy (senate), Classical LIberal (classes), Social Democratic, Direct Democracy. Direct Economic Democracy. 4) Choose your method of education (mindfulness(religion), ethics (manners, ethics, morals, laws), methods of calculation, general knowledge, occupational skills.)

  • (FB 1547829857 Timestamp) YA WANNA BET THIS MORON DOESN”T QUESTION BUT ACCUSES,

    (FB 1547829857 Timestamp) YA WANNA BET THIS MORON DOESN”T QUESTION BUT ACCUSES, OR ENGAGES IN GSRM?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548003536 Timestamp) CRITICISMS OF THOSE UNABLE TO MANAGE FALSIFICATIONISM (MARKETS) —-“AFAIK, right now, you need more than motive (“incentive to deceive or defraud”) to prosecute.”—B Quimby You need harm and motive (incentive). You need an involuntary imposition of costs against a demonstrated investment of another(others) – harm. You need means, motive, opportunity. The current argument in legal reform, is that you also need intent or failure of due diligence in order to prevent the police, prosecutors, and judges from driving you to self incrimination. —“Your position would sound a lot stronger to me if you demonstrated awareness that your epistemological standard might be incomplete, and in spite of this, that you are willing to sacrifice truths that don’t fit said standard.”—B Quimby As far as I know propertarianism (in total) is epistemologically complete. That is in no small part because it is falsificationary (via negativa) not (false) justificationary (via positiva), and as such all via positiva (possibilities) are the result of free association and all ‘truth’s survival from competition. In other words, you dont need to excuse your possible worlds (imaginings) just warranty that you have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit. —“Or, just demonstrate awareness that dogma can be harmful too, but that you are making a conscious choice to be dogmatic, b/c anything less will breed more harm.”— B Quimby Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities? Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM. Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547998043 Timestamp) OVERLOADING VS OVERWHELMING —“Curt engages in Overloading”— OMG… Rhetorical “Overloading” requires forcing appeal to intuition. I do the opposite. I seek to ELIMINATE the possibility of appealing to intuition and force decidability by knowledge and reason. It’s called exhaustive argumentation. The fact that you are overloaded and CAN’T appeal to intuition and I don’t ASK you to, is the opposite of the technique of overloading to cause appeal to intuition. . I agree that I engage in overWHELMING. But ‘overloading’ requires one force another to appeal to intuition rather than reason. (this is why sophism works). If you had the vaguest idea how important my work is you would not make these errors of equality of action rather than inequality of consequence. For example, the fool says ‘violence is bad’, and the wise man says ‘violence is a resource put to ends good or bad’.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548003536 Timestamp) CRITICISMS OF THOSE UNABLE TO MANAGE FALSIFICATIONISM (MARKETS) —-“AFAIK, right now, you need more than motive (“incentive to deceive or defraud”) to prosecute.”—B Quimby You need harm and motive (incentive). You need an involuntary imposition of costs against a demonstrated investment of another(others) – harm. You need means, motive, opportunity. The current argument in legal reform, is that you also need intent or failure of due diligence in order to prevent the police, prosecutors, and judges from driving you to self incrimination. —“Your position would sound a lot stronger to me if you demonstrated awareness that your epistemological standard might be incomplete, and in spite of this, that you are willing to sacrifice truths that don’t fit said standard.”—B Quimby As far as I know propertarianism (in total) is epistemologically complete. That is in no small part because it is falsificationary (via negativa) not (false) justificationary (via positiva), and as such all via positiva (possibilities) are the result of free association and all ‘truth’s survival from competition. In other words, you dont need to excuse your possible worlds (imaginings) just warranty that you have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit. —“Or, just demonstrate awareness that dogma can be harmful too, but that you are making a conscious choice to be dogmatic, b/c anything less will breed more harm.”— B Quimby Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities? Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM. Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547998043 Timestamp) OVERLOADING VS OVERWHELMING —“Curt engages in Overloading”— OMG… Rhetorical “Overloading” requires forcing appeal to intuition. I do the opposite. I seek to ELIMINATE the possibility of appealing to intuition and force decidability by knowledge and reason. It’s called exhaustive argumentation. The fact that you are overloaded and CAN’T appeal to intuition and I don’t ASK you to, is the opposite of the technique of overloading to cause appeal to intuition. . I agree that I engage in overWHELMING. But ‘overloading’ requires one force another to appeal to intuition rather than reason. (this is why sophism works). If you had the vaguest idea how important my work is you would not make these errors of equality of action rather than inequality of consequence. For example, the fool says ‘violence is bad’, and the wise man says ‘violence is a resource put to ends good or bad’.