Form: Critique

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552608800 Timestamp) APPARENTLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR IDEA ACCESSIBLE TO 5 YEAR OLDS —“Curt is not a philosopher by any means. He cannot even understand his own Confusion in order to boil it down into a simple manner in which common folk can grasp it instantly. If you cannot explain your ideas to a 5 year old child without them understanding them logically – you fail to comprehend yet, you own thoughts and imaginations in order to be able to judge them with discernment and thus avoid making a fool of yourself…”—Nacherel Tav This is a lie right? Can you explain programming to a five year old? The formal logics? Arithmetic, Geometry, Calculus, analysis and algebra? No you can’t. When Propertarianism is indifferent from writing law in a formal logic in a formal syntax, just like programming, with a formal set of types,. I can diagram all of it in about eight slides. But it’s a university degree level discipline. What you mean is I can’t produce an IDEOLOGY. Do you understand Kant, or Heidegger, or Aristotle or even darwin? Well, P is slightly easier than each. Precisely because it is formal. So if those men are philosophers then why am I not?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552596289 Timestamp) GET OVER THE NAP. IT MEANS YOU’RE A USEFUL IDIOT No. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit. NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud. Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity. I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552608800 Timestamp) APPARENTLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR IDEA ACCESSIBLE TO 5 YEAR OLDS —“Curt is not a philosopher by any means. He cannot even understand his own Confusion in order to boil it down into a simple manner in which common folk can grasp it instantly. If you cannot explain your ideas to a 5 year old child without them understanding them logically – you fail to comprehend yet, you own thoughts and imaginations in order to be able to judge them with discernment and thus avoid making a fool of yourself…”—Nacherel Tav This is a lie right? Can you explain programming to a five year old? The formal logics? Arithmetic, Geometry, Calculus, analysis and algebra? No you can’t. When Propertarianism is indifferent from writing law in a formal logic in a formal syntax, just like programming, with a formal set of types,. I can diagram all of it in about eight slides. But it’s a university degree level discipline. What you mean is I can’t produce an IDEOLOGY. Do you understand Kant, or Heidegger, or Aristotle or even darwin? Well, P is slightly easier than each. Precisely because it is formal. So if those men are philosophers then why am I not?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552750912 Timestamp) EXAMPLE OF WHY THE 88’S ALWAYS FAIL —“Propertarianism is bullshit. It’s mental gymnastics for above average IQ spergs. @curtdoolittle doesn’t even have a book defining it. It’ll never catch on. Nationalism, Populism, Socialism, these are already popular among Americans and don’t require new gobbledegook ideologies.”— @HonkHonkler88 We don’t do ideology. We do law. Countries are run by an operating system we call ‘law’. It’s the only way that they CAN be run. You can build all three of those ideologies, but you must do it with law. And to do it and prevent (((enemies))) you must do it with Propertarianism. We don’t do ideology. Because we do law we do policy. People will vote for and act in favor of policy. What you mean is stupid people can’t argue law and policy. I agree. They don’t have to. They just have to fight for something that is ACTIONABLE rather than an empty word. You have no leaders. Because you are from the bottom. The bottom never leads. So be nice to your betters who work in your interests despite your thankless ignorant overconfident empty words. In fact, all you and those like you do, is illustrate to your betters, that maybe you deserve to disappear into the night. (BTW: book or not, except for the very formal work on logic and grammars, the content is all online and easily understood by anyone with a high school education and access to wikipedia. We are in an era where wiki has replaced Britannica, and living documents online replaced books.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552750912 Timestamp) EXAMPLE OF WHY THE 88’S ALWAYS FAIL —“Propertarianism is bullshit. It’s mental gymnastics for above average IQ spergs. @curtdoolittle doesn’t even have a book defining it. It’ll never catch on. Nationalism, Populism, Socialism, these are already popular among Americans and don’t require new gobbledegook ideologies.”— @HonkHonkler88 We don’t do ideology. We do law. Countries are run by an operating system we call ‘law’. It’s the only way that they CAN be run. You can build all three of those ideologies, but you must do it with law. And to do it and prevent (((enemies))) you must do it with Propertarianism. We don’t do ideology. Because we do law we do policy. People will vote for and act in favor of policy. What you mean is stupid people can’t argue law and policy. I agree. They don’t have to. They just have to fight for something that is ACTIONABLE rather than an empty word. You have no leaders. Because you are from the bottom. The bottom never leads. So be nice to your betters who work in your interests despite your thankless ignorant overconfident empty words. In fact, all you and those like you do, is illustrate to your betters, that maybe you deserve to disappear into the night. (BTW: book or not, except for the very formal work on logic and grammars, the content is all online and easily understood by anyone with a high school education and access to wikipedia. We are in an era where wiki has replaced Britannica, and living documents online replaced books.)

  • (FB 1552920945 Timestamp) (ACADEMIC) LIBERTARIANS WON”T DEBATE ME

    (FB 1552920945 Timestamp) (ACADEMIC) LIBERTARIANS WON”T DEBATE ME

  • (FB 1552920945 Timestamp) (ACADEMIC) LIBERTARIANS WON”T DEBATE ME

    (FB 1552920945 Timestamp) (ACADEMIC) LIBERTARIANS WON”T DEBATE ME

  • Listening to hoppe, and it frustrates me that he is so close, but so far. Too mu

    Listening to hoppe, and it frustrates me that he is so close, but so far. Too much of Their influence. Frustrating.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-26 20:20:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110637693405290496

  • This is not an ANALYSIS. What are the NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES? what would be the r

    This is not an ANALYSIS. What are the NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES?
    what would be the result??? The result would be an increase in rents of 1k.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-23 01:38:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109268078251163653

    Reply addressees: @mamahellfire31 @614YangGang

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109265855039320067


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109265855039320067

  • So, Y’all are gonna fold for a democrat promising a little free money and your n

    So, Y’all are gonna fold for a democrat promising a little free money and your nationalism and ethnocentrism was all just nonsense all along right? I mean, Roman Empire v2 and y’all are game for it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 20:50:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106296517785202688