Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • “YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW” You mean, islam destroyed north african, levantine, byza

    “YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW”

    You mean, islam destroyed north african, levantine, byzantine, and persian civilizations. Is trying to destroy Indian civilization. And is only successfully resisted by Chinese civilization? And is only going to succeed at destroying western civilization, because of the prior conquest of western civilization by the previous generation of islam: christianity?

    So for 1400 years islam has destroyed four major advanced civilizations, and is in the process of destroying all but one: china.

    With the only ‘break’ in the conquest of the advanced civilizations has been the past 200 years, where we have had advanced technology with which to defeat their numbers, and ability to maneuver.

    And that we are reaping the sewing of our christian ethic?

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 07:45:00 UTC

  • ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO IMPROVE THEM WITH THE SCIENCE OF IT 1. Greater success at r

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-most-white-people-richer-than-non-whites/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=856c23a6&srid=u4QvTERRIBLE ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO IMPROVE THEM WITH THE SCIENCE OF IT

    1. Greater success at reproductive juvenilization. we are not sure why other than that slowing the rate of maturity is possible in colder climates, whereas accelerating the rate of maturity in warmer clients is necessary for no other reason than to survive the higher incidence of disease, parasites, and predators.

    2. Greater success at aggressive culling the size of the underclasses. While it is impolitic to say so, the wealth or poverty of a people is more dependent upon the reduction and elimination of the underclasses than it is upon the production of exceptional people and education. A good rule of thumb is that every person at the bottom is six times as costly as every person at the top is productive.

    3. Greater success at eliminating the clannishness impulse. Again, we are not sure if this is an artifact of low population density and cold climates, or purely one of cultural forces influence reproductive choice. In either event, white people (to their detriment) are less tribal and clannish.

    4. For reasons we are just beginning to understand, the west made very different cultural choices. (a) telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as highest virtue, despite any impact it would ahve on the dominance hierarchy. (b) Sovereignty and Markets in Everything creating a market for polities, and polities led by markets, rather than monopolistic hierarchies. As a consequence a division of the state into different institutions that competed with one another. This led to deflationary literature where the rest of the world relied on conflationary literature. (c) that the gods, like men, are subject to the laws of the natural universe, and that man can defeat the folly of these gods with cunning and effort.

    5. So white people are more trusting, more trustworthy, and have institutions that depend upon more trusting, more trustworthy people, and together these reduce the frictions that constrain non white peoples to lesser conditions. The only people close to whites are the Japanese and south koreans. And even among whites, these rules apply only to whites from above the Hajnal Line (protestants and their descendants) who practiced Bipartite Manorialism.

    6. TRUST=COOPERATIVE VELOCITY=RATE OF ECONOMY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-07 20:14:00 UTC

  • SOME ‘ANARCHO PROPERTARIANISM’ AND FREE RIDING ON THE BRAND. Well, um. Some Ques

    SOME ‘ANARCHO PROPERTARIANISM’ AND FREE RIDING ON THE BRAND.

    Well, um.

    Some Questions:

    1) How does anarcho-propertarianism differ from Hoppe’s anarcho capitalism? Hoppe and rothbard use anarcho capitalism. The Propertarians disagree with Hoppe and define the scope of property concretely. Yet I see nothing in your discourse that differs from Anarcho Capitalism.

    2) Define property, since this is the test of whether someone has an understanding of what he speaks. The failure of the ancap movement over the past 40 years has been because of the inability to define the scope of property, and the fact that the majority runs away from the philosophy once it is defined.

    3) What will people use violence and fight over that is not covered by your definition of property? Given what people will fight over, wont people generate demand for an ‘insurer’ or what we call a ‘state’ in order to insure that which they will fight for, if it is not covered by your definition of property?

    4) Here are some good examples:

    a – Lets take slander, libel, or ridicule for example.

    b – Lets take blackmail for example.

    c – Lets take interference in a marriage for example.

    People all over the world kill over these matters. So are they addressed by your definition of property?

    5) Now if given a choice between living in a social democracy and living in your ideal polity, why would people rationally choose to live there versus the social democracy? Why don’t all sorts of libertarians move to remote regions and form new societies there? What has happened to all groups that have tried to live by anarcho capitalist ethics or law in the past? Where are they today? What have the more regulated societies done to those polities that HAVE tried to enact ancap-style lifestyles? Why? Who actually moved there other than criminals?

    Now, if you can’t answer these questions, or you answer them dishonestly, or incompetently, then how can you make a claim to hold to a philosophy that is possible rather than a cult or religion that is not possible?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 22:28:00 UTC

  • “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GENETIC MIDDLE CLASS” –An Idiot Apparently (a) you

    —“THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GENETIC MIDDLE CLASS” –An Idiot

    Apparently (a) you don’t read much about genetics (b) don’t know much about the relationship between IQ and occupations, (c) don’t know much about economic history. (d) certainly don’t know much about bipartite manorialism, or the hajnal line, and the relationship between crops and family structure and inheritance patterns. (e) and haven’t read ‘the Son Also Rises’ nor the research it was based upon.

    Try not to be stupid in my presence. My time is really valuable. And while I’m generous with it, I take exception to having it wasted.

    There are people who are deserving all the time.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 20:03:00 UTC

  • ( This group should really be renamed trite, dishonest, political memes, link-sp

    ( This group should really be renamed trite, dishonest, political memes, link-spamming, and amateur propaganda group.

    There are no debates. and no discussion, which requires reciprocal honesty.

    There is no philosophy here – which requires structured arguments of internal consistency.

    There is in fact nothing but shallow moralizing, ridicule, shaming, and rallying, the purpose of which demonstrates little other than the poster’s inability to construct honest, internally consistent arguments, and carry on honest internally consistent discourse. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-29 17:36:00 UTC

  • Well, like Prometheus, Covenant is just a bad moving made barely tolerable by hi

    Well, like Prometheus, Covenant is just a bad moving made barely tolerable by high production values

    Let me help you: the alien franchise cannot be made into high concept, and that is why Scott is failing.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 15:19:00 UTC

  • Um. Listen. All freudian psychology is pseudoscience. Ok? So you don’t use words

    Um. Listen. All freudian psychology is pseudoscience. Ok? So you don’t use words like ‘Ego’. Or any other term. We have new terms that are a little better now.

    I’m converting those terms into Acquisitionism, and I’ve already converted moral terms into Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.

    So someday soon we will have the propertarian equivalent of psychology. In the meantime, you can simply state what the person wants to acquire, and how it affects some sort of capital, and the inaccuracy of that person’s status.

    Most of what we see in psychology is something to do with status signals (dominance hierarchy whether female or male) and the discipline or lack of discipline in controlling our reaction to the correspondence or lack of correspondence between (a) reality, (b) self image, (b) retention of real or perceived gains. (loss aversion).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-27 09:29:00 UTC

  • depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about. 1) the Christian Austria

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9a235e59It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:31:00 UTC

  • is a meddlesome Marxist Institution advocating parasitism by the underclasses ag

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-know-about-National-Human-Rights-Commission/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=625ea18e&srid=u4QvIt is a meddlesome Marxist Institution advocating parasitism by the underclasses against the productive middle classes.

    The only possible human rights are property rights to your life, your body, your thoughts, your actions, that which you have obtained in trade.

    There exist no other possible rights, since the only rights universally possible are those that we are universally capable of delivering to one another. If we cannot universally deliver it cannot be a human right. Ergo, the only rights possible are non-interference and non imposition against the life, body, thoughts, actions, and possessions and interests obtained in trade.

    So our ‘rights’ mirror our obligations. We cannot claim a right without declaring it our obligation, and we cannot claim a right or obligation that we cannot act upon. Therefore the only rights and obligations that are possible are to NOT DO SOMETHING.

    The primary right and obligation that we have not imposed is the right to bear children only that we can afford, and the obligation to bear children only that we can afford, and to NOT bear children we cannot afford.

    This is the one remaining human right that we must struggle produce. Because at present thi sis the cause of the violation of every other human right: creating a moral hazard by violating the rights of others, by producing offspring you cannot provide for, thereby requiring subsidy from those others who can.

    The human obligation not to bear offspring we cannot afford is the cause of poverty.

    But women will never tolerate this law, and this is the purpose of the Human RIghts Commission: to prevent the imposition of the only missing human right and obligation.

    Do you understand?

    That woman and that man, who create children that they cannot provide for are the people who must be punished if we are to obtain human rights for all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:00:00 UTC

  • Spengler is a german, a christian, a spiritualist, and a literary philosopher, n

    Spengler is a german, a christian, a spiritualist, and a literary philosopher, not a scientist. His analysis that killing germany was a disaster was correct, but not for the reasons he imagines – but because germany was just about the finally convert us from the last vestiges of middle eastern semitic lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 17:31:00 UTC