Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • IS DOOLITTLE A RUSSIAN SHILL? “Doolittle is a shill for Putin” — Eli Harman My

    IS DOOLITTLE A RUSSIAN SHILL?

    “Doolittle is a shill for Putin” — Eli Harman

    My posts on Ukraine and Russia

    https://propertarianism.com/category/off-topic/russia-and-ukraine/

    My Posts on Putin and Russia

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=Putin+Russia

    My Video on Circumpolar Civilization (inspired by Gorbachev)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n42R6coy5Dk

    My position is pretty clear for anyone doing the research.

    And yes, I would rather live in Eastern Europe than western.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:49:00 UTC

  • The People Who Lie and Defraud

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.

  • The People Who Lie and Defraud

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.

  • This Is the Final Word on Hoppeian Ancapism

    A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ As far as I know, this is the final word on Hoppe. And unless or until he answers these objections (he won’t because he cant) we must separate Hoppe’s CONCLUSIONS from his JUSTIFICATIONS. In other words, once we reduce all social science to reciprocity and the voluntary exchange of property, we can deduce all of social science, ethics, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and law, from that reduction. However, his justifications (excuses, arguments) are nonsense up and until that point. I learned the most important ideas from him: the use of property as the unit of measure in the creation of a formal logic of natural law. However, I use science and scientific epistemology where he uses marxist and kantian rationalism: the sources of Marxist communism and socialism and social democracy, rothbardian libertinism, and Straussian neo-conservatism. If hoppe would debate me on this we would be able to illustrate that in three generations, between a jew, a german, and an anglo, we solved the second attempt at discovery of social science. But like most men he cannot (as rothbard did) accept that his most treasured justifications are only one degree removed from kantian rationals, as rothbard is one degree removed from jewish pilpul. The language of truth is science. It just took the three generations of us to complete the second scientific revolution. One that the germans started, but was cut short by the world wars.

  • This Is the Final Word on Hoppeian Ancapism

    A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ As far as I know, this is the final word on Hoppe. And unless or until he answers these objections (he won’t because he cant) we must separate Hoppe’s CONCLUSIONS from his JUSTIFICATIONS. In other words, once we reduce all social science to reciprocity and the voluntary exchange of property, we can deduce all of social science, ethics, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and law, from that reduction. However, his justifications (excuses, arguments) are nonsense up and until that point. I learned the most important ideas from him: the use of property as the unit of measure in the creation of a formal logic of natural law. However, I use science and scientific epistemology where he uses marxist and kantian rationalism: the sources of Marxist communism and socialism and social democracy, rothbardian libertinism, and Straussian neo-conservatism. If hoppe would debate me on this we would be able to illustrate that in three generations, between a jew, a german, and an anglo, we solved the second attempt at discovery of social science. But like most men he cannot (as rothbard did) accept that his most treasured justifications are only one degree removed from kantian rationals, as rothbard is one degree removed from jewish pilpul. The language of truth is science. It just took the three generations of us to complete the second scientific revolution. One that the germans started, but was cut short by the world wars.

  • Against Platonic Forms

    by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

  • Against Platonic Forms

    by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

  • (I love Hans Hoppe like a father. But A father from a previous generation, adama

    (I love Hans Hoppe like a father. But A father from a previous generation, adamantly defensive of an archaic political party fighting the last war.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 16:41:00 UTC

  • THREE POINTS TO HELP: 1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through t

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2017/03/12/the-president-undermining-economic-data-is-no-laughing-matter/?utm_source=followingimmediate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170312Adam.

    THREE POINTS TO HELP:

    1) He uses this strategy all the time, He did it through the campaign. He did it prior to taking office. And he has continued to do it since taking office: “Say what the base thinks, and cause the media to justify its possition thereby educating the people.” In this way he talks to his base, who understands exactly what he is doing, and avoids putting the press in control of the discourse.

    I’m not the only person who has been putting this forward, dozens of others have.

    2) One of the other techniques he makes use of is that conservatives speak in hyperbole in order to accentuate the conservative intuition to treat all moral statements under the Kantian Categorical Imperative: what if everyone did that, or what would be the consequences of a lot of this happening? (The intuition of the conservative time preference).

    3) As someone who has spent a few decades now working on performative truth (and what we refer to as the scientific method), I think many of us in the population are desirous of putting the shoe on the other public intellectuals foot so to speak, and changing to where we actively interrogate the state, academy, and media. If for no other reason than the misuse of statistics, and the misrepresentation of nearly all ‘reserach’ in the social sciences and psychology.

    Even within that discipline of economics, I find it trivially easy to demonstrate that almost every measure we can find constitutes cherrypicking and does not fully account for the changes in various forms of capital, and the cost of doing so. Isn’t economics of growth de-facto cherrypicking?

    Anyway. On behalf of the public I prefer that politicians prosecute the academy state and media. Because those of us out here in the fields (little think tanks included) are clearly not able to do so in sufficient numbers.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 19:22:00 UTC

  • REGARDING NIETZCHE’S POSITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT PERSIANS um. well, I think we hav

    REGARDING NIETZCHE’S POSITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT PERSIANS

    um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one.

    He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement.

    And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it.

    The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire.

    But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians.

    The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians?

    If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue.

    If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue.

    If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue.

    Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying.

    The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule.

    The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans.

    So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague.

    THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything.

    Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence.

    Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-20 17:28:00 UTC