Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • New King Arthur Movie. So bad it’s unwatchable

    New King Arthur Movie.

    So bad it’s unwatchable.

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

  • IS THE FINAL WORD ON HOPPEIAN ANCAPISM As far as I know, this is the final word

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/THIS IS THE FINAL WORD ON HOPPEIAN ANCAPISM

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 17:10:00 UTC

  • Rothbardian Libertarians: Common Property Marxists

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day. If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish. The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes. To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers. Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay. This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism). (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.) Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it. The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment. As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations. Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it. There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

  • Rothbardian Libertarians: Common Property Marxists

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day. If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish. The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes. To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers. Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay. This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism). (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.) Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it. The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment. As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations. Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it. There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

  • Actually, Bad Ideas Can Crowd Out Good Ideas, and Cause Tragedy, for Centuries.

    –“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Actually, Bad Ideas Can Crowd Out Good Ideas, and Cause Tragedy, for Centuries.

    –“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences (

    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 arent exactly saints and teh 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 17:19:00 UTC

  • What Happened to the Right?

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RIGHT? —“What *happened* to the right? Despite the fact that I lean right I often find myself embarrassed by the state of modern conservative thought and its aggressively anti-intellectual tendencies. Today’s conservatives can’t seem to accept evolution or articulate a coherent vision of right-wing principles and theory, yet they descend from De Maistre, Evola, Burke, Mises, Rand, and similar thinkers. Other than you, Moldbug, and a handful of libertarians like Tom Woods and Bob Murphy there is almost nothing interesting happening. What went wrong?”— A Friend They couldn’t find an answer to social darwinism and the fact that western civilization is in fact, darwinian – and that this Darwinianism is the reason for our success. What do you do when you tell the lie of democracy and at the same time have to tell the truth of darwinian evolution? You talk nonsense That’s what —“Ah. So if we don’t want to squander the promise of the Western Aristocratic tradition there’s no avoiding social Darwinism?”— Bingo. We have to TELL THE TRUTH.

  • What Happened to the Right?

    WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RIGHT? —“What *happened* to the right? Despite the fact that I lean right I often find myself embarrassed by the state of modern conservative thought and its aggressively anti-intellectual tendencies. Today’s conservatives can’t seem to accept evolution or articulate a coherent vision of right-wing principles and theory, yet they descend from De Maistre, Evola, Burke, Mises, Rand, and similar thinkers. Other than you, Moldbug, and a handful of libertarians like Tom Woods and Bob Murphy there is almost nothing interesting happening. What went wrong?”— A Friend They couldn’t find an answer to social darwinism and the fact that western civilization is in fact, darwinian – and that this Darwinianism is the reason for our success. What do you do when you tell the lie of democracy and at the same time have to tell the truth of darwinian evolution? You talk nonsense That’s what —“Ah. So if we don’t want to squander the promise of the Western Aristocratic tradition there’s no avoiding social Darwinism?”— Bingo. We have to TELL THE TRUTH.

  • No, EPrime isn’t Enough. It’s Just a Good Start

    Mar 10, 2017 5:54pm NO, EPRIME ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT IT’S A GOOD START –“Is E prime *really* that great? I’ve spent a lot of time messing around with shorthand, concept maps, and a bunch of other tools in an effort to improve the quality of my thinking. Is it really as simple as eliminating certain verbs from the way I present ideas?”— A Friend Eprime provides us with an explanation of WHY we can lie so easily using the verb to be, and by doing so pretend we speak with authority about that which we know little or nothing – or worse, engage in the suggestion, false dichotomies, and obcurantism which constitute the majority of sophomoric philosophical questions. The grammar (which I posted last week or the week before) plus abandoning the use of the verb to be, plus operational language, plus property in toto, plus limits and full accounting just make it very, very, very difficult to carry on a pretense of knowledge when you don’t possess it. So no, EPrime isn’t enough, but it’s a whole lot. There is a difference between writing well, and writing proofs. We are working at writing proofs