Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • The Reporter’s Primary Trick

    REPORTER’S PRIMARY TRICK Force someone to reduce a complex set of ideas to a sound bite, then develop a straw man criticism of the sound bit that will attract attention by violating the moral intuitions of as many people as possible. Remember, the press is always lying. They are all the product of the Culture of Critique and Critical Theory, not the product of western Natural Law and truthful testimony. They are gossips for profit, not jurors.

    THE TRUMP / NEGOTIATOR TRICK Give moral answers, general ‘goals’, and sew uncertainty as to details, so that the other side comes to the table having prepared for a multitude of eventualities, that make it costly and time consuming to obtain agreement upon. Feign preference for any of a set of ideas, meanwhile simply listing a priority of available terms that you are willing to accept. Bring an ultimate decider into the room, and then leave the other side scrambling to develop consensus, as you wear them down. Strike a deal, and when they come back to the table for more accuse them of bad faith, unethical conduct, incompetence, and disorganization. State your position as take it or leave it because the other side is not serious. Meanwhile keep leaking to the imbecilic press and whomever else is engaged in gossip for a living, that the other side is incompetent and dishonest. Walk away, say what you left on the table, and do what you left on the table that is in your interest. Curt Doolittle

  • The Final Word on Rand and Objectivism

    Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Copy and Paste Argument Against Libertarianism

    THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good ideas — And arsenic has good uses as well. Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man. But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources; As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy. Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western, social order. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Copy and Paste Argument Against Libertarianism

    THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good ideas — And arsenic has good uses as well. Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man. But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources; As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy. Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western, social order. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good i

    THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM

    — Libertarianism has good ideas —

    And arsenic has good uses as well.

    Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man.

    But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources;

    As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.

    Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western social order.

    THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:31:00 UTC

  • PETERSON is advancing good morals by immoral means: conflationary programming. T

    PETERSON is advancing good morals by immoral means: conflationary programming. That’s the problem. The construction of intuitional responses (training in preferences) rather than the construction of rational responses (training in decidability).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 10:15:00 UTC

  • DEAR IGNORANT F—KS. PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENTS WITH LESS CONFIDENCE AND MORE

    DEAR IGNORANT F—KS. PLEASE MAKE YOUR STATEMENTS WITH LESS CONFIDENCE AND MORE QUESTION SO THAT I DON’T HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME CORRECTING YOUR IDIOCY.

    —“He also ignores that Marxism and Fascism descend from Platonism. Fascism is the Republic playing out in real life.”— A NEWB

    I don’t ignore any of that at all. And I’ve written on that subject elsewhere. the OP asked a question about what we got from those cities. I gave a brief answer.

    Fascism is not the zenith of western thought, it is merely a temporary solution to the problem of universalism by applying napoleonic total war to economics and political conflict more so than military conflict. Its just the equivalent of appointing a roman general as dictator in time of war.

    The zenith of western thought is sovereignty, natural law, and the markets in everything, by which the aristocracy domesticates the animal man for profit.

    positioning fascism as a zenith is both ignorant of the cause, consequence, and limits, as well as ignorant of the factors that differentiate western eugenic rule from eastern dysgenic rule.

    What the Fascists did at the time was use the new media to create an AESTHETIC movement for Fascism, to replace the religious aesthetic that had been lost by the scientific and darwinian revolutions. Propaganda and control of expensive media made it possible. But it also made the lies of marxists possible.

    We have moved warfare from multiple agents within territories, to state monopoly of warfare between territories, to state and credit total war between territories, to economic and credit warfare between territories, to principally finance and trade war between territories limited only by nuclear war.

    Just as we have moved predation from raids to the suppression of violence, then theft, then fraud, then conspiracy, and slowly through economic predation (fraud) and now we are at the fringes of suppressing financial predation (state credit and financialization) and suppressing fraud in all aspects of propagandizing.

    We always shift the war but we still conduct it.

    So in closing, I don’t feel the need (given my volume of work) to make every argument in every post. And the post above – as an answer to a simple question – did not warrant it.

    cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:31:00 UTC

  • REPORTER’S PRIMARY TRICK Force someone to reduce a complex set of ideas to a sou

    REPORTER’S PRIMARY TRICK

    Force someone to reduce a complex set of ideas to a sound bite, then develop a straw man criticism of the sound bit that will attract attention by violating the moral intuitions of as many people as possible.

    Remember, the press is always lying. They are all the product of the Culture of Critique and Critical Theory, not the product of western Natural Law and truthful testimony. They are gossips for profit, not jurors.

    THE TRUMP / NEGOTIATOR TRICK

    Give moral answers, general ‘goals’, and sew uncertainty as to details, so that the other side comes to the table having prepared for a multitude of eventualities, that make it costly and time consuming to obtain agreement upon.

    Feign preference for any of a set of ideas, meanwhile simply listing a priority of available terms that you are willing to accept.

    Bring an ultimate decider into the room, and then leave the other side scrambling to develop consensus, as you wear them down.

    Strike a deal, and when they come back to the table for more accuse them of bad faith, unethical conduct, incompetence, and disorganization.

    State your position as take it or leave it because the other side is not serious. Meanwhile keep leaking to the imbecilic press and whomever else is engaged in gossip for a living, that the other side is incompetent and dishonest.

    Walk away, say what you left on the table, and do what you left on the table that is in your interest.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 14:54:00 UTC

  • GOOD EXAMPLE OF LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT —–“Liberty (freedom from control, influe

    GOOD EXAMPLE OF LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT

    —–“Liberty (freedom from control, influence, obligation) is the natural state of man when no external entity makes an ownership claim against him. So how can liberty also be a “common property”.”—- Luke Weinhagen

    Is it parasitism to prevent you from making an ownership claim on me and my productivity? It seems like that external ownership claim is the parasitism, not my prevention or opposition of that claim.

    It seems more accurate that we trade some liberty (allow external influence over us) for commons, not derive liberty from commons.

    Thats not logical luke. It’s common libertarian verbalism. One can exist alone on a desert island, if and only if the cost of crossing the ocean to reach that island is greater than the value of inhabiting it. In other words, defense is provided by the sea. The sea is analogous to ‘some defense group’. So you do not possess independence from the attempts to prey upon you without that sea. Just as you do not possess independence from individuals, groups of individuals, organized groups of individuals, from depriving you of independence, life, possessions, investments, unless you ally with other individuals, groups, or organized groups suffiicent to resist the parasitism and predation of the largest group that can afford to do so.

    one has independence alone, but not sovereinty, liberty, freedom, insurance, of subsidy of others.

    Yet the common libertine argument is that he should obtain the benefits of the organization of individuals at sufficient scale both to deny parasitism and predation by other groups, AND to concentrate population in sufficient numbers that opportunity costs are increasingly minimized, AND to form the COMMONS that constitutes whatever distribution of property rights allows this population to exist.

    There is no free lunch. Libertarianism is an obscurantist language for the purpose of attempting to justify parasitism: free lunch upon the production of others who pay high costs of defense, institutional costs, normative costs, and yes … investments in other commons.

    Your choice in the market for polities (markets) is limited to your ability and willingness to pay for entry into those polities (markets). You can obviously choose whatever market you prefer to pay for. There are still wildernesses that you can choose if you choose not to pay for any.

    Within that market we may say that there are moral (good), amoral (neutral), and immoral(bad) commons produced. And that we lack sufficient property rights (economic democracy) and we lack sufficient policing (demand for truthfulness), and we lack sufficient juridical defense (rights to sue a commons as we do a shareholder private commons) in the market for commons (houses of government).

    But the fact that we do not possess sufficient property rights, sufficient policing, sufficient juridical defense, and there fore sufficient influence in the market for commons, does not mean that such a market for commons is impossible or immoral. And demanding you can free-ride on the expense of others is no respecting their property and therefore their sovereignty. And advocating the (idiocy) of anarchism (the reproductive strategy of parasitic migratory people without territory and institutions of their own) merely forces us to choose between either your inability to solve that problem and intellectual error for having failed to, or your intention to live parasitically off the market by gaining its benefits but not paying its costs.

    Property rights themselves, sovereigthy in fact, liberty by permission to exchange, freedom by need to participate in organized exchange, insurance by investment, and subsidy out of insurance, are all commons. Without other people none of those conditions can exist. You just exist. You are independent. You are alone. But you possess nothing.

    But sovereignty, liberty, freedom, insurance, and subsidy, and entrance into, and participation in the market we call a polity, are all DEMANDS WE PLACE UPON OTHERS for which we must pay them something in exchange. And it is only through cooperation we in fact possess any ‘political’ ethical, moral, condition.

    Thus Endeth The Lesson

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 13:59:00 UTC

  • ON CRITICISM BY THE LESS-THAN-HUMAN ANIMAL, MAN. I love it when some f–king idi

    ON CRITICISM BY THE LESS-THAN-HUMAN ANIMAL, MAN.

    I love it when some f–king idiot criticizes me because (a) I”m not finished with a scope of work that has stumped thinkers for 2500 years, (b) I can’t reduce that scope of work to a powerpoint presentation that some idiot can make use of in restating all history with ten minutes of investment of his time, and (c) that the said idiots can’t understand it, or much of it, given the limits of their current knowledge, and limits of their cognitive abilities. (d) especially when there ARE people who grasp various components of it and understand the consequence of the work.

    I mean, WTH? I’ve spent the majority of my life trying to solve a single problem – avoidance of human conflict – and hundreds if not thousands of other men before me have tried to solve this problem, and some of the greatest thinkers in modern history century couldn’t solve it – in particular – among them non-trivial thinkers like Durkheim, Hayek, and the great synthetic historians. And while I feel an intellectual kinship with Hayek, I am fully aware that the only reason I have solved a problem that they didn’t is that I lived a life made possible by Turing, and identified the pattern that they, and specifically Hayek, didn’t.

    So if I spent my life on it, and am still working on simplifying it, and applying it to the infinite little eddies of human thought; and if great minds from Aristotle to Hayek, Livy to Spengler could make progress but not solve it, then what the H— makes John Doe Baseball-Cap think he’s going to grasp it with any less effort than say, learning to program operating systems, or learn the law sufficiently to write and argue contracts, or learn mathematics well enough to use calculus to solve problems of inter-dependent motion.

    I mean, just ’cause you can live life while avoiding those problems, and you can’t live life avoiding cooperation, conflict, law, and war, doesn’t mean the means of understanding cooperation, resolution, and war, are any less complicated than those forms of logic that you CAN avoid. In fact, if you have to learn any one of those skills the most important to learn is that of cooperation, conflict, resolution, and war: natural law.

    I mean, I suppose if you can’t grasp this rather obvious statement, and still expect some simpleton’s shortcut (like The N’A’P’) or your own moral intuition, as if your moral intuition is sufficient for learning history, law, programming, and mathematics, then that failure in and of itself probably disqualifies you from participation in rational debate on matters of cooperation, conflict, resolution and war: natural law.

    And in fact, probably disqualifies you from discourse in general. So please be a good domesticated animal and go back to your amusements and enjoy them, and let humans and adults get back to the business of civilization.

    (Exasperated).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 08:47:00 UTC