Form: Critique

  • The Lack Of Women CEO’s and Women Founders – The Myth of Social Justice

    —“Very inspiring and encouraging for me, after reading how rarely angels and venture capitalists fund women founders. There’s hope for me, even if the suits are sexist! Fighting for social justice online: how can we use the Internet to make the world a better place? “— Charlotte A.

    [S]tatistics are Statistics. Data is Data. Fact is Fact.

    Few women will pay the dear price in time, stress, health, family, friends, risk, and life demanded of high growth businesses. Few women endear the kind of loyalty required of risk taking-talent marginally superior enough to crate a marginally superior product or service. Few women choose to operate in markets that are competitive, technical, novel, with business models that are marginally different. Few women argue entirely empirically and entirely from incentives. Few women can make a man trust them with large amounts of money that he has been entrusted with by others. Women do, but few women do. So, it is not a matter of justice but of empirical evidence. And arguing otherwise merely disqualifies you from receiving investment. People with money and responsibility that they have been entrusted with by others to make objective decisions cannot betray that trust by preferring to invest in your business idea versus the business idea of someone who does not make those same mistaken assertions. And I say this only because whomever has given you an education has done you a tragic disservice. We do not invest in religious doctrine. Investment is a science of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from business hypotheses, leaving only survivable business models as candidates. And betting upon people who demonstrate error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception (including self-deception), is unscientific. Investors do not bet on any form of mysticism — including the myth of social justice. (A term which both Socrates and Hayek have demonstrated, does itself not survive critical and empirical analysis.) You should be angry at the people who lied to you. Not the people who will not perpetuate the lies that were told to you. In investments, everyone has one color, creed, and gender: money. And investment is more color, creed and gender blind than Lady Justice ever dreamed of being. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • So this diagram *intentionally* overstates US homicides by 600%. Why? Compare ap

    So this diagram *intentionally* overstates US homicides by 600%. Why? Compare apples to apples and see.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:23:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662998895941844992

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968


    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/662995675274067968

  • is merely unsophisticated and lacks understanding of the construction business i

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/tama-starr-ugly-art-trump-deals-article-1.2422470?utm_content=buffer54c86&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=bufferShe is merely unsophisticated and lacks understanding of the construction business in which the majority of players are scamming the developer – the one who has the money. The developer’s rational strategy is to force all parties into negotiations post delivery. In general the rule of thumb is that profitability of construction is obtained in court.

    This is very similar to international relations where no parties deal ethically and most have little concept of it and many see ethics as stupidity.

    That is why trump is the perfect man for this stage of Americas development.

    Curt Doolittle, the Propertarian Institute, Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-04 16:13:00 UTC

  • (apologies to my educated Russian friends, but I have to engage in reverse propa

    (apologies to my educated Russian friends, but I have to engage in reverse propaganda when I am attacked.)

    —“I understand. it is hard to be Russian: the only white people who failed. The only people who make the wrong decision every time: tatar and mongol rule by decree over natural rights rule of law, orthodoxy over catholicism, communism over capitalism, creating a false history of the muscovites over accepting the failures of their factual history, a monolithic economy over an diverse economy, a military economy over a technical economy, superstition and pseudoscience over optimism and analytic science, respecting postwar borders, and violating postwar borders, using the internet to educate the 70% of ignorant Russians without access to information over intentional propagandizing of the media in order to maintain the ignorance of rural Russians of the corruption of their government. Why is it that Russians, whenever they have the choice, make the wrong choice? Imagine had the germans won, and saved Russians from themselves. What a better world we would live in without the social, economic, and political cancer that the Russians produced in the 20th century. Russians: the only white people who failed.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-01 10:46:00 UTC

  • But I am not able to correct Popperians because the cultishness has gotten out o

    But I am not able to correct Popperians because the cultishness has gotten out of hand.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 10:08:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660397840347373568

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial @SanguineEmpiric @wargfranklin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659871607570042880


    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/659871607570042880

  • WALTER BLOCK’S IMMORALISM Walter is an immoralist. Not an amoralist, or a morali

    https://www.biv.com/article/2015/10/economic-freedom-report-sparks-fraser-institute-bi/ON WALTER BLOCK’S IMMORALISM

    Walter is an immoralist. Not an amoralist, or a moralist, but an immoralist: he is the only remaining advocate of eastern european, cosmopolitan, low-trust, ghetto ethics.

    For some reason it has eluded him that any anarchic society must eliminate incentives that create demand for the state, not gossip, rally and shame people who demand the state as a means of preventing and punishing parasitism. Walther’s ethic, like Rothbards, is based upon volition and the preservation of ‘cheating’, rather than the prevention of conflict and retaliation that force people to engage in production, distribution and trade.

    That it is the very ethic for which his ancestors were nearly exterminated, in every era of history, seems to be lost on him.

    The only liberty that is possible is that which western high trust civilization created: rule of law applicable to all, and the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary, exchange free of externality of the same criteria – thereby prohibiting murder, theft, violence, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by externality, free riding, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest and war.

    The western ethic evolved to prevent retaliation and preserve the peace, to allow the construction of commons and to prohibit the devolution of individuals by appealing to their base instincts, thereby distracting them from productive work.

    Walter’s ethic, like Rothbard’s, is one of parasitic and predatory encouragement of hyper-consumption in order to transfer wealth that would otherwise be capitalized in the commons into the hands of those who undermine that commons.

    The first principle of ethics is not volition. It is “Why do I not kill or enslave you and take your women and your property?”. The answer is, it is preferable to let you remain alive and free if and only if you give me no reason to do otherwise by engaging in productive action that causes no harm to me, my kin or our commons.

    We have killed nearly all people in history who engaged in immoral actions, and until the 20th century hung one half to one percent of the population, which combined with manorialism and seasonality of nature produced the most eugenic society on earth, which was responsible in no small part for our prosperity.

    Walter is of that class of men who wants to reduce people to hedonistic barbarism so he can profit from their devolution by parasitic predation upon them, while claiming he is a moral man.

    That is the truth of it. That is the truth of cosmopolitanism. That is the truth of rothbardian libertinism.

    Liberty can be brought into existence only under rule of law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, and insured by the community by the codification of that prohibition in property rights, and the martial requirement for productive action in order to participate in the commons produced by those who engage in productive action.

    By conflating terminology as the Germans have done since Kant, Rothbard tried to achieve by appropriating the term liberty, what the left had achieved through the appropriation of the term liberal, and by telling a half truth, that allowed pathologically altruistic westerners to sympathize with the words stated, then using their intuition to supply the unstated consequences with altruistic rather than parasitic intentions.

    Most of the deceits of the 19th and 20th centuries (Hayek’s imprecisely named, new era of mysticism) were accomplished by Marx, Boaz, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, the Frankfurt School, and the Keynesians, Postmodernists, Feminists, Rawlsians and Continentals: verbal deceptions to justify theft by one means or another by a combination of conflation, obscurantism, loading, framing, and overloading, in order to cause overwhelm frail human reason, and to rely upon suggestion to achieve what science and reason could not. That this is the same technique used by the monotheists in each era is not lost on all of us. We are just now, since Pinker threw exiting the second attempt at overthrowing science and reason: the first with babylonian mysticism distributed through immigrants, slaves and women, and the second through pseudoscience, immigrants and women newly enfranchised into democracy.

    End the lie. Rothbardianism is not an argument for liberty, but an argument for libertinism – not only a fraudulent attempt to escape genetic, normative-behavioral and physical payments for the commons. But an argument in favor of theft of the commons.

    The closure of the Stoic schools and the forcible introduction of Christianity is one uncompensatable and profoundly immoral crime enough for all of western history to tolerate. The usurpation of the social sciences, the academy, the media, and the state was the second attempt to bring about another age of mysticism, and another dark age.

    Science, Truth, Morality and Law, will succeed this time around. The only libertarianism necessary or possible is under rule of law mandating productivity for membership in the commons that we call the market. Because only under the total prohibition on parasitism is demand for the state both eliminated, and local transaction costs reduced sufficiently that it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity over a statist one.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 08:45:00 UTC

  • THE CHURCH OF PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CONSUMPTION (Oprah for Liberals) Sam Harris, Chri

    THE CHURCH OF PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CONSUMPTION

    (Oprah for Liberals)

    Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Noam Chomsky, Ted-Show, John Stewart and Howard Stern: The Pseudoscientific Church of Consumption.

    All Mainstream Conservatives: the Church of Arational Accumulation.

    Sigh.

    We have the immoral pseudoscientists, and the moral arationalists.

    It’s nuts.

    (I’m open minded on Dawkins).


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-26 11:51:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHAT DOES ANCAPISM DO RIGHT AND WRONG? (trigger warning: criticism of ashke

    Q&A: WHAT DOES ANCAPISM DO RIGHT AND WRONG?

    (trigger warning: criticism of ashkenazi cosmopolitanism) (low trust ashkenazi anarcho capitalism vs high trust germanic rule of law under the common law)

    Hey Curt,

    —“What does AnCap-ism do right and what does it do wrong form the Propertarianism perspective. I know there is a problem with Rothbard’s ghetto ethics, and I know AnCap-ism has a problem with its limited understanding of human nature. But that is where my understanding ends. If you have written anything on this subject I would love to read it.”—

    First, lets contrast Ashkenazi Anarcho Capitalism with the Germanic (Teutonic) Rule of Law.

    What does it do right?

    (a) expresses all morality as reducible to property rights.

    (b) and as such creates an amoral (non-moral) and therefore objective means of analyzing, criticizing, describing, and debating moral arguments.

    What does it do wrong.

    (a) Falsely sets the criterion for moral action as voluntary rather than non-production-of-incentive-to-retaliate, which is the basis for all moral systems, and moral instincts and intuitions. The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your things?” The answer is, “only if it is preferable not to kill you.” The reason law developed was to prevent retaliation. The division of labor came much later, and scarcity does in fact exist, but was not the origin of moral choice: non parasitism was.

    (b) Falsely sets the limit of property protections to intersubjectively verifiable property instead of the scope of property necessary to prevent retaliation.

    (c) By falsely establishing (a) and (b), fails to provide sufficient means of dispute resolution that demand for authority – the state – is eliminated. This effectively falsifies all of rothbardian thought.

    (d) By falsely establishing (a) and (b) fails to provide sufficient economic incentive to join an anarchic polity rather than a rule-of-law polity, or even sufficient incentive to join an anarchic polity rather than a social democratic polity – simply because local transaction costs are so high that it is non-rational to join a lower trust, higher transaction cost polity, than a higher trust, low transaction cost polity, or a higher cost social democratic polity.

    So in summary, Ancapism cannot possibly produce a society that it is rational to join – unless one is a pirate or other distributor of harm.

    Only Germanic Rule of Law that prohibits any action that might produce retaliation, can produce a society that it is rational to prefer over the alternatives, since only under rule of law, and under high trust law, are the reasons for conflict suppressed.

    Ashkenazi Anarcho Capitalism is a proposed **competitor** to European Aristocratic Rule of Law. The Ashkenazi practiced this form of capitalism as a means of preying upon eastern europeans.This has been the ashkenazi reproductive strategy for centuries: ally with the state against the people. (just as socialists, left anarchists, and neocons have done);

    The origin of the Ashkenazi ethic (its extreme example in the parasitism of the most devoted sect: the hassidim (which developed in Ukraine), originated in pastoralists (shepherds). In other words, transitory raiders. They succeeded by isolationism and high trust inside and low trust outside (just as gypsies do today, and jews somewhat less so).

    The Teutonic rule of law practiced by the ruling classes originated in the need to prevent warfare or fighting or feuds among warriors who were in effect their own legislators, but were dependent upon one another in times of war. So the purpose of european law (christian law, pagan law) was to prevent retaliation by the total prohibition of the imposition of costs upon others – including lying and cheating.

    The ethic of Men who move on or run away, versus the ethic of men who must hold a fixed territory.

    In historical context, cleansed of the pretenses of liberty, ancapism is an attempt to restore the parasitism of the ashkenazim and hassidim, by changing the definition of moral from that which causes retaliation, to that which one voluntarily enters into regardless of whether he was lied, cheated, or taken advantage of in a period of weakness.

    Ancapism is no less immoral than marxism and neo-conservatism. The only source of liberty is the high trust society made possible by the total prohibition on parasitism of any kind, forcing all men to engage in productive work, and productive work only, in order to survive. Under common law, under rule of law, the law adapts to the first newly invented means of parasitism. By prohibiting the construction of incentives to retaliate, requiring truthful speech, using rapid evolution of the common law, we eliminate all possible transaction costs.

    This is the origin of Austrian Economics by the Christian and Germanic Austrians: the study of that which increases the quality of available information, reduces risk, and transaction costs, and therefore create the highest velocity economy that is possible for man to participate in.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-24 15:07:00 UTC

  • Tried to listen to Lakoff tonight and he lies even more so than Chomsky – can’t

    Tried to listen to Lakoff tonight and he lies even more so than Chomsky – can’t take it. Had to stop taking notes. Because it gets boring capturing so many lies that it’s reinforcing his frame to counter all of them. Better to just hang him for being a liar and be done with it.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-20 14:15:00 UTC

  • AN EXAMPLE OF SHAMING AND THE REFUTATION OF IT (useful) (anti-feminism) (pro-fam

    AN EXAMPLE OF SHAMING AND THE REFUTATION OF IT

    (useful) (anti-feminism) (pro-familialism)

    —“Bullshit, what a load of utter tripe that waffle was! masculine violence to institute change is for thugs. this is thuggery.”—Rebecca Berriton

    That is a perfect example of feminine gossip, rallying and shaming. Free of content, intellectually vacuous, a mere expression of disapproval, a raspberry, in order to rally women and betas to maintain control over alphas. It’s monkey-talk. and now that we know it’s monkey-talk, we can dismiss it as monkey talk.

    But why do women and betas engage in monkey talk?

    Men vote red, and have never not voted red. (as an aside, the colors of the map should not be red and blue, but pink(female color bias) and green(male color bias)).

    OUR DIFFERENT REPRODUCTIVE INTERESTS

    Women destroyed western civilization and started to within one generation of obtaining the vote. Women used the issue of slavery to create justification for their own enfranchisement, thereby justifying the male concern for transfer of power from northern industrial to southern agrarian because of the westward expansion – then once they obtained enfranchisement, sought privilege instead of equality, and within a century had voted to destroy the family, property rights, intergenerational lending, and the natural eugenics of the west. And when they were unsuccessful they took to overwhelming us through immigration. Women have been useful idiots of our conquerors. The destroyers of the only men who have ever granted them equality. And by doing so demonstrated that they never again may possess it.

    Women care nothing for the tribe. They care only for their own stability. They are practical creatures. They are just as happy to be ruled by invaders as ruled by their relations, as long as they do not lose status. Males by contrast must preserve a stock of females in order to persist their genes. So women care not for the interests of males, and are blind to them, seeking only the highest status, not the preservation of race, tribe, clan and family. They are drug dealers selling affection, sex, and nesting in exchange for defense of their nest, and whatever resources they can gather from the tribe.

    The family is a male creation to control female dysgenic reproduction, parasitism, gossip, lying, and sexual manipulation. The family was made possible by the dependence upon tools (property), animals (property), and territory (property), which was held by violence – preventing others from consuming it so that capital could be accumulated.

    ***All of human civilization is built by man, with the first cause being the use of violence to accumulate long term capital, and to prevent parasitism, and to limit consumption to that which does not diminish capital.***

    Women are locusts: destroyers of ultimate consumption. Absent reason and accountability, doing nothing but nesting, preening, bearing and raising as many offspring as they can get away with.

    That is how we translate your empty words. As yet another female lie, pronounced by an unconscious creature, who survives through gossip, lying, manipulation, betrayal, and parasitism.

    That is an articulate and truthful response to your ‘shaming’. Truth defeats you. You are done. The century of lies paid for by women, advanced by women, elected by women, for the purpose of women’s restoration of parasitism, is ended.

    That is the uncomfortable truth. Women are not only not our equals, they are in politics, our enemies.

    THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRACY

    I agree with giving women property rights – that is rational. I am also ok with giving women a house, just as we gave the middle class a house and should have given the proletarians a house. Because houses are necessary to concentrate competing interests such that they conduct mutually beneficial exchanges, rather than fall prey to majority tyranny of the underclasses of which women who are single represent the minority.

    We are not equal because we are competitors. If we are competitors, then we can ONLY compete via a market of voluntary exchanges and NOT through majority rule.

    My criticism is not that women should be or can be different, but that democracy is a tragic institution by which the worst possible ambitions of our majority underclasses can be brought to suicidal fruition.

    We invented government to reduce male predation by violence. We must now invent new government to reduce female predation through parasitism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    PS: Just as there are bata males there are alpha women. When I use the terms men/male/males women/female/females, I refer to the difference in distributions. Attractive married women vote red, and single, unattractive and unmarried women vote left. Thats the data. And here is another example of ‘women’s logic’: men will intuit that ‘by and large this is true’ women will find the exceptional case and say ‘that isn’t universally true’. But ‘by and large’ does not mean that it is universally true, and an outlier does not determine a general case. But you will find in almost every case some women in the group saying such a profoundly stupid thing. Why? Because they evolved to think about children being left behind because they are betas, or women being left behind because they are pregnant, or groups being left behind because they are too young or weak to travel – and that is against their strategy.

    When you want to understand human beings, then you look to evolutionary biology. Our minds act on behalf of our genes without any greater knowledge of why or how than we have knowledge of how to move our arms and legs – we just do. Our words justify the intuitions of our minds. Our reason evolved to negotiate cooperation on behalf of our genes. Our genetic differences divide us in to an intertemporal distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge labor and advocacy, and voluntary cooperation is the equals=sign that assists us in finding an average of everyone’s interests.

    Words are mostly nonsense even when we don’t ourselves know they are nonsense. That is why truth matters so significantly. Unlike Kant, I do not claim we cannot know the world. I claim that we must cleans error from our knowledge so we know the difference between what our genes evolved to specialize in seeing, and the entire picture we can see without those specializations.

    You may not realize in reading this that it is a profound innovation in philosophical thought, but it is and it will change your life if you grasp it.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-17 06:04:00 UTC