Form: Reply

  • Parasites seek rich food sources

    Parasites seek rich food sources.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 17:45:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673196588458725377

    Reply addressees: @Nationalist_UK

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673194743359217664


    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/673194743359217664

  • Nope. And furthermore it is unscientific to make cost benefit statements without

    Nope. And furthermore it is unscientific to make cost benefit statements without having made a full accounting.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 17:42:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673195712285396992

    Reply addressees: @LearnLiberty @ATabarrok

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673183053670277120


    IN REPLY TO:

    @LearnLiberty

    .@ATabarrok: “All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.” https://t.co/vjkYWMZptv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673183053670277120

  • FOLLOWUP TO: THE FAILED BOOK OF ATHENIAN TRUTH, THE SUCCESSFUL BOOK OF JERUSALEM

    FOLLOWUP TO: THE FAILED BOOK OF ATHENIAN TRUTH, THE SUCCESSFUL BOOK OF JERUSALEM’S LIES

    —Dr. Dolittle, you’re an ignorant anti-semite!!—

    Actually I’m not anti-anything, and I am probably the most knowledgeable person working today on the subject of Truth, and its consequences in Ethics, Morality, and Politics. Which I’m happy to demonstrate in any debate with anyone living at any time. And I probably know the very few people capable of debating me.

    Either statements are true, statements are false or statements are undecidable. Either you can attack the arguments that I put forward or you cant. No name calling will alter the truth or falsity of the statements. All it demonstrates is that you’re either ignorant or dishonest.

    The fact of the matter is that westerners discovered quite by accident, the technology of truth and it resulted in reason, science, medicine, technology and nearly all significant advancements made by mankind.

    The fact of the matter is that for some reason, probably necessity, the hebrews created very useful means of deception of simple people who wished for the world to be other than it is. Their first great lie was scriptural monotheism. Their second great lies were pseudoscience.

    The New England neo-puritans (my people, my ancestors, since my ancestors were norman and then puritans in the plymouth and new haven colonies,) evolved into the anti-slavery movement as a way of preparing the way for women’s suffrage. This is all well documented history. Sorry. The combination of the radical changes of the industrial revolution, the anglo, french, german, and jewish enlightenment failures, and the failure of western governments to successfully adapt rule of law and political processes that provide a means of constructing commons, could not adapt.

    While a good number of our greatest minds understood that a problem was in progress they failed at solving it. Poincaré, Russell, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Bridgman, Brouwer, all failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. And because they failed, the 20th century will be remembered both as a rapid economic expansion, and (as Hayek warned it would be) a century of mysticism. Or, given their lack of understanding of the reason for the success of the discipline of science, ‘the century of pseudoscience.’.

    These are just facts. Deal with reality. We don’t need more lies. We’ve destroyed western civilization with those lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 15:28:00 UTC

  • That has to be the funniest truism I’ve heard this week

    That has to be the funniest truism I’ve heard this week…


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 14:29:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673147117679022082

    Reply addressees: @Daggy1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673146431763406849


    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/673146431763406849

  • So we are reduced to shame and gossip like pre-teen teen mothers now?

    So we are reduced to shame and gossip like pre-teen teen mothers now?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 10:32:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673087433928531968

    Reply addressees: @thehill

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/672990297580773376


    IN REPLY TO:

    @thehill

    Jeb’s biggest donor plans to run ad calling Trump “a narcissistic BULLYionaire” https://t.co/5JSMsvzctq https://t.co/zTQxFUtP3v

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/672990297580773376

  • It’s not going to continue. We’re going to reverse it. Otherwise we’ll have a ci

    It’s not going to continue. We’re going to reverse it. Otherwise we’ll have a civil war. (I’m unbiased: either option is fine.)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-05 08:24:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673055309598953472

    Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673054255754911744


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AnnCoulter

    If immigration continues as it has since the Kennedy ’65 immigration act, no he won’t. Obama’s just the beginning. https://t.co/ItT3rDjNuJ

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673054255754911744

  • Q&A: “Why Are People ‘Triggered’ By Doolittle?”

    [I] have been openly attacking the Mises Institute’s propagandizing of rothbardianism for two years now. And they have no response to my criticisms (they can’t have one really – they can only adapt to them.) People invest their self worth in these ideologies to the point which they are not competing institutional solutions but hats to hang one’s self worth upon. It’s only logical that they defend their priors by non rational, non-empirical, largely symbolic and emotional means. The great thing about Rothbard is that despite being mostly wrong, he’s partly right, and what he’s right about is relatively easy for amateurs to understand. If people understood my arguments they would grok that I’m completing the ANCAP project by converting it from pseudoscience and kantian rationalism to a scientific argument that’s uniform across biology, morality, philosophy, law, politics and economics. Which, just in terms of explanatory power is pretty hard to criticize. But if the end result is preservation of investment, preservation of self image, rejection of the effort and time needed to improve one’s knowledge and a justification of non-contribution to the commons for the because one is rejected by the mainstream culture, then that’s an excuse for one’s behavior not a pursuit of a moral good, a sustainable political order, or an scientific truth about cooperation among men. Cheers

    —“Keep on Curt, Your attempt to create theory of everything in social sciences will be attacked by all sides. People cant even understand difference between man and female reproductive strategies and that is basic for understanding human nature and human state of affairs.”—Matej Lovrić

  • Q&A: “Why Are People ‘Triggered’ By Doolittle?”

    [I] have been openly attacking the Mises Institute’s propagandizing of rothbardianism for two years now. And they have no response to my criticisms (they can’t have one really – they can only adapt to them.) People invest their self worth in these ideologies to the point which they are not competing institutional solutions but hats to hang one’s self worth upon. It’s only logical that they defend their priors by non rational, non-empirical, largely symbolic and emotional means. The great thing about Rothbard is that despite being mostly wrong, he’s partly right, and what he’s right about is relatively easy for amateurs to understand. If people understood my arguments they would grok that I’m completing the ANCAP project by converting it from pseudoscience and kantian rationalism to a scientific argument that’s uniform across biology, morality, philosophy, law, politics and economics. Which, just in terms of explanatory power is pretty hard to criticize. But if the end result is preservation of investment, preservation of self image, rejection of the effort and time needed to improve one’s knowledge and a justification of non-contribution to the commons for the because one is rejected by the mainstream culture, then that’s an excuse for one’s behavior not a pursuit of a moral good, a sustainable political order, or an scientific truth about cooperation among men. Cheers

    —“Keep on Curt, Your attempt to create theory of everything in social sciences will be attacked by all sides. People cant even understand difference between man and female reproductive strategies and that is basic for understanding human nature and human state of affairs.”—Matej Lovrić

  • Q&A: “Why Don’t You Debate The Rothbardians, Or [Insert Name Here]?”

    (very important ideas in the longer answer)QUICK ANSWER: [A]ny time. Any day. It’s because they’re afraid of me. Just as they’re becoming increasingly afraid of everyone else given the catastrophic failure of their ideology. Hans has said I am ‘too combative’ which is true – because one of the marxist techniques is to rely upon your good manners and lack of hostility to conduct loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, gossip, shaming and rallying. So I attack dishonestly in their arguments – even when they have no idea that they’re engaging in unconscious dishonesty (fallacy). LONG ANSWER: [L]ook, I’m trying to CORRECT the enlightenment: Not just the jewish, but ALL of it: French, Anglo, American, German and Jewish.

    • The French literary catholicism
    • The Anglo classical liberal
    • The German Kantian rationalist
    • The Jewish Pseudoscientific Hermeneutic

    I’m trying to correct all of them. Including the fallacy that Mises is an Austrian empirical christian classical liberal and libertarian rather than a Ukrainian Jewish Pseudoscientific Cosmopolitan libertine who was born in predominantly Jewish Ukraine and happened to go to Vienna for School. But why so much emphasis on correcting the cosmopolitans? Because they have little real concept of government, no concept of commons, no concept of natural law. But they have a well developed application of using money, finance, banking, and economics as a means of constructing a social order. ***When you combine banking with rule of law you have the basis of an amoral social science: a means of arguing amorally rather than morally.*** You see. It’s not that the cosmopolitans had a particular insight. It’s all the cosmopolitans had to work with. Its their internal system of government writ large: create a law(that one cannot fail to adhere to), justify it pseudo-scientifically (or religiously), propagate it widely (verbal, written, print, media propaganda), and use ostracization (gossip, rally, shame)defectors, and heroize (heap undue praise) on advocates. You can see from this list of attributes that this reflects the origins of both Mises’ and Rothbard’s works – as well as the better work of Georg Simmel’s on “The Philosophy of Money” which I tend to prefer, and pair with Popper’s “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Hayek’s “Use of Information in Society”, and his “Law, Legislation and Liberty”, as well as his chapters on Traditional Knowledge **The Humeian and Smithian argument does the same between states. But the Cosmopolitan argument does so Amorally*** (meaning without moral reference, vs immoral which means violation of moral prohibitions, and moral which means by adhering to moral prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs.) And you see, that’s the magic right there. Jewish law may be a parasitic group evolutionary strategy (objectively immoral), it may be polymoral (objectively immoral), and it may be constructed from scripture (babylonian and Egyptian appropriation). But besides being written down, and internally consistent, and rather complete in its coverage, the organizing principles of diasporic judaism of the ghetto, bazaar, steppe and desert peoples is i)separatism, ii)law and iii)communal banking/insurance. Just as the organizing principles of western man are i)martial universalism, ii)law, and iii)production. Money and credit are more ‘precise’ forms of ‘instrumental measurement of individual behavior’ than are property and production and reputation. And that right there is pretty profound. Conversely, land is illiquid and production time consuming, and requires armies to hold it. This is very different from money and ledgers. So as a new technology that was ADDITIVE to the aristocratic landed order, especially since the forced destruction of our own diasporic capitalists, the Knights Templar (in one of the great crimes of history second only to the forcible christianization of Europe under Justinian), the diasporic jewish people had been conducting a research program into management of political order by law, money and credit instead of by law, land and production. (And an eugenic reproduction program as great as westerners had been conducting in their different order). ( Note: EVOLUTION OF ORDERS: Tribe, Religion(universal – ostracization vs inclusion), Law(particular – punishment vs avoidance), Credit(individual – consumption vs hardship), (Truth????) ) And that’s why I emphasize this unification of a) the anglo empirical and truthful discourse under rule of law and a market for commons (b) the german martial patriarchal hierarchy of duty land holding man (c) the jewish unification of morality, credit and law – as the best of each culture’s research program without the errors, immoralities, and various fallacious constructions of each. So we can now reconstruct our civic order, by combining our ancient traditions of property rights, our medieval market government, our enlightenment understanding of rule of law, our new understanding money, credit, and economics as a more granular application of law, and our understanding of biology, to unite into a single consistent framework the disciplines of biology, morality, law, philosophy, economics, politics, into a single unified system that is constructed amorally and therefore universally, and which provides decidability in all questions of conflict. And that is pretty cool. So the reason I pick on the cosmopolitans is because of their propagandizing of falsehoods and pseudosciences. While at the same time I try to reform all three enlightenments. It’s not that I don’t make use of these men’s work. It’s that it’s only half right, and half wrong, and it’s useless as half wrong. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. * The Frankfurt School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

  • Q&A: “Why Don’t You Debate The Rothbardians, Or [Insert Name Here]?”

    (very important ideas in the longer answer)QUICK ANSWER: [A]ny time. Any day. It’s because they’re afraid of me. Just as they’re becoming increasingly afraid of everyone else given the catastrophic failure of their ideology. Hans has said I am ‘too combative’ which is true – because one of the marxist techniques is to rely upon your good manners and lack of hostility to conduct loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, gossip, shaming and rallying. So I attack dishonestly in their arguments – even when they have no idea that they’re engaging in unconscious dishonesty (fallacy). LONG ANSWER: [L]ook, I’m trying to CORRECT the enlightenment: Not just the jewish, but ALL of it: French, Anglo, American, German and Jewish.

    • The French literary catholicism
    • The Anglo classical liberal
    • The German Kantian rationalist
    • The Jewish Pseudoscientific Hermeneutic

    I’m trying to correct all of them. Including the fallacy that Mises is an Austrian empirical christian classical liberal and libertarian rather than a Ukrainian Jewish Pseudoscientific Cosmopolitan libertine who was born in predominantly Jewish Ukraine and happened to go to Vienna for School. But why so much emphasis on correcting the cosmopolitans? Because they have little real concept of government, no concept of commons, no concept of natural law. But they have a well developed application of using money, finance, banking, and economics as a means of constructing a social order. ***When you combine banking with rule of law you have the basis of an amoral social science: a means of arguing amorally rather than morally.*** You see. It’s not that the cosmopolitans had a particular insight. It’s all the cosmopolitans had to work with. Its their internal system of government writ large: create a law(that one cannot fail to adhere to), justify it pseudo-scientifically (or religiously), propagate it widely (verbal, written, print, media propaganda), and use ostracization (gossip, rally, shame)defectors, and heroize (heap undue praise) on advocates. You can see from this list of attributes that this reflects the origins of both Mises’ and Rothbard’s works – as well as the better work of Georg Simmel’s on “The Philosophy of Money” which I tend to prefer, and pair with Popper’s “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Hayek’s “Use of Information in Society”, and his “Law, Legislation and Liberty”, as well as his chapters on Traditional Knowledge **The Humeian and Smithian argument does the same between states. But the Cosmopolitan argument does so Amorally*** (meaning without moral reference, vs immoral which means violation of moral prohibitions, and moral which means by adhering to moral prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs.) And you see, that’s the magic right there. Jewish law may be a parasitic group evolutionary strategy (objectively immoral), it may be polymoral (objectively immoral), and it may be constructed from scripture (babylonian and Egyptian appropriation). But besides being written down, and internally consistent, and rather complete in its coverage, the organizing principles of diasporic judaism of the ghetto, bazaar, steppe and desert peoples is i)separatism, ii)law and iii)communal banking/insurance. Just as the organizing principles of western man are i)martial universalism, ii)law, and iii)production. Money and credit are more ‘precise’ forms of ‘instrumental measurement of individual behavior’ than are property and production and reputation. And that right there is pretty profound. Conversely, land is illiquid and production time consuming, and requires armies to hold it. This is very different from money and ledgers. So as a new technology that was ADDITIVE to the aristocratic landed order, especially since the forced destruction of our own diasporic capitalists, the Knights Templar (in one of the great crimes of history second only to the forcible christianization of Europe under Justinian), the diasporic jewish people had been conducting a research program into management of political order by law, money and credit instead of by law, land and production. (And an eugenic reproduction program as great as westerners had been conducting in their different order). ( Note: EVOLUTION OF ORDERS: Tribe, Religion(universal – ostracization vs inclusion), Law(particular – punishment vs avoidance), Credit(individual – consumption vs hardship), (Truth????) ) And that’s why I emphasize this unification of a) the anglo empirical and truthful discourse under rule of law and a market for commons (b) the german martial patriarchal hierarchy of duty land holding man (c) the jewish unification of morality, credit and law – as the best of each culture’s research program without the errors, immoralities, and various fallacious constructions of each. So we can now reconstruct our civic order, by combining our ancient traditions of property rights, our medieval market government, our enlightenment understanding of rule of law, our new understanding money, credit, and economics as a more granular application of law, and our understanding of biology, to unite into a single consistent framework the disciplines of biology, morality, law, philosophy, economics, politics, into a single unified system that is constructed amorally and therefore universally, and which provides decidability in all questions of conflict. And that is pretty cool. So the reason I pick on the cosmopolitans is because of their propagandizing of falsehoods and pseudosciences. While at the same time I try to reform all three enlightenments. It’s not that I don’t make use of these men’s work. It’s that it’s only half right, and half wrong, and it’s useless as half wrong. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. * The Frankfurt School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School