Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • (favorite compliment of the day) —“Curt I love you I swear to God, your half-a

    (favorite compliment of the day)

    —“Curt I love you I swear to God, your half-angry rants are the best thing since sliced bread”— A Friend

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 10:20:00 UTC

  • “[Someone says] Hoppe confuses a claim right (demand) with a liberty right (gran

    —“[Someone says] Hoppe confuses a claim right (demand) with a liberty right (granted right) do you agree with this conclusion?—A Friend

    1) He confuses a claim(want), with granted/existing(by third party insurer), with sovereign(existential) unnecessary.

    2) he confuses non contradiction in a dispute in front of a judge (third party insurer), where I cannot walk away from judgemnt in dispute, but I can walk away prior to dispute, with negotiation with a hostile party who may kill you if you walk away from the negotiation.

    In other words, he is making a moral, or a leagal argument within the context of existing cooperation, rather than making a scientific argument that is necessary to construct a polity in the first place.

    Hoppe’s philosophy is shit. His arguments as to the application of property (voluntary transactions) as a means of commensurability in all of social science is genius.

    He gets his training from fucking habermas ( a private property marxist ) and then from Rothbard (a common property marxist ) and we wonder why he makes nonsense marxist arguments in favor of private property.

    The source of liberty is the common law of torts. And the common law of torts evolved between sovereign men as a means of preventing retaliation cycles.

    Violence. It’s all from violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 10:19:00 UTC

  • SPORTS: BRAIN (ERROR), GLADIATOR(STRENGTH), POPULI (SIMPLE) GAMES Sean Ring As a

    SPORTS: BRAIN (ERROR), GLADIATOR(STRENGTH), POPULI (SIMPLE) GAMES

    Sean Ring

    As a person who’s lived in 5 countries, I look at it like this: you have the “brain” games (baseball and cricket). Games you have to be taught how to score. It can’t be done intuitively. For instance, you can’t intuit the R H E in a baseball scoreline. Cricket is even harder. I’ve never done a study on it, but I think the only high-IQ country that doesn’t play either of these is Germany. (BTW, chess is not a sport. Period.) Next are what I’d call the “gladiator” games: games that demonstrate the ultimate manhood in whichever country you’re looking at: NFL, Rugby, Aussie Rules, Ice Hockey. Finally, you’ve got the “populi” games: Soccer/Futbol/Football and Basketball, in which any imbecile can figure it out after 2 minutes. Which is why it attracts the types of hooligans they do. Of course, there’s crossovers. But most people have a favourite and you can tell a bit about them by it, wherever you meet them in the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 10:02:00 UTC

  • PAGANISM There is very little to understand about nature worship. There is very

    PAGANISM

    There is very little to understand about nature worship.

    There is very little to understand about ancestor worship.

    There is very little to understand about hero worship.

    These are exercises in sacredness: non consumption and ritual demonstration of reciprocity (gifts, observances)

    Evil religions emerged when we adopted corporatism instead of kinship and nationalism. And we did that in only because of war, conquest, and empire.

    Yet all our advancements seem to occur in the periods BETWEEN empires.

    The corporate empire is evil, the kinship nation sacred.

    Empires violate natural law unless all they impose is natural law: nationhood.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 08:51:00 UTC

  • I don’t know because it is, like all deceit by suggestion, incomplete – empty wo

    I don’t know because it is, like all deceit by suggestion, incomplete – empty words suggestions morality but leaving the audience to supply what is unsaid, themselves, thereby inserting what they assume are equal goods, rather than what the speaker intends, which is to obscure a set of parasitic bads. Since this kind of statement is the means by which the cosmopolitan deceits have been propagated, I must perform due diligence against such deceptions, by requiring full disclosure, before I can agree to terms.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 08:36:00 UTC

  • I advocate a world that ostracizes, punishes, or kills those who behave parasiti

    I advocate a world that ostracizes, punishes, or kills those who behave parasitically on the production of others, whether produced by private, kin, or common, and whether life, physical, institutional, normative, or informational.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 08:08:00 UTC

  • THE WORLD IS WHAT WE MAKE IT? WELL, WITHIN LIMITS… The world we CAN make is th

    THE WORLD IS WHAT WE MAKE IT? WELL, WITHIN LIMITS…

    The world we CAN make is that which is possible given the incentives by which it is possible to influence man (gossip, remuneration, violence) given his rationality (rational choice or moral, amoral, or immoral actions in his interest) and the unequal distribution of talents, technology, and resources – and the value of organization in ever increasing numbers to achieve what his rational choice desires.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 07:59:00 UTC

  • ETHICS AND POLITICS IN A NUTSHELL by Joel Davis We all want things to happen. We

    ETHICS AND POLITICS IN A NUTSHELL

    by Joel Davis

    We all want things to happen.

    We all try to make them happen.

    By the principle of recipriocity, we may develop a strategy which maximizes the likelihood of making the things we want to happen, happen.

    How?

    If people help you make the things you want to happen, help them in return.

    If people don’t help or hinder making what you want to happen, don’t help or hinder them in return.

    If people hinder you or the people who help you trying to make what you want to happen, hinder them in return, and if they don’t stop, kill them.

    That way all the people who can help you will want to help you because you help them.

    All the people who can’t help you will leave you alone because you leave them alone.

    And, all the people who fuck up what you are trying to get done will either stop or die (and therefore stop).

    Now, we establish families, friendships, communities, societies, nations and civilizations precisely so we can help each other make the things we want to happen.

    So in order for these things to work best, we must help each other leave others alone who leave us alone and hinder others who hinder us and kill them if they don’t stop.

    Otherwise we will lower the chances of making what we want to happen, happen.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 07:50:00 UTC

  • WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU? What kind of anti-market activity do you prefe

    WHAT KIND OF ANTI-MARKET ARE YOU?

    What kind of anti-market activity do you prefer?

    – Fascism: anti-market for politics, commons, norms, and limited market for goods, services, and information

    – Libertarianism: anti-market for commons, politics, but market for norms, goods, services, information.

    – Libertinism: anti-market for norms,politics, but market for goods, services and information.

    – Classical Liberalism: markets for good services and information, with limited-market for commons.

    – Aristocracy: markets for everything except law and politics.

    – Democratic socialism: minimum markets for politics, commons, and private property.

    – Socialism: anti market for goods, services, and information

    – Communism: anti market for politics, commons, norms, goods, services, and information.

    CONSERVATIVE (MALE) Social Conservatives limit the market for goods, services, information, norms, commons, politics, to that which is EVIDENTIARY, and imposes no costs, requiring individuals develop agency and discipline – however they do so in archaic moral (childlike) language with a touch of economics thrown in.

    PROGRESSIVE (FEMALE) Social Progressives limit the market for goods services, information, norms, commons, and politics to that which is HYPOTHETICAL, and imposes any possible costs, therefore NOT requiring individuals to develop agency and discipline – however they do so in modern moral and pseudoscientific language.

    The frankfurt school modernized female discourse, but we have had no aristocratic school equivalent (until now) to modernize male language. Why? Uncomfortable Truths that ask us to pay the costs of discipline in pursuit of agency is harder (more expensive in the short term) than Comforting Lies that tell us to forgo the costs of discipline and agency in the short term in favor of consumption (indiscipline) in the short term.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-14 03:04:00 UTC

  • (sport) Sorry, but is it me, or compared to rugby, NFL, and hockey, are soccer p

    (sport)

    Sorry, but is it me, or compared to rugby, NFL, and hockey, are soccer players a bunch of whiny pussies? I mean. Real men play rugby. Football and Hockey is for mostly real men who play rugby with armor.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 19:34:00 UTC