Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • 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

  • ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Har

    ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES.

    Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’?

    We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational.

    But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)?

    Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training?

    Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency?

    Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist?

    This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force).

    And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract).

    We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force).

    One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals.

    Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical.

    I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 09:54:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 08:40:00 UTC

  • ” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Jonathan

    —” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy

    Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind

    Francis Fukuyama: Trust

    Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

    Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 08:39:00 UTC

  • Please sign and share. Watching Curt dismantle Walter Block would be great to se

    Please sign and share. Watching Curt dismantle Walter Block would be great to see.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 07:36:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/832050626351738880/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=Roman_Skaskiw&utm_content=832978238649561089

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 06:07:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/831926812317990912/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=Roman_Skaskiw&utm_content=832978283885105152

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 06:07:00 UTC

  • McCain: “This is how dictators get started.” No John. This is why dictators are

    McCain: “This is how dictators get started.”

    No John. This is why dictators are necessary: the are the universal outcome of democracy: underclass rule. Next comes chaos, and a restoration of monarchy, the evolution of the ruling class and the cycle continues.

    We invented perfect government and idiots like you destroyed it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 19:50:00 UTC

  • There are a handful of young men in this group who, by the time they are my age

    There are a handful of young men in this group who, by the time they are my age will have surpassed me substantially and I am awed by it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 19:47:00 UTC

  • ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general popu

    ANSWER TO A LOW LEVEL CRITIC

    ^ i have no interest whatsoever in the general population, other than to save the working and middle classes from the lies of the left and the parasitism of the financial and political sector.

    ^ Every social science experiment requires asymmetry of information (playing dumb), or it would not work, you silly git.

    ^ if you can’t learn, cant understand, then that is the only criticism you can make. Someone writes in code, another in algebraic expression, another in a foreign language, and another in a formal logic, and you don’t understand it, then is that a criticism of the authors or one of you?

    ^ when I publish something I learn a lot by the people who respond and how they respond. This tells me how to improve my work for clarity. But I do not seek to reduce the knowledge requirement for understanding it. Only to improve the clarity with which I write it.

    ^If you aren’t the audience then just use arguments that you can. But dont expect me to make a ‘dummies’ version. Someone else will undoubtably do that.

    ^All that most people need to understand is that it is possible to modify the constitution and to modify how the treasury distributes liquidity, and to reduce copyright, until the financial entertainment media and political sectors are starved of cash, and we use the new law to prosecute them every time they lie until no opportunity to lie remains, because we have built a body of case law that limits people to truthful speech in the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:27:00 UTC