Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE “UNDESIGN” OF THE COMMON LAW (the source of catallaxy) Philosophers argue mo

    THE “UNDESIGN” OF THE COMMON LAW

    (the source of catallaxy)

    Philosophers argue mostly, as do theologists, via positiva.

    Meanwhile the common law of sovereign men, via negativa, without any design or intent, forces us to produce wonders we could not have imagined. Because we do not need to know what is good. What is good is a preference. We need only to rally around preferences and to cooperate to produce those ends. And to remove all frictions from doing so, by prohibiting all those inhibitions we place upon each other whenever we can get away with it, because parasitism is preferable to production.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:20:00 UTC

  • GOODS ARE A PREFERENCE. BADS ARE A FACT

    GOODS ARE A PREFERENCE. BADS ARE A FACT.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:11:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY, FREEDOM AND SUBSIDY VIA NEGATIVA: NON INTERFERENCE WITH SOVEREIGNTY Sov

    LIBERTY, FREEDOM AND SUBSIDY VIA NEGATIVA: NON INTERFERENCE WITH SOVEREIGNTY

    Sovereignty requires no liberty. Liberty requires permission of the sovereigns. Freedom permission of both. And subsidy so desirable by women and the underclasses is only available by the success of all three.

    Ergo, liberty and ‘libertarianism’ are sandwich-board signs worn by beggars.

    If you want an condition of liberty, the only way to obtain it is through sovereignty, and the only way to obtain sovereignty is with violence. And the only way to obtain sufficient violence to construct a condition of sovereignty, is ally with others who equally desire sovereignty.

    If you want subsidy, freedom, or liberty, then the only solution is to at least not interfere with the production of sovereignty.

    Why? Because rule is a profitable, honorable, moral, heroic occupation the consequences of which determine the outcome of not just nations, but civilizations – and all of mankind.

    I do not begrudge payment to my betters in exchange for liberty or freedom or subsidy. I begrudge only those payments which deny me the privileges of sovereignty I pay for: liberty, freedom, and subsidy

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:10:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Christopher Cantwell ME. I’LL ROCK YOUR WORLD. (Quite seriously

    (from elsewhere)

    Christopher Cantwell

    ME. I’LL ROCK YOUR WORLD. (Quite seriously.)

    I’d like to discuss the difference between LIBERTY and SOVEREIGNTY, and then from there move onto the NAP which I consider a half truth, vs Non Imposition against Property in Toto.

    And between those two topics I bet I can give you more and better ammunition than the rather silly rothbardian program provides.

    You’re a great communicator, and frankly a great general. But great generals need great weapons. And I’m pretty sure you need to switch from horses to machine guns, and I’m giving ’em away for the price of argument.

    Cheers. šŸ˜‰

    -Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:03:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) While students from elite schools will always be in demand, tha

    (from elsewhere)

    While students from elite schools will always be in demand, that does not tell us much about the value of a college degree.

    Just as the American and British Economies experienced purges of middle management built up between the period 1920ā€“1980 because of the influence of ā€˜managerialismā€™ (socialism), the entire world is about to go through a set of severe employment contractions between now and at least 2025.

    1 – political management – on a vast scale.

    2 – much more of lower middle management – on a vast scale.

    3 – a little more labor due to automation – perhaps on a perceptible scale.

    and (possibly)

    4 – much, much, much, of the financial sector on a frightening scale.

    In my (rather informed I think) opinion, if you do not possess a STEM degree for employment purposes, and perhaps a philosophy/law minor (so you think clearly), you have very little chances of employability other than ā€œgee I have a degreeā€.

    Like most things, itā€™s more (a) who you know, and (b) what industry you can get into early, and (c) how much you can save of your income and invest before you are 30.

    Why? Because the west has held a 500 year military, technical, legal, financial, cultural, literacy, and knowledge advantage over the world, and Because Americans inherited the British empireā€™s institutions of world finance, trade, and oil. It is quite possible that Americans will descend to european standards of living (which are much lower unfortunately), and even more possible that europeans will descend as well.

    We no longer hold those advantages, and what we have seen since about 1992, a brief boom as we collected the post-cold-war (world communism) dividend, but by 2006 it was fairly evident that ā€˜the great levelingā€™ in the world economy would occur at the same time as ā€˜the great sortā€™ was occurring in the US population.

    ie: minimum bar for a college degree with any employability is a STEM degree. College degree only tells employers you can follow direction. It is the same bar as a high school diploma used to be before they discounted the high school diploma by lowering the standards. The same has occurred in colleges and universities. This is because while only about 15% of the work force has the IQ necessary to obtain a ā€˜legitā€™ college degree, about 50% of our people go to college. Ergo, 2/3 of the people who hold college degrees are meaningless. And of the remaining 1/3, only those with a STEM degree are employable.

    Worse, a PhD is a liability not an asset when seeking employment outside of research or STEM classes.

    Employers need to know you have a degree worth having from a school worth issuing it. The degree itself is now just a permission slip to seek work. Not a criteria for creating demand.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 14:39:00 UTC

  • kinds of job opportunities are available for people with a PhD in political econ

    https://t.co/o1jJtmEVDEWhat kinds of job opportunities are available for people with a PhD in political economy? https://t.co/o1jJtmEVDE

    ANSWER

    Just as the American and British Economies experienced purges of middle management built up between the period 1920ā€“1980 because of the influence of ā€˜managerialismā€™ (socialism), the entire world is about to go through a set of severe employment contractions between now and at least 2025.

    1 – political management – on a vast scale.

    2 – much more of lower middle management – on a vast scale.

    3 – a little more labor due to automation – perhaps on a perceptible scale.

    and (possibly)

    4 – much, much, much, of the financial sector on a frightening scale.

    In my (rather informed I think) opinion, if you do not possess a STEM degree for employment purposes, and perhaps a philosophy/law minor (so you think clearly), you have very little chances of employability other than ā€œgee I have a degreeā€.

    Like most things, itā€™s more (a) who you know, and (b) what industry you can get into early, and (c) how much you can save of your income and invest before you are 30.

    Why? Because the west has held a 500 year military, technical, legal, financial, cultural, literacy, and knowledge advantage over the world, and Because Americans inherited the British empireā€™s institutions of world finance, trade, and oil. It is quite possible that Americans will descend to european standards of living (which are much lower unfortunately), and even more possible that europeans will descend as well.

    We no longer hold those advantages, and what we have seen since about 1992, a brief boom as we collected the post-cold-war (world communism) dividend, but by 2006 it was fairly evident that ā€˜the great levelingā€™ in the world economy would occur at the same time as ā€˜the great sortā€™ was occurring in the US population.

    ie: minimum bar for a college degree with any employability is a STEM degree. College degree only tells employers you can follow direction. It is the same bar as a high school diploma used to be before they discounted the high school diploma by lowering the standards. The same has occurred in colleges and universities. This is because while only about 15% of the work force has the IQ necessary to obtain a ā€˜legitā€™ college degree, about 50% of our people go to college. Ergo, 2/3 of the people who hold college degrees are meaningless. And of the remaining 1/3, only those with a STEM degree are employable.

    Worse, a PhD is a liability not an asset when seeking employment outside of research or STEM classes.

    Employers need to know you have a degree worth having from a school worth issuing it. The degree itself is now just a permission slip to seek work. Not a criteria for creating demand.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 14:38:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Yeah, but… You know, maybe that’s what [Cantwell] needs. Mayb

    (from elsewhere)

    Yeah, but… You know, maybe that’s what [Cantwell] needs. Maybe that’s what the Liberty movement needs.

    To grow up and join the Sovereignty movement.

    Sovereignty requires no liberty. Liberty requires permission of the sovereigns. Freedom permission of both. Ergo, liberty and ‘libertarianism’ are sandwich-board signs worn by beggars. If you want an condition of liberty, the only way to obtain it is through sovereignty, and the only way to obtain sovereignty is with violence. And the only way to obtain sufficient violence to construct a condition of sovereignty, is ally with others who equally desire sovereignty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 14:15:00 UTC

  • WHY IS KANT UNFORIVABLE? —“Specifically what about Kant is unforgivable?”—Be

    WHY IS KANT UNFORIVABLE?

    —“Specifically what about Kant is unforgivable?”—Benjamin Thurston

    Inventing pseudorationalism that (1) provided an excuse to circumvent the anglo invention of empiricism, (2) created the possibility for the ‘pseudo-rational, post-mystical, fantasy moral literature that we call continental philosophy”, and (3) gave Marx and the cosmopolitans the means of verbal deception necessary to fool so many people by loading, framing, and overloading. (4) and led to the postmoderns, critical theory / political correctness movement.

    In other words, by attempting to restate christianity in pseudorational terms, he created the next generation of mysticism: pseudorationalism as the subsequent means of literary deception, which was then taken up by the jews (cosmopolitans) who combined it with jewish law (poly ethical poly logical) to create pseudoscience: boaz, marx, freud, cantor, mises, {the frankfurt school}, rothbard(libertinism), and strauss(neoconism).

    In other words, he created a technical revolution in religion as a way to lie by suggestion. A way that it has taken me most of my life to counter.

    The british worked so hard to create the scientific enlightenment by observing the record of empirical law, and tried to restore our ancient order (natural law), and then Kant comes along and restates christianity in a new form of mysticism before the empirical project had been completed.

    (PS: It appears that marx knew he was lying by saying something on the order of “…but I have written it all as dialectic (what we call Pilpul) so I can’t be held accountable if I’m wrong…”. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 14:06:00 UTC

  • WHAT COULD I DEBATE CHRIS ABOUT? Something meaningful? I mean, I don’t follow hi

    WHAT COULD I DEBATE CHRIS ABOUT?

    Something meaningful? I mean, I don’t follow him. He’s a populist. But I get the impression that I don’t really disagree with him about much (at the level he discourses).

    I suspect he’s still in the ‘rothbardian’ (libertine) ideology, rather than classical liberal (libertarian) ideology, and certainly not in my camp (sovereignty), and I suspect not fascism(tribal authoritarianism).

    I suspect he’s still practicing cosmopolitanism(universalism) rather than nationalism(particularism).

    I suspect he’s still a ‘NAP’-er.

    He seems reasonably red-pilled (masculinity). I mean, that’s the only clear value I can deduce from the content of his reading list.

    He seems pretty anti-state, rather than anti-discretion or pro rule of law.

    He seems pretty pro-violence (which is what I care about).

    What could I debate him about?

    What would you like me to ‘correct’ him about?

    Thanks

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 13:49:00 UTC

  • THE LEFT’S CASTING OF GENDER SPECIALIZATION AS CLASS WARFARE – BUT MASCULINITY I

    THE LEFT’S CASTING OF GENDER SPECIALIZATION AS CLASS WARFARE – BUT MASCULINITY IS A VIRTUE NOT A VICE

    January 11, 2017 by Alberto Zambrano

    —“The left has to use indignation and offenses because it is absolutely incapable of using the truth without exposing itself.

    So, given the inability to use the truth, the leftists extract their cooperative procedures and threaten to withdraw.

    We must respond to the threats of retreat as severely as we respond to threats or to those who cheat or cheat us.

    This is deeply important as a concept to study in the sick behavior of the leftists.

    There is a lot of research that confirms how we react to such lies and rejections, those differences are biological, existent and widely diffused. And those same researches have shown that the female sex is more sensitive to them, which is why the left has sought to seize the vanguard of women.

    As men we must fight at all costs to retain the integrity of our group. We are genetically programmed by nature to do so. And it affects us at cognitive levels in the same way that music affects us.

    The influence of our force is the ultimate strategy to defeat the left, to sabotage its norms, to challenge its conventions by being brutally honest causes the mass withdrawal of the lies that the leftists throw at us daily.

    If we raise not only the level of debate, but our ability to create a vanguard that borders the left, we will have won the ideological war by default. The cost of cohesion and internal preferences for our own group, cooperating with our peers, and caring for our women and children creates in the left a series of doubts that they consider dangerous threats for their survival since the leftists appeal to what We do not protect as a group for them to create avant-garde.

    The left rejects the masculine character of the struggle and substitutes it for the class struggle, putting us in a terrain where we are equal in a struggle that does not exist. If we reject the class struggle and rejoice at the true meaning of the blood, sweat and tears that men have shed in order to make their nations great, we will have made our great nations again and we will have gained them to the left.

    Masculinity is positive, desirable and attractive to the opposite sex

    Just as femininity is fundamental to civilization, to preserve the species, and to cultivate lasting relationships, masculinity is necessary to preserve the character and moral fiber of our nation.

    The left with its lies seeks to separate us from our women and children and put them against us.

    Leftist elites, with their false intelligentsia, produce silly and deceptive ideas that gain their status as a result of the merit of those who spit them out, and that these ideas (feminism, gender ideology) parasitize our nation’s superior order of trust. These elites and those who follow them believe that they will win, and may do so unless we have patience and do not alter the conditions under which they are able to exploit the higher order of trust upon which our nation depends.

    If our superior order of trust is so superior that it is impassable for the left, we will preserve a society and nation that can flourish homogeneously, a tactic that the left, so ethnically, morally, and ideologically heterogeneous, is incapable of preserving without entering into Fundamental contradictions of their own ideals.

    It is for this reason that the left is unable to obtain and maintain the loyalty of the interests of the other classes without maintaining a proper warrior and masculine class of its own.”—

    Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    In collaboration for The Propertarian Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 13:32:00 UTC