Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • MEDIA ARE MOSTLY IN STUPID MODE” (judith curry) “In a word. No.”

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/07/is-global-warming-causing-the-polar-vortex/”THE MEDIA ARE MOSTLY IN STUPID MODE”

    (judith curry)

    “In a word. No.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 19:17:00 UTC

  • HOW MacDONALD ADDRESSES THE WESTERN/JEWISH CONFLICT VS A PROPERTARIAN EXPLANATIO

    HOW MacDONALD ADDRESSES THE WESTERN/JEWISH CONFLICT VS A PROPERTARIAN EXPLANATION – WHICH I THINK IS MORE PRECISE.

    (Fascinating. You know, I wouldn’t think this would be all that controversial. It’s politically incorrect. But you know, it is what it is. Groups need strategies. Western people are better killers than anoyone else on earth becuase they have better spatial reasoning, higher trust in one another and lower impulsivity. Westerners also tend to be extremely fascinated with technology, for thousands of years. And they used that to conquer the world despite their small numbers. We call this Imperialism.

    I can critique every culture, and it’s in fashion now to do so, as we all explore why the west succeeded and others did less so, particularly China.

    So why is it that this topic is so un-PC? Because it’s true?

    I care about this argument because it is addressable under propertarianism. In fact, under propertarian analysis it’s just blatantly obvious. So it’s an amazing sort of test of the explanatory power of propertarian argument: structure of production + structure of reproduction + structure of group in context of other groups = property rights. And thats because otherwise, the group would cease to survive. It can’t function any other way.

    Propertarianism renders all moral, ethical and institutional strategies commensurable.

    And yes, I know I get crap for this stuff but you know its REALLY fascinating. 🙂

    Kevin MacDonald’s Argument:

    —————————

    “My logic is as follows: I see conflicts of interest between

    ethnic groups as part of the natural world. The only difference between conflicts between Jews and non-Jews compared to garden variety ethnic conflict stems from the fact that for over a century, Jews have formed an elite in various European and European-derived societies, an elite with a peculiar profile: deeply ethnocentric and adept at ethnic networking; wealthy and intelligent, aggressive in pursuit of their interests, prone to media ownership and the production of culture, and hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the societies in which they form an elite.”

    “As an elite, Jews have wielded power that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers, so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior are to be expected when Jewish power conflicts with the interests of others.”

    “The various themes of moderm anti-Semitism all boil down to the Jewish role as a hostile elite whose attitudes and behavior are in conflict with the interests of others: economic domination in many parts of Eastern and Central Europe prior to World War II; cultural subversion via the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life (e.g., removing Christian symbols from public places); facilitating the displacement of native populations via mass migration into Western societies; dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews, especially Israel since 1948; and the history of Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR during the period when it became the most

    murderous regime in European history.”

    “Since I believe that these propositions are intellectually defensible, and since these propositions, if believed by non-Jews, would cause them to attempt to lessen Jewish power and thereby further their own interests, it is indeed the case that my work could be said to provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior.”

    “But this isn’t really any different from claiming that Zionist theories provide intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians, or that psychoanalysis or the Frankfurt School provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Western attitudes. At the end of the day, what counts is whether indeed my writings are intellectually defensible.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 19:12:00 UTC

  • DISCOUNTS (minor refinement to the list and order) –CRIME– Murder Violence The

    DISCOUNTS

    (minor refinement to the list and order)

    –CRIME–

    Murder

    Violence

    Theft

    –ETHICS–

    Blackmail

    Usury

    Fraud

    Fraud by omission

    Fraud by obfuscation

    –MORALITY—

    Profit without contribution

    Profiting from disadvantage

    Profiting from suffering

    Profit from Interference in the acts of others

    Externalization of costs

    Privatization of the commons

    Socialization of losses into the commons

    Free riding

    –POLITICAL MORALITY–

    Rent seeking

    Corruption

    Extortion

    Conspiracy

    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)

    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–

    Ostracization and Displacement

    Conquest through Overbreeding

    Conquest through Immigration

    Conquest through religious conversion

    Conquest through Enslavement

    Conquest through war.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 18:55:00 UTC

  • ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY – EVENTUALLY, IT WILL LOOK LIKE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD Academ

    ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY – EVENTUALLY, IT WILL LOOK LIKE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    Academic philosophy is pretty much a zombie profession. It’s actually humorous to read how bad the papers are. Every few months I just grab a dozen or two and read through them.

    And the consequences speak for themselves: the funding for philosophy departments, and administration’s tendency to group them in with religion has led to the progressive decline of departments.

    Conversely, economics and psychology together have pretty much taken over the social sciences. And that was probably a deterministic outcome, when late in the 19th century the analytical movement made the choice to try to make philosophy into a science, it was a pretty sizable bet that failed. And it was followed by a flurry of attempts to justify socialism in an effort to stay relevant. That failed too.

    It’s not that the study of philosophy has no value, it’s that except for very notable exceptions (Dennett) where philosophers are trying to integrate ethics and the product of scientific investigation, it’s pretty barren – like the study of medieval and ancient literature.

    **And given what I’ve learned from my own work, I’d argue that we can, within at most two generations, solve the problem of the logic of the social sciences. And when we do, I suspect that philosophy will, in practice, look not very much different from the scientific method, with each of the logical systems we have developed: language, logic, math, physics, and economics (cooperation), merely specializations for isolating one property of the universe or another, so that we are capable of reducing it to analogy to experience and therefore understanding it.**

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 17:37:00 UTC

  • MEANS OF FEMINIST OPPRESSION OF REALITY? CENSORING THE INTERNET Uh ho. What?. Sh

    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/NEXT MEANS OF FEMINIST OPPRESSION OF REALITY? CENSORING THE INTERNET

    Uh ho. What?. Shaming and Rallying don’t work on the internet?

    Your rejection is powerless? You words can’t carry their own weight?

    You can’t claim that you were open to physical threats on the internet?

    Why do you think men spend more time here than women?

    Words disempower your politicking. But please tell me when you have the right not to be sneered at, jeered, insulted, ridiculed, threatened via twitter messages….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 17:35:00 UTC

  • ITS GENETICS YOU KNOW. I think we are up to something absurd like 20 papers a we

    ITS GENETICS YOU KNOW.

    I think we are up to something absurd like 20 papers a week basically confirming the nature side of the nature nurture debate.

    You can screw up your kids, but you can’t really make them materially better than your genes. So the whole trick is really, not to screw them up. 🙂 Which is pretty good, since evolution wouldn’t have been very good to us if we were dependent on pedagogy.

    JUST LIKE CONSERVATIVES HAVE ALWAYS ARGUED.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 14:57:00 UTC

  • NECESSARY, PREFERENTIAL AND LUXURY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT A) NECESSARY PROPERT

    NECESSARY, PREFERENTIAL AND LUXURY PROPERTIES OF GOVERNMENT

    A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES

    The NECESSARY properties of of a government are

    1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.)

    2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights.

    3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.)

    These are the minimum properties of a government.

    B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES

    In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following:

    4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons.

    5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes.

    6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency.

    7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes.

    These are advantageous properties of government.

    C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES

    In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES:

    8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments.

    9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.)

    These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation.

    The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’.

    The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:43:00 UTC

  • Recent Interview “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues fo

    http://www.hanshoppe.com/2014/01/taxes-are-expropriation-interview-in-wirtschaftswoche/Hoppe’s Recent Interview

    “The anarcho-libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues for a state-free society. Where government has, for example, no right to compel the citizens to pay taxes to finance armed forces.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 13:38:00 UTC

  • THE ASSUMPTIONS OF ‘LIBERALISM’ (AND LIBERTARIANISM) “Libertarianism is applied

    THE ASSUMPTIONS OF ‘LIBERALISM’ (AND LIBERTARIANISM)

    “Libertarianism is applied autism.” – Steve Sailer

    For some reason this phrase affected me pretty deeply.

    UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT A GIVEN?

    Libertarianism, as I practice it, and as I believe Mises and Hayek practiced their ‘liberalism’ (universal enfranchisement), is the scientific pursuit of political theory using the system of measurement we call economics, and the objective of material prosperity. Which was of course, the great achievement of the innovations of capitalism, empiricism (of which capitalism is a member) and the harnessing fossil fuels.

    Or rather, These philosophers were engaged in an attempt to define scientific political theory under the ASSUMPTION of universal enfranchisement.

    I still practice my philosophical inquiry under that same assumption of universal enfranchisement – the prohibition on the deprivation of the choice of “cooperation or boycott” from others.

    But once you assume some justification for not depriving others of choice, (a) we run into the problem of diverse interests and desires so that we now need a means of choosing between preferences, and the DEMONSTRATED preference of everyone is greater prosperity, for the simple reason that prosperity increases everyone’s choices and greatly reduces the cost of ANY choice.

    PRIMACY OF PROSPERITY – ECONOMICS AND COOPERATION

    So, the second assumption of “liberalism” is the priority of economic good. That is, that cooperation facilitates production of prosperity.

    MERITOCRACY OR NOT?

    The third assumption of “liberalism” is natural rotation (Meritocracy). But like prices and contracts, humans do not willingly rotate downward if there is any impact upon their status. In fact, people place higher value on their status than almost any other asset that they have.

    LIBERTY OR CONSUMPTION?

    The fourth assumption of ‘liberalism’ is that humans desire liberty, rather than that they desire choice and consumption. When in fact, only libertarians and conservatives demonstrate a preference for liberty, and almost all other humans on the planet do not. They demonstrate ONLY a preference for consumption.

    OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LIBERTARIANISM EXIST

    0) Libertarianism (full enfranchisement, with meritocratic rotation)

    1) Select enfranchisement (Pre-enlightenment European, and early American with selective rotation)

    2) Totalitarian humanism (Chinese Corporatism and European Corporatist models ceremonial enfranchisement )

    3) Totalitarianism (pre-communist Chinese and most empire and state models)

    Libertarians are unique. Conservatives are unique. Most of the world does not want to engage in trial and error. They can’t. It’s too hard for them.

    Then again, why does universal enfranchisement imply monopoly?

    Why can’t we construct many small states some of which practice communal property and others that practice private property and everything in between? Because the statists could not profit from us?

    Because that is how humans MUST function precisely because we are not equal in ability whatsoever.

    A large organization has only so many people at the top. In many small organizations there are only so may people at the top, but there are many more organizations for people to reach the top of.

    Just as companies and economies have spread out into multiple flexible organizations, so must governments.

    That is the obvious conclusion: size allows you to conduct war and that is all. As such, if someone attempts to construct a scale empire, they have no other reason than warfare to do so.

    Our goal then should be to destroy large states so that war is nearly impossible to conduct.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 10:33:00 UTC

  • CRIME STATISTICS: THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MASCULINITY? –“…40% of white males i

    CRIME STATISTICS: THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MASCULINITY?

    –“…40% of white males in their early 20s having been arrested at least once and 49% of black males in their early 20s having been arrested at least once … obviously this is due to increasing criminalization of activities that should not be criminalized.”–

    (Peter Boettke )

    MASCULINE OFFENSES

    It’s pretty obvious that if you take drugs, alcohol, traffic, ‘fighting’, and ‘regulatory violations’ because of they’re just too poor to comply, that between the ages of 17 and 25, the chance that any given male violates at least one one of those prohibitions, suggests that the 40% number is reasonable.

    They don’t keep age data at Justice, (just juvenile vs adult) But given that the numbers are almost evenly distributed, we can make good guesses: drugs, alcohol and ‘consensual testosterone driven reproductive age nonsense’ mean that masculinity has been criminalized.

    Loosely speaking this means that under 5% of young males are affected annually, but cumulatively we end up with 40% of males affected.

    In other words “victimless crimes” in an effort to suppress masculine signaling account for most male arrests.

    ABOUT THE DATA

    The data is collected from individual county ARREST records, and the Justice department applies a little normalization for different terms, and differences in data collection. However, I believe that this is in fact ARREST not CONVICTION data. Those are the only two types of data we have. Because ‘crime’ data has no meaning, and no empirical test we can apply.

    Now, I can be wrong in how I interpret the sources of data given what Justice says, but to my knowledge (without making some phone calls from the other side of the planet) this is about as accurate as we can get.

    VICTIMLESS CRIME ISNT BROAD ENOUGH OF A CRITICISM

    And I think my analysis is more informative that the simple victimless crime argument. It is more accurately stated that these statistics represent the systematic suppression of voluntary, mutually consensual, masculine expression.

    (I do agree with the three strikes rule in general, and I am not sure that suppression of drunk driving is, at least in american, not justifiable using libertarian propertarian reasoning.)

    SUPPRESSION OF MASCULINITY AS THE MAJOR FOCUS OF THE STATE

    If anything these victimless crimes:

    (a) Marijuana offenses;

    (b) victimless driving offenses;

    (c) victimless regulatory conformance and fees;

    and most probably :

    (d) consensual ‘fighting’;

    constitute an unnecessary avenue for the state to expand and interfere in our lives.

    And it is through this organized suppression of masculine signals that the state has justified intrusion.

    HEARTBREAKING

    It is heartbreaking to sit in a court room and watch male after male permanently removed from the possibility of employment, losing work, losing pay, and criminalized for the accident of being poor, or institutionally forced into poverty for the celebration of youth, or the defense of what little honor poor males have. My most exasperating example being punishment for credit that they have been given as a means of entrapment, or having driving revoked and employment prohibited for an offense unrelated to crime. The most criminal is the subjugation of young males to permanent poverty by child support they cannot possibly pay and survive on. In an era of 3% unemployment and postwar miracle of underclass privilege that might have seemed to make sense, but in a world where 15%+ unemployment and 25-50% youth unemployment is the norm, and world competition for labor puts extraordinary pressure on the lower classes, it is no longer possible to expect young males to either break out of poverty, refrain from crime, or even retain even sustainable respect for society, its myths, traditions, norms and laws.

    I AM NOT SOFT ON CRIME

    Just the opposite. I’m hard on both crime, and hard on the state for prosecuting non-crimes.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 10:20:00 UTC