Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • WHAT HAVE WE DONE…. “This perspective on the Revolution has particular signifi

    WHAT HAVE WE DONE….

    “This perspective on the Revolution has particular significance in the case of the aristocratic liberals because for them France, not England was the paradigmatic case for modern history. To most nineteenth-century European liberals, England and English history were the pattern for modern development. But to the aristocratic liberals, the pattern was france, and their understanding of the French Revolution must be seen in this light.England was the Other, placed opposite the common Continental destiny. Continually out of phase with the rest of Europe, sometimes running ahead and sometimes lagging behind.” – Aristocratic Liberalism p11.

    “…all of Europe was seized with a hatred of itself, of its own time, of its own history: “Theory taught that tradition was worthless and that the oldest things were useless and rubbish.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 15:20:00 UTC

  • IN JOURNALISM; A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION (The Common Law) Craig WIlly, a blogger

    http://www.craigwilly.info/2013/08/14/can-media-tell-the-truth-on-new-vs-traditional-journalism/TRUTH IN JOURNALISM; A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION

    (The Common Law)

    Craig WIlly, a blogger who I follow who writes honestly about EU affairs, will leave blogging for a position as a reporter with a financial new service in Germany.

    In his column he states the obvious: that there is no such thing as journalism, only opinion writing. “Opinion Journalism”. He uses a quote from Julian Assange to justify the journalistic economy: It is the clashing of these voices together that reveals the truth about the world as a whole”. Just like any other form of capitalism.

    But I would argue, given the statements below, that if you don’t get paid for it, it’s an opinion. But if you sell it, it’s a product. And if you sell a product, you must warrantee it. And journalists, or at least media providers, should be held accountable for the quality of their products.

    Our courts made a vast mistake undermining traditional common law on libel and slander. And we worsen that mistake with not requiring warrantee on the products of reporters. If products must come to market with warrantee, then fewer of them will come, but they will be of much higher quality.

    It should be noted that the government gives corporations the permission to pollute, and journalists the permission to lie, slander and commit fraud, by revoking your right of standing in the court of law, as a consumer of a good that was purchased on the market.

    So while I agree with Craig’s argument, I do not agree that the market without the courts, is a sufficient guarantee of public good. Not even market anarchists make this argument. Nor do I agree that the market for information is a sufficient guarantee of public good without the protection of the courts in enforcing warrantee on the quality of the product that we consume. Nor do I agree that the market for academic knowledge without the courts is a sufficient guarantee of public good.

    Personally, I’d like to take Dan Rather to court for all the damage he did to America.

    QUOTE:

    “Today, years later, I’ve come to be more aware than ever that media are generally not in a particularly good position to tell the truth. There are too many structural problems:

    The journalist (or media) is often an amateur-generalist who writes about subjects about which he has no expertise. (How many Yugoslavia-experts were there in Western media in the 1990s? How many Islam experts after 9/11? How many Germany experts since the euro crisis?)

    1) The journalist has to write to very short time constraints, before the “fog of war” clears.

    2) The traditional (print or TV) journalist has to simplify according to the constraints of column size and screen time (“concision”).

    3) The journalist panders to the powerful in order to preserve “access.”

    4) The journalist panders to his audience’s prejudices in order to acquire and keep readers.

    5) The journalist engages in sensationalism to get “hits.”

    6) The journalist must respect the interests of his paymasters (corporate or government owners, subsidizers, advertisers, subscribers…).

    7) “The journalist” is defined here as he who lives by his writing, each of these points could be extended to media in general.

    The point here is all media, all journalists, have necessary and structural conflicts of interest that potentially compromise and bias the truthfulness of their writing.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 13:18:00 UTC

  • CLOWN: EVIDENCE OF A STATE RELIGION? Now, we have a long history of ridiculing o

    CLOWN: EVIDENCE OF A STATE RELIGION?

    Now, we have a long history of ridiculing our officials. I have spent halloween dressed as both Reagan and Clinton – neither of them very charitable representations.

    So a clown gets up and plays the president. Or Hollywood puts out a discrediting film using prominent left wing actors about Reagan or the iron lady.

    We burn effigies of Bush, and copies of the flag.

    Funny enough that the progressive reaction to a clown wearing an Obama mask at a rodeo produces the same intensity of reaction that a cartoon of mohammed did from fundamentalist muslims.

    American libertarians and conservatives must understand that the philosophical framework we call postmodernism, is a FUNDAMENTALIST religion far more dangerous than islam. Far more dangerous than socialism or communism.

    Christianity had churches against the nobility. Communism had the state against the nobility and the capitalists. Socialism had universities and argued that it was a science – until it was demonstrated in theory and practice that it was not.

    But universities did not give up upon the failure of their new religion. They invented postmodernism.

    We see postmodernism as political correctness. As feminism that did not grant equal rights, but extraordinary privileged. As absurd liberal logic: Equality as a fact rather than a necessity of just law. Diversity as a good rather than a temporary tolerance until people assimilate . Merit as an obscurity for invisible inexplicable but assumed corruption. Support for the unfortunate as an obligation to subsidize poor judgement.

    That the separation of church and state must equally apply to universities and their religion of postmodernism, as it did to our cathedrals and christianity.

    Universities, like advertising agencies and consumer brands have the incentives to mislead people, whether customers or citizens. To sell them lies, dreams and fantasies. And since they are unaccountable there is

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 11:39:00 UTC

  • RISING ANTI-CAPLANISM – THE MOVEMENT AGAINST OPEN BORDERS I go back and forth on

    RISING ANTI-CAPLANISM – THE MOVEMENT AGAINST OPEN BORDERS

    I go back and forth on Brian Caplan. I agree on almost everything is but his stand on immigration and his argument against calculation getting blown out of proportion by giving higher priority to incentives. That’s silly. They’re two sides of the same coin, and neither has meaning without the other. He had an opportunity to clarify an issue and just clouded it. And that’s been a problem for me and the movement.

    There is a bit of an anti-Caplan movement building in the conservative intellectual community. Which, I think is only driven by his immigration stance.

    I can’t expect him to think differently. Any more than I can be expected to disavow my ancestors.

    But it’s a preference, not a truth.

    Open immigration is incompatible with the preservation of individual, several, private property rights.

    Period. We didn’t know that. Now we do.

    Conservatives didn’t know that homosexuality was genetic and in-utero, not a choice. But they stick to their position out of religious conviction, even when they know the rational reasoning.

    Libertarians stick to the fantasy that property was a moral preference, rather than a reflection of a reproductive strategy, that is in opposition to the desires of the majority of people on the planet.

    It’s illogical to hold to a position when the evidence is contrary to your beliefs.

    Open borders must require symmetrical respect for property rights. And open borders and democracy are a direct opposition to property rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 09:27:00 UTC

  • IF DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SQUASHING PUBLIC OPINION” We can’t improve, repair, o

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QT8Q-Hcll0″WHAT IF DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SQUASHING PUBLIC OPINION”

    We can’t improve, repair, or replace government, if you think that democracy is a means for change, rather than a means of preventing change.

    My definition of libertarian is anyone who advances liberty.

    So that positioning out of the way, If you eliminated the advocacy of Ron Paul from this video, so that it would be entirely neutral, it would be the most accurate condemnation of american government that a talking-head has made on-air.

    It’s worthy of one of the great orators of our past.

    And I can’t recommend it enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 08:48:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://mises.org/document/6995/Why-American-History-Is-Not-What-They-Say

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 05:09:00 UTC

  • “Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate: ‘To every man upon this

    “Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:

    ‘To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;

    And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds,

    For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods’ “

    Beautiful. Not quite enough to build a plot on tho…. ;(

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 17:06:00 UTC

  • follow The Sartorialist pretty religiously. And he has a great eye. But, serious

    http://www.thesartorialist.com/I follow The Sartorialist pretty religiously. And he has a great eye. But, seriously. Here in Kiev, women can have no money at all, yet they compose their own style, shop carefully, move gracefully, and they look like the just stepped off the runway. I don’t mean, like, a few of them. I mean, all but a few of them.

    Men have quite a bit of the soviet era fitness thing going on. So they just tend to look better in general. I’m sure that the t-shirt-wearing-fat-tv-gamer guys exist here but I don’t see any of them. We have the whole Goth and motorcycle and tattoo cults too, but none of it is so nihilistic.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 10:42:00 UTC

  • OF DIFFERENT REGIONS OF AMERICA AND HOW THEY AFFECT VOTING

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/maps-of-the-american-nations/ANCESTRY OF DIFFERENT REGIONS OF AMERICA AND HOW THEY AFFECT VOTING

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 09:42:00 UTC

  • FERTILITY RATE DIFFERENCES. “…fertility is dysgenic for women and roughly neut

    FERTILITY RATE DIFFERENCES.

    “…fertility is dysgenic for women and roughly neutral for men by IQ. However, here we see that there is finer pattern behind this when you break it down. What is actually happening is that fertility is highly dysgenic by IQ for liberal men (for whom indeed, the smartest category of such men here – roughly IQ 115+ – about 50% leave no descendants); is slightly dysgenic for moderate men; and is slightly eugenic for conservative men.”

    TRANSLATION

    “fertility is dysgenic for women” : women produce increasingly less intelligent offspring.”

    “Highly dysgenic for liberal men” : Liberal men do not reproduce anywhere near replacement rates.

    “Slightly eugenic for conservative men” : conservative males produce more offspring of increasing intelligence.

    WHY DOES THIS MATTER

    It matters because we live in a democracy. Women vote to increase their reproduction by consequence, to decrease aggregate intelligence. This is not true if we have stable nuclear families that must be self supporting before it’s possible to bear children.

    So, the family model is not neutral.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 09:23:00 UTC