Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • BIG SORT – AMERICAN REGIONAL NATIONALISM – AND THE NECESSITY FOR SECESSION “Our

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0077FAYES/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkTHE BIG SORT – AMERICAN REGIONAL NATIONALISM – AND THE NECESSITY FOR SECESSION

    “Our continent’s famed mobility — and the transportation and communications technology that foster it — has been reinforcing, not dissolving, the differences between the nations. As journalist Bill Bishop and sociologist Robert Cushing demonstrated in The Big Sort (2008), since 1976 Americans have been relocating to communities where people share their values and worldview …. As Americans sort themselves into like-minded communities, they’re also sorting themselves into like-minded nations.“

    THE BIG SORT

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Like-Minded-ebook/dp/B0077FAYES

    OUR PATCHWORK NATION

    http://www.amazon.com/Our-Patchwork-Nation-Surprising-ebook/dp/B0052RDI78/

    AMERICAN NATIONS: ELEVEN RIVAL CULTURES

    http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-Regional-Cultures-ebook/dp/B0052RDIZA/

    THE NINE NATIONS OF NORTH AMERICA

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859

    BETTER OFF WITHOUT THEM MANIFESTO

    http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Without-Manifesto-ebook/dp/B0061QB16Y/

    THOMAS WOODS: NULLIFICATION

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596981490?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-13 03:34:00 UTC

  • IS HAVING BABIES? It’s obvious

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/whos-having-the-babies/WHO IS HAVING BABIES?

    It’s obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-12 20:19:00 UTC

  • PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE (One sentence at a time.)

    PUTTING VIOLENCE BACK INTO POLITE POLITICAL DISCOURSE

    (One sentence at a time.)

    Private property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor.

    Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women.

    Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property.

    Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise.

    Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albiet mostly male productivity.

    And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage.

    It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex.

    Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises.

    Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all.

    The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all.

    For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers.

    AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS.

    Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers.

    The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property.

    (It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-12 10:24:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN IDEOLOGY VS INTRA-LIBERTARIAN IDEOLOGY AND INTERNECINE WARFARE AS EV

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/the-rancid-abraham-lincoln-haters-of-the-libertarian-right.htmlEXTRA LIBERTARIAN IDEOLOGY VS INTRA-LIBERTARIAN IDEOLOGY AND INTERNECINE WARFARE AS EVIDENCE OF INTELLECTUAL FAILURE

    (Re-Posted from elsewhere)

    Tom DiLorenzo’s generation along with Rothbard, was trying to illustrate contrasts – to create a revisionist history to support libertarian ideology. Ideology changes VALUES, and motivates passions so that people ACT.

    All I see from this nonsense is both CATO and BHL trying to whine that they don’t get the attention the ideological libertarians do.

    Of course, that envy displays greater ignorance of the structure of political movements than does any revisionist history, shoddy or not. Ideology obtains participation. Intellectuals only battle other intellectuals. Reason is insufficient for motivation. Empiricism is insufficient for persuasion. That’s why we have ideology – passions.

    Given the absolute failure of the classical liberals and the left libertarians to provide alternative solutions to the demonstrated failure of the classical liberal model’s means of preserving freedom – a desire that is a minority desire in the first place – it’s understandable that they retreat into intra-libertarian criticism.

    I can understand Cato’s position. Their funding stream and interaction with the existing state is something that they have to stick with.

    I can understand the investment that the Mises group has made in Rothbardianism, despite its demonstrated failure to enfranchise the moral values of classical liberals.

    But I can’t understand attacks by BHL’s on anything given that they haven’t contributed a SINGLE DAMNED IDEA to the discourse other than ‘we aren’t them’.

    Well, ‘them’ created an effective ideology that enfranchised a generation of zealots. ‘Them’ did more with one sound-bite speaker named Ron Paul than all the work of scribblers have done in sixty years.

    So ‘them’ understands ideology – so to speak.

    And this whole argument is a generation out of date. It’s as though we have to abandon the entire postwar liberty and conservative framework, and wait until the past generation of authors die off before we can advance the cause of liberty. Why?

    OUR GENERATION’S FIGHT IS AGAINST POSTMODERNISM. NOT SOCIALISM. NOT RIGHT LIBERTARIANISM. NOT EVEN SECULAR REDISTRIBUTIVE SOCIALISM.

    The war is being won by a state religion, articulated as if it’s rational, and functioning as an ideology, despite it’s FALSE CONTENT.

    SO PLEASE STOP WASTING BREATH ON INTERNECINE ATTENTION-GETTING AND DEVELOP INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM OF A HETEROGENEOUS SOCIETY UNDER MAJORITY RULE WITHOUT THE EXISTENCE OF POPULAR MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE TO ACT AS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN COMPETING MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES.

    The criticism of DiLorenzo as poor scholarship in an article written at the sophistication of a grocery store rag is embarrassing to our entire movement. And it certainly doesn’t advance the BHL cause of trying to get attention by actually contributing something to the debate.

    It’s absolutely ridiculously childish. “Mee-too-ism”.

    Some of us are out here on the fringe actually working on something other than ‘ideology’ and ‘belief’, as if we need to replace one secular religion with another, instead of replace both ideology and belief with practical institutional solutions. The very fact that you have to argue in favor of belief, rather than institutions, is an admission of failure.

    Leave hokey religions to the Postmodernists and the Continentals. They’re better at it anyway.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    www.propertarianism.com

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-12 04:39:00 UTC

  • THE INTELLECTUAL DEBATE IS CHANGING, BUT TOO LATE It’s received wisdom among ort

    THE INTELLECTUAL DEBATE IS CHANGING, BUT TOO LATE

    It’s received wisdom among orthodox economists, that immigration is ‘good’. but the truth is, that it’s good for the upper classes, and bad for anyone else, and it’s only good in the abstract over the very long run.

    I’ve been arguing this same point for years, and I include in my arguments the cost of institutional conformity and increased frication and trust.

    The USA’s immigration history is also a received wisdom that isn’t true. Catholics and Jews had precisely the impact on freedom, civic virtue, manners, morals and ethics, that the protestants worried about. (Yes, it’s true.) Values aren’t arbitrary or neutral.

    THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT TO THE BENEFIT OF IMMIGRATION IS FALSE for everyone except government employees and financiers. For everyone else it’s theft.

    http://cis.org/immigrant-gains-native-losses-in-the-job-market-2000-to-2013

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 20:50:00 UTC

  • “fluid tests are more reflective of cognitive processes while crystallized tests

    “fluid tests are more reflective of cognitive processes while crystallized tests are more reflective of acquired skills and knowledge. “

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 20:44:00 UTC

  • HEIDEGGER NOTES Been working on Heidegger today. And I still don’t ‘grok it’. I

    HEIDEGGER NOTES

    Been working on Heidegger today. And I still don’t ‘grok it’. I understand the underlying problem that he is trying to solve, but I don’t understand his solution.

    If you can’t describe something as human actions, and if you can’t reduce something to analogy to experience, then I question whether you understand it, and whether it’s testable. And so far I can’t find a praxeological (neutral encyclopedic) set of definitions.

    I still think it’s just another zoroastrian revival movement. An attempt to argue that our senses are enough to serve our desires. A regressive attempt to return to primitivism, so that the senses and instincts alone allow us to abandon the problem of interpreting abstractions as analogies to experience.

    FROM HEIDEGGER FOR DUMMIES:

    “The Daseinic mechanism is Heidegger’s juvenile attempt at a grammatical and semantic transcendentalist trick in order to improperly elevate existence or BEING to the ontological status of a predicate via the gerundial phrase being there.”

    “Heidegger gambled [correctly] that the average reader, not expecting to be bamboozled, would, after a while forget the real underlying meaning of the 3rd-person continuous present fragment –*being* and gradually internalise *Being* and the gerundial *being there* as legitimate names for his human everyman’s existence. *Dasein* also means *Existence* in German) so bingo, the fact that existence is unpredicable would be forgotten by most the readers of *Being and Time,* after a chapter or two and for the purposes of his occult agenda it would be accepted into the philosophical lexicon as a fully fledged noun, which is the way he boldly treats it in his writings.

    Labouring under the same misaprehension of the Russian Name Worshipping Cult which holds that that if one names something it psychologically instantiates it, he smuggled *IS* and *Being* into his nominological vocabulary in the form of the gerundial noun phrase *being there* in order to avoid the more obvious existential Cartesian-style duality that the word *Being* implies* if it is bereft of an existential modality or modification to indicate, such as: *Adolf is being silly.*etc.

    Dasein (Being-There or Existence) is presented as a verbal noun – as a pseudo-entity which, as a noun, might be expected to have an existence – but it is an illusion, for it is no more than a BE word in drag – a 3rd-person conjugation or continuous *being* word in metaphysical sheep*s clothing. It must be remembered therefore that when he uses the word Dasein, he is misapplying it to substantiate or cognitively instantiate the verb being as a noun and thus when he talks of the: *Being of Dasein* he is really saying the *Being of Being.* [compare *the dancing of dancing.*]

    Ask yourself… “Is it the dancing Annabelle that exists – or *dancing?* Is it the being called Annabelle that exists, or the *Being* of the being called Annabelle?”

    —-

    SKEPTICISM

    I called Heidegger a philosophical date-rapist for this kind of sneaky stuff… But I keep open the possibility that I simply cannot conceive of world as he tries to communicate it. On the other hand, I think it’s also a possibility that Heidegger is a christian mystic doing a very artful job of creating a philosophical excuse for tyranny.

    All I see from the Postmodernists and the Continentals is an attempt to recreate the church by irrational rather than arational means. Religion may be arational because it is allegorical, but at least protestantism is not irrational, in the sense that it’s false. The difference between allegory and the pretense of rationality is the difference between not only truth and falsehood, but truth and deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 10:06:00 UTC

  • NO MAN IS FIT TO RULE Plato’s Republic is his attempt to creat a society capable

    NO MAN IS FIT TO RULE

    Plato’s Republic is his attempt to creat a society capable of manufacturing a contemporary heroic general.

    But Tolkien has a different take:that none of us is fit to rule .

    “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people. […] Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. ”

    (Thanks to Francesco Principi.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 06:07:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEMATIC QUESTION: With the death of the nuclear family as an economicall

    THE PROBLEMATIC QUESTION:

    With the death of the nuclear family as an economically productive necessity, and reproduction under complete control of the female, and in a technological environment where survivability is high, life is long, and overpopulation places extraordinary stress on the planet, does a woman have the right to reproduce at the expense of others, and in particular at the reproductive sacrifice of others?

    Like Camus’ first question of philosophy, this is the first question of redistributive government.

    (The first question of politics is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? The first question of philosophy is why don’t you commit suicide?)

    Painful question. But one must answer it. Otherwise all redistributive questions are meaningless.

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-11 05:53:00 UTC

  • Revisited. Different language. Same meme. Democracy is ignorance and morality. T

    http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=22955#.Ud2wV36pnyY.facebookCaplan Revisited.

    Different language.

    Same meme.

    Democracy is ignorance and morality.

    Thats all it can be.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-10 15:06:00 UTC