Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Worth Repeating for Newbs: The End of Pseudo-Austrian(Ukrainian) Libertarianism.

    [I] love Hoppe as an involuntary mentor and human being. But I had to reform (kill off) rothbardian libertarianism if I wanted to reunite conservatism (aristocracy) and liberty (anglo libertarianism) A LIST OF HOPPE’S ERRORS http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ RENDERING ROTHBARD ARGUMENTATIVELY IMPOSSIBLE http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ MISES WORK IS A FAILURE TO DEVELOP ECONOMIC OPERATIONALISM http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

  • Truth: Seeking True Names – The Ultimate Parsimony

    [T]here is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony consists of the true names of all that exists in the universe.
    Truth is the name we use to refer to true names.
    True names are the ultimately most parsimonious descriptions of whatever phenomenon we wish to convey.
     
    Now, others might say that there are more experiential ways of observing existence. And I might agree that there are many stories we can envision. And that from these visions we might gather new ideas. But those ideas can be used for entertainment, for assuaging suffering, or for deceit. But they cannot convey true names.
     
    This is not to say that there is no place for the arts in the communication of the human experience. It is however, to say that the communication of the human experience can be tested for aesthetic, true, false, good and bad content.
     
    Art can be judged as is any other statement.
     
    Art does not get license to hazard, lie cheat, steal and harm.
     
    Just the Opposite.

  • Truth: Seeking True Names – The Ultimate Parsimony

    [T]here is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony consists of the true names of all that exists in the universe.
    Truth is the name we use to refer to true names.
    True names are the ultimately most parsimonious descriptions of whatever phenomenon we wish to convey.
     
    Now, others might say that there are more experiential ways of observing existence. And I might agree that there are many stories we can envision. And that from these visions we might gather new ideas. But those ideas can be used for entertainment, for assuaging suffering, or for deceit. But they cannot convey true names.
     
    This is not to say that there is no place for the arts in the communication of the human experience. It is however, to say that the communication of the human experience can be tested for aesthetic, true, false, good and bad content.
     
    Art can be judged as is any other statement.
     
    Art does not get license to hazard, lie cheat, steal and harm.
     
    Just the Opposite.

  • The Great Lies of Both Eras

    (Having an angry moment over “the big lies”.) [B]efore the hebrew bible there were myths. But the invention of that history was the invention of lying. Its the invention of the big lie.

    The battle between the cities in the ancient world is this: Lying: Jerusalem Storytelling: Egypt (Memphis/Thebes?) Reason: Greece/Athens Truth: Rome.) Pragmatism: Sparta. Let that sink in a bit. Lying: The Ashkenazi Enlightenment Storytelling: The French Enlightenment Reason: The German Enlightenment Truth: The anglo enlightenment Pragmatism: America Let that sink in some more.

  • The Great Lies of Both Eras

    (Having an angry moment over “the big lies”.) [B]efore the hebrew bible there were myths. But the invention of that history was the invention of lying. Its the invention of the big lie.

    The battle between the cities in the ancient world is this: Lying: Jerusalem Storytelling: Egypt (Memphis/Thebes?) Reason: Greece/Athens Truth: Rome.) Pragmatism: Sparta. Let that sink in a bit. Lying: The Ashkenazi Enlightenment Storytelling: The French Enlightenment Reason: The German Enlightenment Truth: The anglo enlightenment Pragmatism: America Let that sink in some more.

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • The Corrected History Of Civilization: Paternalism as Domestication

    (by Eli Harman) [A]dvanced civilization, with production and division of labor, is necessarily founded on property, which is a masculine innovation, the more private, the more masculine. Property is that which you obtain and maintain at personal cost, and that which you are willing and able to defend. Property rights are a subset of that property that your peers are willing to ensure, just as law is a subset of morality. Males evolved to specialize in the production of violence which sustains all property claims (and supply even the violence necessary to sustain communal forms of property in pre-civilized, matriarchal, societies.) Patriarchy and private property originate in bands of men organized for aggressive conquest, and the subsequent necessity of dividing the spoils of conquest (land, goods, and women) between them, organizing them for production, and defending them henceforth. Once unleashed on the world, patriarchal civilization proved unstoppable. And its advantages, in productivity, including but not limited to the production of violence, have only snowballed over time with the accumulation of capital and eugenic reproduction (made possible by restraining females’ dysgenic, egalitarian, tendencies.) Recent innovations to the contrary, which are really just regressive throwbacks to the paleolithic, were only made possible because one patriarchal society, Western civilization, attained such a commanding lead over adversaries and antagonists, that our forefathers thought they could afford to indulge their women without limit. And for a while, we could. But the madness has gone exponential, and a century and a half of unchecked consumption and decay wrought by faulty egalitarian premises have brought our enemies, once more, near enough to parity that they may begin punishing us for our folly. We will learn. Or we will die. But things will not continue as they were. Eli Harman.

  • The Corrected History Of Civilization: Paternalism as Domestication

    (by Eli Harman) [A]dvanced civilization, with production and division of labor, is necessarily founded on property, which is a masculine innovation, the more private, the more masculine. Property is that which you obtain and maintain at personal cost, and that which you are willing and able to defend. Property rights are a subset of that property that your peers are willing to ensure, just as law is a subset of morality. Males evolved to specialize in the production of violence which sustains all property claims (and supply even the violence necessary to sustain communal forms of property in pre-civilized, matriarchal, societies.) Patriarchy and private property originate in bands of men organized for aggressive conquest, and the subsequent necessity of dividing the spoils of conquest (land, goods, and women) between them, organizing them for production, and defending them henceforth. Once unleashed on the world, patriarchal civilization proved unstoppable. And its advantages, in productivity, including but not limited to the production of violence, have only snowballed over time with the accumulation of capital and eugenic reproduction (made possible by restraining females’ dysgenic, egalitarian, tendencies.) Recent innovations to the contrary, which are really just regressive throwbacks to the paleolithic, were only made possible because one patriarchal society, Western civilization, attained such a commanding lead over adversaries and antagonists, that our forefathers thought they could afford to indulge their women without limit. And for a while, we could. But the madness has gone exponential, and a century and a half of unchecked consumption and decay wrought by faulty egalitarian premises have brought our enemies, once more, near enough to parity that they may begin punishing us for our folly. We will learn. Or we will die. But things will not continue as they were. Eli Harman.

  • What Do White People Need To Understand About Racism?

    That it’s natural.  That all human groups act in the interests of their kin.  That people vote racially.  They work in racial groups. They live in racial groups. They mate and marry in racial groups.  They speak in racial groups.

    All racial groups convey status because some groups are more desirable than others.  That all those capable of escaping the lower classes of their racial groups rationally want to join in white culture so that they can have a better life, and that as such they want to limit racial discrimination.  And that white middle and lower classes want to preserve their privileges by preserving the status of their elites from competition. 

    That race, religion, culture, tribe, gender are a part of life because they are meaningful differences because people act to their advantage at all times, and race, religion, culture, tribe and gender convey different advantages.

    NO MORE LIES. 

    The century of pseudoscience and lying is over.

    Kant, Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt School, Rothbard, and the Postmoderns are just liars and pseudoscientists creating mythology of secular christianity that is the literary equivalent of science fiction and fantasy that provide the myth of pagan aristocracy.

    It’s not complicated.  Silly people in the ancient world believed in holy books. Silly people in the modern world believe in pseudoscientific books.  But they’re both nonsense. Both lies.

    The difference is that pagans and aristocracy know that science fiction and fantasy are just literature. The secular christians thought that mysticism was real. They think pseudoscience is real. They love propaganda. They love political correctness. They police speech that exposes their lies.

    The fact that women are and the underclasses are vectors for mysticism and  pseudoscience, and men and the middle classes are vectors for commerce, technology, and warfare shouldn’t be surprising.

    Women and slaves spread the lies of mysticism in the ancient world. Women and the ‘slaves’  or underclasses spread the lies of pseudoscience in the modern world.

    There is nothing even the least bit difficult to understand.

    Wishful thinking is fertile ground for lies.

    Lies are lies no matter how well you wrap them in story.

    Stories are the perfect method for telling lies.

    Why?  Women invented gossip: stories. Men invented history.

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-white-people-need-to-understand-about-racism