Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • WAS THE REVOLUTION COOPTED BY NAZIS? (OMG – Americans are stupid.) –“Taking you

    WAS THE REVOLUTION COOPTED BY NAZIS? (OMG – Americans are stupid.)

    –“Taking you at your word that you are living in Kiev, let me take this opportunity to ask: What do say to the charges that the revolution was instigated by the U.S.? Could it have happened without U. S. support? Was it in fact co-opted by nazis, neo or otherwise?”—

    From Curt Doolittle:

    Well, you can search for me on Google or Facebook, I’m pretty prolific, and I’m readily visible here in Kiev. 🙂

    The people here BEGGED for support from the states and got almost NOTHING. A few of us hammered the news media. But we got nothing. You can’t say that schoolgirls spending lunch money on bandages and trucking in in the cold to tend the young men on the front lines, or housewives and clerical workers showing up by the millions is somehow a CIA plot. (Which if you knew anything about the intelligence community would seem absurd.)

    And it’s absolutely insulting to locals to insinuate that they’re ignorant pawns of some global intrigue rather than artificially and desperately poor for no reason other than leftover Russian (soviet) bureaucrats in one of the most politically corrupt nations on earth. There is no rule of law here. None. Courts and police are bought. Last may I think I paid something on the order of 3K in bribes just to get people to do their jobs – not for any special treatment.

    Most people here look across the border into Poland and see what they COULD have. Most people look to Russia and see murderers who came in the middle of the night to kill relatives and families after Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor: the Ukrainian Holocaust.

    The only difference between Canadians and Ukrainians’ which neighbor they have. Similar sizes and populations and similar (gentle) temperaments.

    I love these people and there is nothing on earth that justifies letting people who wish to be free come under Russian corruption ever again.

    Americans are ignorant, stupid and benevolent sheriffs yes. They fail to grasp what it means to live in a low trust society. The do not grasp that the lower the trust in a society the more necessary authoritarian rule is. That only generations of commercialism will change a low trust polity in to a moderate trust polity – even so corrupt and politically volatile as the Italians and the Romanians. Just as Russians fail to grasp that Americans actually believe they are acting in the moral interest of less advanced peoples. Americans foolishly believe that they yearn for liberty and prosperity, and merely need to be given the opportunity for self government. And look at the damage we have done. Russians cannot believe we do this with american idealism rather than russian pragamatism. That is because our idealism is as foreign to them as it would be to space aliens.

    Yet here in Ukraine we have a white, christian people (many of whom go to church, and yes, that’s important at this stage of development), who have very similar ethics, work habits, history, education, literature and mythology.

    And they want to be free.

    Yet in the coal mines of the east, in the decaying factories of the soviet era, in the desperate partly Russified slums, the idea of getting checks however small from the government from oil revenues is worth living under the rule of gangsters.

    Most of Ukraine would have been happy to divorce and set them free. But Ukrainian’s are unified now, and their view is ‘if we do not stop the enemy in Donbas, then he will be first in kiev and then in L’viv and we will be under the boots of gangsters and tyrants and murderers yet again.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 14:36:00 UTC

  • An Alternative Biological Theory, to Sowell’s of The Vision of The Anointed

    [T]he progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).


    I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.


    In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.


    We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.


    We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev Ukraine


  • An Alternative Biological Theory, to Sowell’s of The Vision of The Anointed

    [T]he progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).


    I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.


    In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.


    We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.


    We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev Ukraine


  • AUTHORS INTENTIONS AND WORDS ARE A CONVENIENT DECEPTION. It really doesn’t matte

    AUTHORS INTENTIONS AND WORDS ARE A CONVENIENT DECEPTION.

    It really doesn’t matter what an author says or intends. What matters is whether its true or not- and I do not mean internally consistent, I mean externally correspondent. In the sense that logical conclusions can be and must be drawn from any set of statements. and that the author’s ‘way of thinking’ is either correspondent with reality or not. Most of the time, it’s not. That’s what separates pseudoscience, rationalism, mysticism from truth telling (science).

    When we roll a bag of conceptual marbles down the hill, we do not control them – reality does. When we roll our sentences into the public it does not matter what we say or how we say it but whether what we say is true and truthful.

    Nothing marx, freud and rothbard say for example, is truthfully expressed. So we cannot judge an author by his own terms, but on whether his arguments are operationally possible in reality, regardless of what he means, intends, or portends.

    Meaning is a great way to lie. Which is useful in myths and religious dogma. It was useful in pseudosciences. It was useful in the fallacy of psychologizing. It was useful by the postmoderns. It is useful in all public speech. But it is just a perfect vehicle for lying.

    I run into this all the time, when criticizing certain authors. My favorite is still the typical economist’s reply that ‘we don’t concern ourselves with that’.

    Which makes me crazy because they do affect that which they claim to ignore, without admitting that it is precisely what they ignore that allows them to justify their work.

    Marx is better though. Best. Liar.Ever.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 08:00:00 UTC

  • AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED The progressive

    AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED

    The progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).

    I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.

    In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.

    We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.

    We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 04:46:00 UTC

  • VERBAL PICKPOCKETS You object to propertarian constraints on political speech? W

    VERBAL PICKPOCKETS

    You object to propertarian constraints on political speech? Well, what you really mean, is that you will be deprived of your ability to conduct cunning verbal deceptions and thefts, that you have come to see as your privilege. But I fail to see how wit and soft thefts, is materially any different from violence and hard thefts. Thefts are thefts.

    The Cathedral’s academy trains legions of conceptual pickpockets, petty thieves, and brigands. Education that makes men cunning is no the same as education that makes men moral. Moral men eschew all theft, cunning men seek it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 04:03:00 UTC

  • Postmodernism is Pointless, Viscious and Destructive

    (Guest post by Michael Phillip)

    Postmodernism (Pomo) is an intellectual blight, and a moral one. For, as Norman Geras has pointed out, if there is no truth, there is no justice. If there is no truth, there is also no heritage. Creating, in reaction to progressivist post-modernism, PoMo conservatives who are so unaware of the heritage they are supposed to be preserving that they actively undermine it. PoMo conservatism is another manifestation of the destructive intellectual and moral emptiness postmodernism’s attack on truth creates. A conservatism that is not founded in some strong sense of truth, heritage and consequence—but is mere attitude—is not merely pointless, it is vicious and destructive.

  • Postmodernism is Pointless, Viscious and Destructive

    (Guest post by Michael Phillip)

    Postmodernism (Pomo) is an intellectual blight, and a moral one. For, as Norman Geras has pointed out, if there is no truth, there is no justice. If there is no truth, there is also no heritage. Creating, in reaction to progressivist post-modernism, PoMo conservatives who are so unaware of the heritage they are supposed to be preserving that they actively undermine it. PoMo conservatism is another manifestation of the destructive intellectual and moral emptiness postmodernism’s attack on truth creates. A conservatism that is not founded in some strong sense of truth, heritage and consequence—but is mere attitude—is not merely pointless, it is vicious and destructive.

  • (worth repeating) –“I would say, that I cannot force anyone to hear anything, o

    (worth repeating)

    –“I would say, that I cannot force anyone to hear anything, or to listen, or even to pay attention. What I can do is to punish them for lie and error in words just as we punish them for lie and error in deeds, when those words, like those deeds cause loss of property-en-toto.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 03:28:00 UTC

  • Who Will Contain American Barbarism? Not Quite: American Stupidity Maybe.

    [Q]UESTION: If we contain Russian barbarism, then who will contain American barbarism? ANSWER: Well that is not an honest statement right? It posits a false moral equivalency rather than the truth that each party is half-right. Moreover, it is easier to correct the half-right anglo island dweller political ideology, but very difficult to correct half-right russian-steppe low trust and pervasive corruption. The answer of course is to close borders, and bring capital to people rather than people to capital, and cause internal reformation through capitalism, trade, and prosperity, rather than export of cancerous low trust behavior to higher trust countries, and buildup of land, sea, and air, state-militaries. So, if you mean, who will correct American perception of the value of extending democracy – which requires a high trust society – rather than just limiting protecting property rights (borders, human rights/liberty, capitalism/property rights)? Then that is an honest question. If you mean that you think that the world will naturally adopt borders (common property), human rights(mind and body), and capitalism (private-property), that is possible. But then again, we cannot have any of these things unless we insure others and they insure us – by intervention when asked. Russia is correct in its criticism of American ideological error in failing to understand the importance of authority in heterogeneous low trust polities with complex borders. More primitive people require more authoritarian governments. More advanced peoples require less authoritarian governments. Democracy is a luxury good of advanced, high trust homogenous societies with absolute nuclear families. I As far as I know the USA largely plays sheriff, and is incorrect only in the sense that (a) we do not require Europe(Germany) to carry its own water, (b) we are wrong that democratic governments are superior to authoritarian governments. Why? Because democratic and authoritarian governments are mere reflections of the demands of homogeneity-high trust and diversity-low trust societies, not reflections of good intentions. We are also wrong in that we should support the formation of more governments into smaller polities to solve problems due to artificial or legacy borders that prevent the formation of higher trust polities. So we should support secession. The problem is that if we support secession that will be also supported at home and the ability of the government to finance playing sheriff to the world will dissipate even more quickly. My preference is to increase awareness of the fallacy of borders/democracy and the importance of property/liberty, and to advocate separatism and secessionism at home so that we may incrementally lose the ability to project wars. I suspect the opposite will happen: that new redistribution of economic power will cause existing large states to attempt to expand privilege (influence) and control (rents) and that the world will continue on its present course toward Huntington’s conflict. Libertines should try to keep in mind that the purpose of the cosmopolitan movement was to retain Jewish separatism, identity, law, ethics, morality and custom, while justifying their expansion into any and all economies and walks of life, without paying the high costs of land-holding that host populations constantly pay and whose narratives place upon them so many obligations. And we also forget that that the purpose of the anglo-puritanical movement was religious anti-statism using the same jewish model, but that by divorcing it from militialism, and associating itself with more easily seduced women and socialists, that the puritanical movement could overtake academy and state and create the Cathedral. The way to change this state of affairs, which I argue in propertarianism – I think fairly persuasively – is to return to cost, science and action from cost-evasion, belief and verbalism, and make each of us accountable for the rights that we must pay for in order to possess them. Learn: Jury, Testimony, Law, Property-en-toto, and Evolutionary Strategy. The reliationship between family structure and trust; and between homogeneity and borders and trust. The relationship between trust and economic velocity. The relationship between the evolution of free riding, the rate of evolution of law, trust and economic velocity. The relationship is between homogeneity, property, family, law, truth, trust and economic velocity. Curt Doolittle (H/T to William T Houston for the inspiration).