Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • NO. MORAL LITERATURE IS FOR DIM PEOPLE I mean, the general argument that smart p

    NO. MORAL LITERATURE IS FOR DIM PEOPLE

    I mean, the general argument that smart people study science, economics, and law and not-very-smart people study moral literature or what we call ‘continental philosophy’, and even-less-smart people study narrative literature, is simply true. There is a reason marx is only taught as fantasy moral literature, and not science, economics or law. It’s because it’s very hard to read any of this when it’s contrary to the evidence, and reducible to nothing more than a revolt against Darwin Menger Spencer and Nietzsche.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 17:51:00 UTC

  • RE: PETERSON VS ZIZEK 1) PETERSON – JP is a clinical psychologist (cognitive the

    RE: PETERSON VS ZIZEK

    1) PETERSON – JP is a clinical psychologist (cognitive therapist), and he researches the impact of personality on behavior. His work is largely an attempt (knowingly or not) to restore Stoicism. He has (successfully) identified the relationship between jungian categories and literary archetypes and uses those narratives just as the priesthood has, to teach therapeutic concepts by suggestion rather than CBT’s direct exposure. (I disagree with this technique for therapy but not for teaching in the first place.) There is a worldwide demand for Stoicism because we have almost finally restored the level of civilization achieved by the late Empire before the Abrahamic Dark Age.

    So to flip it around, what is Aizek but a someone who has stolen and parroted others ideas and then practice Critique (Gossip)?

    2) MARX, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, GLOBALISM – We don’t need to debunk marx, that’s been done for decades. Marx created a fairy story. (a) Man was not oppressed, but incrementally domesticated by his betters, like every other domesticated animal. Societies advanced best and fastest who most culled the underclasses (European Bipartite Manorialism, and East Asian Rice Farming) and culling the underclass is the cheapest, fastest, most secure means of improving the standard of life of the citizenry. (b) labor has little or no value since it is the organization of production that creates the value, and labor is a fungible low value cost easily and continuously replaced by machines, computers, and now artificial intelligences. (c) the underclass cannot organize production, or govern, or lead because they lack the ABILITIES to do so (dunning kruger, distribution of intelligence). (d) all non-market social orders maximize rent seeking at the expense of the laboring, working, middle, and professional classes, while all market orders suppress rent seeking through competition. (e) the problem we face is immigration of the underclasses, downward redistribution of reproduction to the lower and underclasses, subsidies that encourage this process, and the continuous destruction of the middle class majority produced by centuries of manorialism (hanging, disease, and wars), culling those underclasses, (f) the political problem we face is financialization of the economy in addition to bureaucratic rents, (both of which are fixable by market means. (g) Marx-Boas-Freud-Cantor-Adorno(et al) proposed an underclass monopoly, while Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, a Middle Class, while Foucault, Derrida, Rorty a Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle, while Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin a Feminist, and Strauss-Neocons a Political/Military upper class monopoly. The left proposes MONOPOLIES (a herd) and the right proposes MARKETS (packs).

    3) FASCISM, NAZIISM, NATIONALISM – Naziism like all Fascism was providing an alternative to (Bolshevik) World Communism. It was the most successful implementation of the original French Proposition. Peterson knows this just as any scholar knows this.

    We are still fighting this warfare of Nationalism (A Market of Polities) and Globalism ( Monopoly Polity). and we have just complete a century of that test.

    (a) Each attempt by the globalists has failed, and (b) each attempt by the nationalists has eventually succeeded. We are currently in the last phase, under which we will restore nationalism worldwide and return to state-capitalism (fasicsm) most of which will be ethnocentric, and some which will not – and will devolve in to indian, muslim, african, and south american poverty.

    Rousseau (Feminine Subjective) + Schopenhauer, Hegel et al (Conflationists) + Kant (Masculine Analytic)

    -vs-

    Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno (Working and Underclasses) – FAILED

    -vs-

    Mises, Friedman, Rand, Rothbard, (Middle Classes) – FAILED

    -vs-

    Foucault, Derrida, Rorty (Priestly-Feminine Upper Middle) – FAILING RIGHT NOW

    -vs-

    Friedan, Firestone, Dworkin (Feminists) – FAILING RIGHT NOW

    -vs-

    Strauss-Neocons (Political/Military-Masculine – Upper) FAILED

    The gradual attack on Aristocratic Civilization from the bottom up.

    -The Counter-Revolution Against Anglo Legal-Empiricism, and German Rational-Science-

    Utopian Promise upon Achieving Monopoly Consensus + Straw Man + Pilpul and Critique:

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 17:19:00 UTC

  • I can’t afford to school you on this. GO do your reasearch on the evolutoin of v

    I can’t afford to school you on this. GO do your reasearch on the evolutoin of vision. When you have an understanding of that proces we will have a frame to discuss. Otherwise you lack the knowledge to hold an opinion or participate in that discussion.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 00:08:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062135085250547712

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062133375278989318

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle I’ve read many EP books. I’ve yet to come across any independent verifier for any EP hypothesis. That’s because none exist.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062133375278989318

  • Do the research and don’t bother people until you do

    Do the research and don’t bother people until you do.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:56:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131954441687041

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131401749942273

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle Give me one example of an EP hypothesis and it’s independent verifier.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131401749942273

  • My time is valuable. I am happy to teach. I am ok with male egos. I respect the

    My time is valuable. I am happy to teach. I am ok with male egos. I respect the male need to learn through competition. But do not in a million years assume that you understand one ten thousandth of the universe that I do. THanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:55:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062131784807268352

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062130934089203714

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle EP isn’t science.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062130934089203714

  • RT @BlameMaxSand: The boys have been busy doing Audiobooks of @curtdoolittle ‘s

    RT @BlameMaxSand: The boys have been busy doing Audiobooks of @curtdoolittle ‘s articles. Give them a listen if you are lazy, or even bette…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 19:52:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062070712171720705

  • “We Can Teach You The Education That Was Denied You.” —” Hi Curt … I was won

    “We Can Teach You The Education That Was Denied You.”

    —” Hi Curt … I was wondering where’s a good starting point? I watched your YouTube with Richard Nikoley. I loved it. Especially when you two spoke about the election and empires. I don’t have a super firm grasp on grammar,logic, and rhetoric (The Trivium). Should I dive into those subjects first before diving deep into propertarianism? Or where is a good place to start on your reading list? Any thoughts will help. Thanks” —Bryan Baker

    YOU LEARN IT BY UNPEELING THE ONION ONE LAYER AT A TIME. sort of like reading a fable, then a myth, then a short story, then a novel, then a historical novel, then a history, then the science. This is the only way to learn it – like we learn everything else. A layer of complexity at a time.

    1 – Read the Short Overview by Eli Harman Here:

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/03/29/propertarianism-core-concepts-by-eli-harman/

    2 – Read Thru The Overview Here (This is most of it … there is a lot of material)

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    3 – Watch the videos here:

    https://www.facebook.com/pg/thepropertarianinstitute/videos/

    4 – Take the classes when we start teaching them (before christmas).

    5 – To build your general knowledge of the world: our reading list:

    https://propertarianism.com/reading-list/

    While you can ALWAYS learn A LOT from what we do here, it is a very big program that covers all the disciplines.

    LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM THOROUGHLY IS NO DIFFERENT FROM TAKING A FOUR YEAR UNIVERSITY DEGREE, DOUBLE-MAJORING IN THE LAW AND POLITICAL ECONOMICS WITH A MINOR IN HISTORY BUT WITHOUT THE “ELECTIVES”. IT’S A HUGE PROGRAM.

    But this is why you do it:

    “We Can Teach You The Education That Was Denied You as A Man.”

    How Long It Will Take?

    How long would it take you to learn to program a computer in an object oriented language? To study Calculus? To Study Accounting? To Study Economics? To study the law? Any technical discipline with it’s own methods and terminology takes about a year to ‘learn’, two years to feel comfortable with, and three years to be effective with, four years to be creative with, and five or six years to master: the 10,000 hour rule. This is just a rule of thumb when discussing how long it takes for humans to learn anything at all. Some of us are faster and some of us slower, but in general, those who are faster can tolerate accumulating hours more so than those who are slower. But in the end, it’s hours.

    That said, if you read the Short Courses and watch the Videos, in one month you will see how it all fits together, and in three months you will find that it has affected your thinking.

    Our experience is that on average, if you read the articles, follow me, Eli, and a few others, that in six months you will ‘understand’ everything we say. It will take you about a year to ‘start thinking’ in Natural Law – and that’s when you’ll feel the explanatory power starts affecting your life. Then, sort of like a light switch, over a very short period of time, all human activity will ‘make sense’ in very simple terms. “Everything becomes obvious.”

    If you have come to Propertarianism through the usual route: Constitutionalist or Classical Liberal > Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > NRx > Propertarianism, then your progress will be much faster.

    If you have studied one of the hard sciences so that you are familiar with the scientific method and scientific epistemology, then your progress will be faster.

    If you have at least some understanding of accounting, finance, or economics, then it will be much faster.

    If you have a background in philosophy – it might actually slow you down: most of philosophy, like most of religion, is nonsense or outright falsehood: fantasy literature.

    (If you have abnormal behavior and you’re looking for justification of it, you won’t find it here – you will find that there is a differences between tolerance and advocacy and abnormal behavior is not something that will be sanctioned in any society for long. Go see the left libertarians. They love deviant, selfish, anti-social behavior.)

    But in general the more you know the easier it will be to learn.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 13:13:00 UTC

  • THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THE INVITE So why is it that you have all made such amaz

    THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THE INVITE

    So why is it that you have all made such amazing progress together? I mean. All of you have made dramatic progress. and while I think some of it is feedback from synchronicity with current events, the reality is that for some reason a lot of people are reaching ‘sufficient mastery’ at the same time.

    We want, (I want), to know, for the purpose of future education of others, what you have (bill has) done in Sheepdog that works so effectively.

    In contrast, absolutists tend to learn the fastest but then they defect into wordplay instead of action.

    I feel like I am attracting and filtering people who then aggregate into like-groups and work together.

    I want to understand how we can create a spectrum of these ‘groups’ whether intentionally or by slowly fostering the right people.

    And I want to (a) run classes on the one hand and (b) organize and plan for ‘action’ on the other.

    Thanks for any help you can provide.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 16:53:00 UTC

  • SEEING THE DICHOTOMY AND TEACHING IT by John Mark Now that I see this dichotomy

    SEEING THE DICHOTOMY AND TEACHING IT

    by John Mark

    Now that I see this dichotomy between hopeful-moral-wishful thinking and resigned-legal-realistic thinking, I see it everywhere.

    Leftists, obviously moral/wishful. Libertardians, “principled conservatives”, classical liberal, and Civnats are still moral/wishful.

    Even my wife, after Dems took the House, was emotionally upset. I said, “I’ve been telling you democracy is false hope for a long time now. Even if we’d won the House it would mean nothing in the long run.” “Yeah, but it’s just so upsetting (moral rant as she works through the emotions).”

    It is hard to have your hopes shattered. High-openness right-wingers have it a bit easier because we immediately probe for outside the box solutions, that’s what we do. Low-openness folks have it harder because change is less comfortable for them in general.

    It’s amazing watching the Right catch up to us slowly in real time. TheConservativeTreehouse (boomer civnat site) comment section on midterms night had many people saying “this was the nonwhites”. A new dynamic for them, normally signal hard against any race talk. The site proprietor said he just wanted to go fishing. (Emotional/wishful/hopeful thinking being shattered into realism.)

    Becoming more aspie/scientific/realistic is emotionally difficult for most people, it usually only happens through the trauma of reality slapping them in the face brutally, and even then humans show a remarkable capacity to resist it. But any individual or group that embraces it (classic example Western Civ) to a greater extent than others has a tremendous advantage.

    So the question is vital: How do we *train* it?

    –John Mark

    (CD: The Law is Easy to Teach)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-09 08:54:00 UTC

  • Bill Joslin, Seems minor but is the hardest problem of training a core: what do

    Bill Joslin,

    Seems minor but is the hardest problem of training a core: what do men need to learn to change from hopeful and moral, to resigned and legal frames. YOu stated your change of frame. I watched it happen. How can we EXPLICITLY state this objective as a goal of educating ‘men’ so that we rule by reason rather than wishful thinking?

    Thanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-09 07:51:00 UTC