Response: Method To Verbal Attacks


I teach everyone the same strategy:
1) return ridicule or criticism,
2) restate the central argument
3) pose why the deception is necessary if one is correct.
4) repeat until the audience is numb to the rallying shaming and other emotional distractions, and has absorbed the central argument through repetition.

Ergo, (in response to ad hom)
1) you’re a poser, and a liar, and a fraud, and can’t address the central argument.
2) The central argument that heterodox views are disproportionately expensive if not impossible to obtain citations in orthodox distribution channels. And that this problem is endemic to all market-driven (customer seeking) platforms.
3) That you have been engaging in distraction and shaming rather than addressing the central question (despite the variety of forms I’ve presented it in) and that you’re demonstrating exactly the infantilized behavior I accuse you of as a means of avoiding the fact that if you DID address that question you would lose face.
4) I am happy to continue to demonstrate how you and other libertarians use marxist and feminist argument (rallying, shaming, and avoidance) as a means of defending your pseudoscientific contra-rational malinvestment in a failed cult. It’s for the good of mankind.

See how that works? See?

Feminine rallying and shaming is predicated on the cheapness of those arguments, the expense of repeating the central argument, and the intuitionistic emotional reaction of infantilized audiences.
However, through repetition we achieve what we cannot achieve through a single reasoned argument.

And this is why it is so valuable to play losers like you as suckers.
To demonstrate the success of the technique if you are willing to pay the cost of pursuing it – just as we pay high costs of altruistic punishment in all OTHER walks of life.

The informational commons must be protected just as all other commons are protected, if we are to crush the criminal left, and the infantile regardless of affiliation.

Responses · Uncategorized

Stay with Arguments To The End

(nonsense. example of the problem of the paradigmatic shift of propertarianism given the shift created in the informational commons by the internet)

Well, I”m glad that we stuck with it long enough to fully demonstrate your egoism, rallying, shaming, and ad hom’s, and how assuming you have the faintest idea what argument is being made, only demonstrates your inflated self image.

[–]despicable_secret -1 points 7 days ago
For some extra fun, watch Curt have no idea how Wikipedia works.

(a) As i’ve wasted my time demonstrating, not only do I know how it works…
(b) .. but I actively rebel against ‘how it works’. Why?
(c) Because it damages the informational commons.
(d) It damages the informational commons by reinforcing the institutionalized paradigm of the (critical theory) left’s status quo.
(e) And the purpose of my work is to expand Natural Law to incorporate Testimonial Truth (Complete Scientific Truth), so that it is impossible to create paradigms through control of or funding of media – by supplying the only competition falsehoods (frauds) require: law.

Just as you are a thief of the territorial, physical and normative commons by advocating libertinism, you’re a thief of the informational commons by justifying a paradigm (method) that damages the informational commons. You don’t KNOW you’re a parasite. But you are. Just as the leftists are parasites on private property, you are on territorial, material, and informational common property. We can either pay the cost of policing the commons (territorial, physical, institutional, normative, and informational), or we free-ride on the policing of others. One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.

So you see, it’s not that I dont’ know how it works. It’s precisely *because* I know how it works. Which if you read the text of the post was my point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and by this process the editor (which is common on wikipedia), constructed original research via negativa. (Although I agree this is probably above your head as much as it was the editor, that doesn’t matter. The record of these arguments is a demonstration of the fact: research, development, and education have moved to non-curated forms on the web, that are verifiable in existence, but cannot use *appeal to the authority of the curator*.

The correct criticism which he or she could have levied was that ‘it’s not notable at its current level of popularity in curated media. The reason being that the right libertarian, dark enlightenment, propertarian movements have originated in a period where discourse has moved to the web, which is a non-curated (reviewed) medium, because it is a free (or largely) free medium of publishing, distribution, and consumption.

And this is why everyone wants me to publish (before I am done). Because that produces the record. My personal view is the only reason to publish is to create the record, because I have no need or want of money, and could publish entirely on the web, and keep a live-document running with live contributions – which is my plan.

Again, you never had any intention of inquiry, never to understand, never to TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS – but simply to cowardly rally, shame, and ridicule as a means of defending your malinvestment in priors. You lack agency. You are not fully human. You are too weak to inquire.

But, while the cost of policing and prosecuting your various forms of parasitism has been high, in exchange I am able to use this as a record to show others just how difficult and expensive it is to police the informational commons.

Thanks for taking the bait. Those who lack agency, who are not fully human, who seek liberty by permission rather than sovereignty in fact, are easily caught by the bait.

Why? Because the ego lies.

You assumed a paradigm. You did not seek, as a scientist does, to refute your paradigm. You sought to confirm yours.



Yes, Lying Is A Strategy For The Left – But Not The Right.

—The proof is in the Left’s success.—

Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy.

If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded?

—Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.—

Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation.

Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident.

So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends.

—And they are a very eugenic group.—

If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science).

–libertarianism is a straw dog —

Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie.


“If lying works we should use it”


“Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default”

we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now.


So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well.

That’s my response. 😉


Curt: Who Are Your Influences?

—“Every philosopher can point out influences of which he may call his teachers or derive his ideas from. Nietzsche for instance read Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Plato, and Heraclitus among his other influences. So let us hear yours. How many people have you read, and who do you derive your thoughts from? (Btw, wikipedia level understanding does not count. You can’t cite someone as an influence unless you have read his works)”—

Well, I answer this question a few times a year. And it might surprise you but I read science, economics and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi-secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle-class criticism of the status quo.

So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

My reading list is pretty extensive and published on my site. And I’ve read everything on it I think. Ramsey keeps all of the works in digital form in our library. And recently he has added new works to it that are relevant but that I have only skimmed.

There is something in the content of the neutral point of view we find in encyclopedias.  And aside from those works, I found  the Germanic Fairy Tales, Pinnocchio, Johnny Tremain, Ivanhoe, Harlan Ellison, Heinlein, Ben Bova, and all the postwar science fiction authors fairly influential – they were all libertarian.

I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and Popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms – just as we study physics now as information not forces.

But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that as from the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal.

So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse.

The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasnt quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere.

It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty of due diligence in matters of the commons.

So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the Wilsonian Synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law.

What I am writing is natural law.

The Only Possible Epistemology, Ethics and Politics of Sovereignty.


Ten Thoughts on Money

Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”–

I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’.

2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle).

3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific.

4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit.

5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone.

6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity.

7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable.

8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity.

9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter.

10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive.

Those are the major topics.


Spanish Rule?

Q&A: —“I’ve been interested in the case of Spain for some time, as my ancestors are primarily Spanish. And I wanted to understand the reasons for the rise of the Spanish and if they had any philosophical contributions to the western World. If you saw no reason to comment on the Spanish, I don’t wish to take your attention away from something which could be more useful. But, if there is anything to say about the Spanish, I would certainly be willing to read what you have.”— David


The Spanish question is interesting because Spanish philosophers were central to the Scholastic movement, the Spanish empire was so powerful, and so successful but rapidly evaporated under industrialization. So that the Spanish had lost their position by the time of the enlightenment’s transfer of power from the landed to the merchant classes, and the vast inte

The argument for why this happened is well understood:

1) The Spanish were a hardworking people, and meaningful commercial leaders as trade spread from the Mediterranean to the atlantic..

2) The peak in spanish contirbution to philosophy occurred in Catalan where the Translators of Toledo first translated greek texts from arabic into latin, then to catalan. This set of translations created what we know as the modern spanish language. And is probably the basis for what we call today ‘spain’. And it was the latin translations that reintroduced europe to science and philosophy.

3) The discovery of the new world created an enormous influx of gold (currency).Spain spent its wealth on wars, notably against the low countries (Netherlands).

4) As we see with Americans, unearned wealth tends to make a people lazy, and they seek status signals not productivity. And decline after wealth is very difficult for a people to work through.

5) With the people ‘ruined’ from this process of expansion, wealth, war, and failure to convert to industrialization, they did not produce an enlightenment on the scale of england, france, germany, or ashkenazi-dom (eastern europe and russia). And spain devolved into a relatively poor country despite being second only to the UK in the territorial expansion of spanish language and genetics.

6) Spanish cultural, military, and economic excellence was was the product of Austrian not Spanish rule. Just as eastern european excellence was the product of german and Austrian rule. (see Kennedy’s book…/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_P…) And when the Hapsburgs declined, so did aristocratic influence in spain.

So, Spain went into decline, and she was unable to maintain her colonies when the Americans and British chose to deny her access to first the caribbean, and then south america. Read anything basic you can find on the rise and fall of Hapsburg Spain.

But I will say something uncomfortable:

That Spain ascended under Roman, Muslim, and Austrian rule, but could not maintain that ascent under her own rule. SO WHY IS THAT?

Something we must ponder. But most of us probably attribute this to geographic location, and mediterranean (hot weather) culture, catholicism, and the failure of Spainish culture to join the Hanjal Line and develop the absolute nuclear family, and low corruption we see in protestant countries that still practice ‘the oath’.

Curt Doolittle


More On Spain

I have learned this mostly from my friends in south america. And we now have the genetic data, testing data, and economic data to confirm it. But the problem facing south america is that there are just toooooo many people at the bottom for the people at the top to provide sufficient incentives to the middle class, who in turn will provide sufficient incenties to the lower class, so that it’s possible to productively organize society.

It’s not as bad as islamic countrires, where people are highly illiterate and where Islam teaches people that they can be emotionally expressive and emotionally impulsive. At least south american s are still christian. But it’s just almost impossible to create a window within which the people can be organized, and a sufficient middle class developed, to raise the population out of poverty.