Names (truth) vs Analogies (deceits)

A sequence of operations consists of names. I can name that sequence of operations. An experience or an observation or an imagination of cause and effect is an analogy. Names may or may not convey meaning. THey may or may not convey loadings which we, as moral creatures, feel are terribly important. But operations are names and experiences are analogies.

I have a pretty low opinion of meaning.

It’s a vehicle for comprehension yes.

But that comprehension is by definition loaded.

And loading and framing are means of deceit.

Source: (1) Curt Doolittle


No More Slavery, Conquest, and Colonization

So if we cannot parasite upon others, and control their reproduction (slavery) then why can others parasite upon us and limit our reproduction (through redistribution and taxation)?

If we cannot colonise others, then why can others colonise us?
Forcible Redistribution Is Slavery.
Forced immigration is colonisation.
Statism is Slavery.

Meritocratic immigration.

Source: Curt Doolittle


End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars


—-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-

Well, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense.

(a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon.
(b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable.
(c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof
(d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits.
(e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements).
(f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content.
(g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content.
(h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever.
(i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us.

i. identity (category)
ii. internal consistency (logic)
iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power)
iv. existential possibility (existence proof)
v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)
vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)
vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers)
Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth.

Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining.

Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion.

Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can.

Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on.
I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on.
I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on.

The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history.

The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life.

There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty.

Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others.

Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them.

What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit.

Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over.

Welcome to the new age.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine



Speciation is Less Genetic and More Philosophical, Normative and Institutional

(important) (alternate theory of man)

Man adapts through ideas. Speciation in man is determined by his ideas: philosophical, normative and institutional. Man’s genes adapt largely through changes in distributions of reproductive desirability, aggression, intelligence, and impulsivity. These differences do not show up in our current level of genetic study, yet they determine our futures, because our futures are determined by how we compete with one another’s tribes.

Different civilizations are different species. This defeats the genetic argument to the similarity of man. Forever.

That argument is dead. This one reigns.

Source: (4) Curt Doolittle


Are We Too Primitive a Breed or Race to Compete?

Smaller brains, greater aggression and greater reproduction defeat larger brains and lower aggression and lower reproduction?

Is this a permanent equilibrium? Or is this one of those processes that is deterministic, and that eventually all the calm, smart people are outbred and conquered by the aggressive impulsive dumb people?

You know, he was wrong about a lot of things, but Gould said that there was no material advantage to intelligence unless in increased reproduction.

Source: (1) Curt Doolittle


The Alternate History and Future of Man: Aggression. (We have passed peak human.)

(important) (inflammatory)

  • Each wave of man was more aggressive than the previous.
  • Each wave of man exterminated the previous wave of man, whenever advantageous.
  • Hunter-Gatherers had bigger brains but were less numerous and less aggressive.
  • Northern Europeans with big brains are smarter with bigger brains and less aggressive.
  • The Steppe/Desert/Levant has been kicking off waves of increasingly aggressive peoples for thousands of years.
  • The newer peoples are less intelligent, more reproductive, and more aggressive.
  • They are the future of man.
  • Unless we change again, to keep them at bay.
  • The future isn’t one of achieving supra-human intelligence.
  • It’s one of decreasing intelligence and increasing aggression.
  • And the world is running out of the old species with calmer, smarter, bigger brains.

Source: Curt Doolittle


Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

Dear Cosmopolitan Libertines:

You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders.

So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.)

And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park).

And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law).

And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade.

Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert.

You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason.

And you’ve been infected.

It’s OK. We have a cure.


Source: Curt Doolittle


Bronze Age Europe – Where We Come From


  1. JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
  2. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
  3. The Early Germans by Malcolm Todd
  4. The Ancient Paths: Discovering the Lost Map of Celtic Europe

Source: Curt Doolittle


Propertarianism is Radical not Reactionary

Josh Jeppson said something smart last night: that Propertarianism isn’t conservative (reactionary) but innovative. That’s true.

But then, how do I position it?

—“You don’t want to go back to something (maybe some things but not all), so you’re not a reactionary, you don’t want to conserve what we have so you aren’t a conservative, and you don’t want to take what we have further, so you aren’t a progressive. You are (gasp) a revolutionary”—Adam Felix

Source: Curt Doolittle


Mainstream Econ is the Study of Deception

Mainstream Economics is not a practiced as a science of cooperation man but as a science of the deception of man. Not how to improve cooperation by reducing transaction costs and uncertainties but how to force consumption for the purpose of increasing employment.

Of course the simplest method of  achieving the same result is to stop distorting the labor economy and directly redistribute liquidity to consumers such that employment makes less of an impact on the unemployed.

That would also have the side effect of impoverishing the financial sector. Which is a good thing.