Cold-blooded vengeance: Exposing Curt Doolittle’s – and libertarianism’s – inner-thug.

The naked essence of Curt Doolittle’s pathetic impotence on full display. When people are gracious enough to show you who they are, don’t spurn that gift – learn from it.

Dominance by relentless vindictive retribution: The naked essence of Curt Doolittle’s pathetic impotence on full display. When people are gracious enough to show you who they are, don’t spurn that gift – learn from it.

Curt Doolittle has something to prove, and if you don’t sit down, shut up and take it like a man, he’ll— he’ll— he’ll lecture you some more, dagnabit!

That’ll teach you!

I made mention of Doolittle last week, and he’s been doing his best to prove me right about his ugly character ever since:

The actual purpose of NAP is to rationalize precisely the kind of crimes it purports to prevent: Pre-emptive agression brought against people who, at that moment at least, present no peril to the on-going peace. That is, NAP exists to “license” coercive post hoc “retaliatory” “justice” – even though the proponents of NAP know this cannot be justified under any conception of either equal rights or voluntaryism.

People who live in fear cannot conceive of any means of resolving disputes except force, so they will contort their minds in whatever bizarre shapes they think necessary to avoid admitting that they are the bad guys.

Which of these words did he object to? None of them. What got his easily-gotten goat was my observation that he is “aggressively unreadable.” This is obviously so. His purpose in writing is to overawe, overwhelm and intimidate. This is the entire “debate” strategy of the Cautious/Incandescent – baffle ’em with bullshit – but Doolittle’s online pugilism illuminates the path Cautious tyranny must always take: Dominance by relentless vindictive retribution.

In name-checking him, I equated him with “Rand, Rothbard or Nozick,” but decidedly not in a nice way. It seemed fair to me at the time – not being not-nice, but simply acknowledging that my (to-me redundant) entry into this particular fray had been brought about by Doolittle, to whose Facebook post I linked.

He brought nothing new to my end of this discussion, so I easily could have left him out. At first, I wished I had, since Curt Doolittle’s sole objective in writing so aggressively unreadably seems to be to coerce anyone he can latch onto into kneeling before his ornately-imagined manifest greatness.

I wish I were making this up. His first comment to me, and every one thereafter, has consisted of self-aggrandizing bluster buttressed with logical fallacies – especially the fallacy ad hominem. Honest people link and quote. The other kind preen and emote.

That last paragraph may not be entirely fair. I have not read any of the massive comments he has posted here, nor will I. The objective of his aggressive unreadability is to dominate other people, and why would I volunteer to be dominated? Rule #2: I am not arguing with you. Once I know you’re wrong, I need no further demonstrations of that fact, and I’m here to talk about my ideas, not yours. And: Rule #5: Never play the other man’s game.

Not submitting to Cautious dominance puts the Cautious on tilt, of course. If you don’t believe me, take it up with Robespierre or any of his many Cautious/Incandescent successors. In any case, I wasn’t trying to put Doolittle on tilt. I was just reacting as I normally would to a dominance game I’ve see thousands of time: You cannot punish me by wasting my time if I won’t let you.

I came into this by way of Luke Williams – by which I mean to implicate him in no way. I have no idea what he thinks about anything I have to say, but he is gracious enough to let me have my say, asking me good questions from time to time. But because Luke had pointed me to this dumbass Non-Aggression Principle “debate,” I maintained a back-channel conversation with him as Doolittle imploded all over the comments section here.

And that private conversation, ultimately, got me interested in watching this skeezy little Polonius self-destruct. Why? Because I was able to show Luke my theories on empathy strategies in action: The Cautious abhor chaos. The Incandescent abhor humiliation. And everything I have seen of Curt Doolittle consists of Curt Doolittle insisting he is entitled to strict compliance and boundless fascination – or else, dagnabit!

Accordingly, and despite all appearances, this is not an internet pissing contest. I knew Doolittle was wrong in the first few (hundred) words I had read of him. Not wrong as to those particulars, about which no one cares, but wrong in sum – wrong about everything. This is not rare. He is wrong in the exact same way that virtually everyone else on earth is wrong: He believes that his mind ought to be able to bend other people’s will, that they must do as he dictates, rather than as their own fully-sovereign autonomy prefers.

So how did I fight him? By not submitting to him. That’s all. And the man went repeatedly nuts by the numbers, just as every other thoughtless Cautious/Incandescent would do in the same circumstances. At first I felt guilty about knowingly provoking a mindless belligerent, this since my best strategy for dealing with aggressive displays is to ignore them altogether. But Doolittle’s rancor increased with my every refusal to be punished by him, to the point that he betrayed, repeatedly, what I had known about him from the very first:

He’s the bad guy.

He and all of post-Romantic Western law, that is, including all of libertarianism-writ-large. Where do they all go wrong? With the idea of “retaliation.”

That notion is at the heart of the misleadingly-named Non-Agression Principle (NAP). Its purpose in libertarian theory is not to eliminate aggression, as the words seem to imply, but, rather, to sanction allegedly-just aggression while delegitimating allegedly-unjust responses to that aggression. Its purpose is to “license” super-men whose task it is to coercively police sub-men.

Just that much is viciously wrong, if you think it through. Murray Rothbard heard the words “monopoly on force” and thought the problem was the monopoly, not the force. But in fact, any system of dispute resolution based in actual consent must jettison the idea of post-hoc “retaliation,” since NO ONE would consent to the kinds of pre-emptive aggression the police routinely visit upon their presumed-to-be-innocent victims.

In fact, what Western law has meant all along by “retaliation” is not a like-for-like response to aggression while it is happening, but, instead, simple retribution: Self-righteous putative-vindication effected by actual cold-blooded vengeance.

And this goes to the heart of Curt Doolittle, and of all the anti-liberty “libertarian” “philosophers” – Rand, Rothbard, Nozick, etc. He not only believes he can shout me down – a proposition I never tire of disproving – but that the proper functioning of the only universe he feels safe in requires that he shout me down – even though he can’t.

Doolittle and Rand, Rothbard, Nozick, etc., are at war with existential reality, with the actual facts of human sovereignty. He believes that he can punish people with his aggressive unreadability, even though he obviously cannot. And he believes that other people must bend to his will, even though they obviously do not.

Every Cautious temperament is a tyrant-in-training, since strict compliance with the perfect order of everything matters more than anything. And every Incandescent personality is a dictator-waiting-to-happen, since failed fascination is so easy to spotlight. Put the two together and you get exactly what Doolittle brings: The irrational insistence that rancor (in sufficient quantity) cannot fail to rule the world.

All of which is to say what I said at the very beginning of all this:

He’s the bad guy.

So long as so-called libertarians cling to the idea of retributive “justice” they will be anti-liberty, and they will always fall to tyrannical claims. The folks who want to knock some heads to whip people into line are always aghast to discover that it is they who are to be knocked and whipped.

Sticks and stones, and, yes, I agree: Curt Doolittle is comically harmless, since his entire arsenal consists of putting other people in fear of being put in the wrong by his aggressive unreadability. The way to battle petty tyrants is the way I did it: By refusing to play the other man’s game while goading him into exposing his weaknesses.

The problem is not the particular bad behavior but the insistence that bad behavior is both justifiable and efficacious. The first is palpably false, contrary to obvious objective fact, and the second is only made possible by what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victim.” I denied Curt Doolittle my sanction and it drove him repeatedly and persistently nuts. What would a Doolittle-with-nukes have done to me by now?

The aboriginal error is apprehending realty from fear – as both the Cautious and Incandescent do – as compared with hope – as the Driven and Sociable do. Curt Doolittle can’t stand it that anyone should not be afraid of him, and he can’t stand it that he can’t shout fearlessness down.

In the end this is nothing – except for what you can learn from it, which is why I bothered to go through this. Mainstream libertarianism (!) from Rand to Rothbard is simply authoritarianism-in-camouflage, and this little dust-up with the pathetic, posturing, preening Curt Doolittle serves as a real-life exposition in practical indomitability.

You say you want to be an anarchist? This is how it’s done.


Postscript: Thug:
Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 8.41.40 AM

This entry was posted in Splendor!. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Pingback: Cold-blooded vengeance: Exposing Curt Doolittle’s – and libertarianism’s – inner-thug. – Manosphere.com()

  • lol. Keep trying. 😉

    You should stick with rallying the young underclasses with sentimental psychologism dependent upon introspection and leave reason, rationalism, science, and testimony to the adults. It’s above your pay grade.

    Oh, and I do all my work in public. There is nothing to expose. Just a lot to understand.

    Cheers. 🙂

    • Gebenhurtz

      “dependent upon introspection” utter ignorance girded by transient tyranny of Palaver’s Travels.

  • Aaron Wemer

    How Mr. Doolittle appointed himself to the highest podium of reason, rationalism, science and testimony after attaining his California art school degree is slightly fascinating. Which is in direct contrast to anything else he has to say in his bloated, heavy-handed connecting of so many thousands of aimless key strokes. I for one have no further desire to insert myself into lengthy Armchair-statecraft ad hominem debates. Seeking truth is not to dominate.

    • I didn’t go to a California Art School. I went to a small east cost university, started in engineering, transferred to law, and finished with art theory and history – which functionally speaking is a form of philosophy through the lens of art rather than words.

      If you COULD criticize something substantive you would. But you can’t so you don’t. There ARE vehicles for criticism that you could throw at me. But since you don’t manage to – what am I (or anyone else) to deduce except that you simply don’t or can’t understand.

      As for dominance, I (we) practice prosecution, not debate. I (we) prosecute immoral arguments no matter how well intended. Why? Because the method that the left used to undermine western civilization was debate (dialectic) under the assumption of the pursuit of truth, when really, it was just a vehicle for loading, framing, overloading, and deceit..

      So the technique I (we) use is designed to overthrow the marxist era, and to complete empiricism by adding additional requirements that we must warranty in order to claim we make truth statements rather than engage in propagandism or deceit.

      (I see these posts and comments becasue google alerts me to them)

      • Aaron Wemer

        Nah, truth-be-told, I don’t care where you went to art school. I painted and sculpted at one of them myself and it also doesn’t make me an authority of statecraft, as it doesn’t you. My argument stands because your off-putting form of reasoning is rooted in absolute falsehood. Society chose to meter it’s justice and equality as a reaction to the philosophic style that you embrace. Hey Curt, I read that an even older form of justice was to stone your enemy to death, so perhaps you should carry around a bag of rocks, test your aim on all who verbally oppose you and see how successful antiquodated societal behavior really is. Older doesn’t equal better. The impetus is now unfortunately on a reader of this absurd discourse to peek at your creepy white-power blog thing and come to the relieved conclusion that you’re never going to become the Napoleonesque dictator you’d crown yourself to be. Someday the truth will hurt you more than any of your debate opponents ever could.

        • So you mean you don’t have any argument at all other than distraction, opinion and shaming, right?

          In every era, people objective to the increase in the scope of rule of law that prohibited innovations in parasitism.

          This era is about to increase that scope of rule of law once again.

          Parasitism is parasitism.

          • Aaron Wemer

            Curt Dolittle… I’ve read enough of your text to brand you a promotor of a “new” governmental rule which bridge s the gap between authoritarianism and a classic monarchy. You didn’t actually create Propertarianism itself, yet persistently remind your readers of your place amidst the highest possible IQ bracket which inherently dubs one an ‘inventor of concepts’ rather than the more lowly acheivements of the lower rungs of society. Now wait right there, this could be a learning moment: solely proposing IQ as a measure of competence and productivity is a well-debunked myth as of a century ago. If perhaps the test were still relevant, your categories are unaturally narrow and do not allow for a higher mind than your own, a woefully common error for the ego-centric. Your recruits are only going to be disenchanted white men such as my pal from grade school who’s suffered hard disappointments and setbacks in life and so sought revenge on imagined enemies such as yours truly. You offer men like him a target, plan and fantasy result. I’d be pleased had he worked through it in a more linear, self-actualized manor. Sadly he, like very few others, found inspiration in your droning mantras of parasitism, IQ tests and the inflated importance and necessity of the Anglo-Saxon male throughout the history of humankind. If you can’t see why your doomed logic is flawed, you’ll continue to spiral around the drain. You’ve often referred to me as a parasite. It’s not at all offensive coming from you because you’ve shown it to be the insult you cling to the tightest; like a security blanket when faced with the dilemma of a foe you can’t win over or dominate with any certainty. From the narrow angle from which you expose yourself, I’m decidedly proud to be seen as an example of your all-inclusive brand of parasitism. I have to go now, the parasite you invest your time toward defeating is actually a volunteer caregiver and starting a shift right now.

            • —“I’ve read enough of your text to brand you a promotor of a “new” governmental rule which bridge s the gap between authoritarianism and a classic monarchy.”—

              No, it restores and extends both (a) monarchy (houses for each class), and (b) rule of natural law by (c) restoring markets and replacing majority assent with default assent and universal legal dissent.

              As a tongue in cheek bit of humor I’ve also labelled it “market fascism”, which, while a contradiction in terms, draws attention to the fact that if we grant protection to the informational commons, it’s actually impossible to legally criticize this form of government – although entirely possible to criticize actions within it.

              –“You didn’t actually create Propertarianism itself,”–

              Yes the TERM was extant but almost never used. And the concept of the ‘reduction of all rights to statements of property rights’ existed. And that is why, at the time, i also registered ‘propertarians.com’ and created a site at that address to show the sequence from stoics > locke > rothbard > hoppe > doolittle to demonstrate how long it had taken to solve the problem of a category of commensurability in social science like we had created with prices more narrowly in economics. I abandoned that project because of the effort to create that particular narrative, and because I no longer wanted to be associated with Rothbard because of his ghetto(levantine) ethics.

              I created that set of ideas I’ve called ‘Propertarianism’, and I intentionally used the term (which was derogatory). We debated quite a bit about continuing to use it once we discovered testimonialism in epistemology, and again when we Sovereignty was the cause of western civilization, but by then the brand had stuck. So I went with the advice of retaining Propertarianism.

              My insights into the Propertarian concept can be reduced (largely) to (1) demonstrated property: “Property in Toto”, and the subsequent demonstration that Moral Foundations Theory can be restated as property rights – thereby explaining our varying moral intuitions about the distribution of interests in ‘property’; and (2) that those interests function as a distribution of perceptual, cognitive, knowledge, advocacy, and labor. There are other insights but these are the two most important. (3) And that as I’d originally intended, it was possible to restate in scientific terms Hoppe’s (tragic) use of kantian justificationary rationalism, and Rothbard’s use of Jewish (immoral) law and the technique of “Pilpul”, and Mises (tragic) failure to understand his discovery of economic ‘intuitionism’/’operationalism’ and instead creating a pseudoscience – and in doing so ‘complete’ the promise of the propertarian method, thereby ‘completing’ the creation of a universal method of commensurability in social science.

              There are a few dozen of these insights that arise as a consequence, but these are the the primary ones that the rest derive from.

              Today I use the term Propertarianism to refer to the entire framework of The Laws of Nature – which is the correct descriptive name of the project, and what i will publish under.
              It includes:
              1 – Metaphysics of Action
              2 – Testimonial Truth – the completion of the scientific method.
              3 – Propertarian Ethics – the completion of ethical commensurability
              4 – the natural law of sovereignty
              5 – market government under natural law of sovereignty
              6 – group evolutionary strategy (group competition)
              7 – A restatement of psychology, sociology, politics, and group evolutionary startegy in propertarian terms.
              8 – Aesthetics (Truth, Beauty, and Commons[goodness] )

              You might note that the statistical anomaly in my writing is the word ‘commons’ and that I focus on creating commons and normative commons, and high trust normative commons in particular as the competitive strategy of western civilization.

              –IQ—
              Well I don’t make that claim right? I state (often) that demonstrated intelligence consists of at least four categories, one of which is ‘wants’, and that as far as I can tell, after 140 or so it’s more a matter of effort and time than intelligence. And that in practice, success (and wealth) is more an effort of character than of ability. And that, demonstrably, most wealth is created by the middle class (people of slightly above average intelligence) because most wealth is created by the construction and sale of small and medium businesses.

              Creating concepts is however, fairly rare. There are not too many of them in history (See both Murray and Adler). And in my experience, I’ve spent most of my life on this problem – although I worked nearly full time on it for only about ten years.

              That seems to be what all the data indicates: it takes about a decade to master a field sufficiently to provide an insight into it.

              — foe —
              Sorry man. In the end, violence and truth rule over parasitism, excuse making and gossip. You and yours have only liberty by permission. It’s our permission. It’s revokable. Why? Because you and yours have always failed. Because while you can master gossip and ridicule like women, you cannot climb the ladder to truth and violence.

              You industrialized lying. And you’re just another parasitic liar.
              And we are, within the next few decades going to use that violence and truth and law to impose violence upon those who industrialized, and continue to practice, lying.

              Man is too important a creature to leave to undomesticated animals that must lie and succor upon others to survive.

              😉

            • Aaron Wemer

              Ok, but just to give a final word on my end, when does philosophy become propoganda? Do you not wish to build an army with intent to murder every person with egalitarian motivations (these are your parasites and liars?). Are you not promoting an agenda that would allow the construction of death camps?

              My questions are sincere, and since I lack the lifetime you’ve spent studying the work behind the formation of your ‘Laws of Nature’, I can make little more than instinctive speculation about it’s effect on society. The only concrete evidence I have of impending disaster is from my formerly-close friend from childhood who has fallen in love with your writing. We used to chat occasionally about metaphysics and have fun with it. He has since told me that I will die in the soon-coming culture war that he will be a soldier for. I was told that he’s “awaiting orders to action”. Do you promote his behavior or is he a fringe element?

            • My motivation is this:
              That while the left failed with communism and socialism, failed with syndicalism, failed with ‘scientific socialism’, and is in the process of failing with universal secular democratic socialist humanism, they succeeded by outright lying, pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (cultural marxism, postmodernism, political correctness) through the use of propaganda and media. And they were successful because our law tolerated free speech in toto, rather than truthful speech in toto, for the simple reason that we had no methodology for regulating truthful speech in law, economics, and politics, that was testable in court as were murder, harm, theft, fraud, conspiracy, and treason.

              Testimonialism tells us how to elminate the vast majority of ignorant, erroneous, false, fraudulent, and immoral speech from economics, law, and politics (cooperation). the result being that majortity coercion can no longer be used to grant legislative license to parasitism. Therefore the only possible means of obtaining what one desires is through voluntary trade – private or public.

              The burden then is upon those who wish to obtain what they wish by not trading – by reliance upon murder, harm, theft, fraud, conpsiracy, and treason.

              And yes, i hope to prosecute as many as possible as harshly as possible in order to leave a mark on history that none ever challenges. 😉

            • (I have a lot of followers from around the world and across the spectrum.)

              If you are ‘hopeful’ you try to inform, and then persuade.
              if you have given up hope, you can try to buy them off.
              If you cannot buy them off, you can only use violence to stop them.

              I changed the discourse from hope of requesting Liberty by faith in informing and persuading, to the hopelessness of persuasion, and the imposition of Sovereignty, by the organize use of violence to deny parasitism by all means.

              We are all but creatures of our genes. You, your genes, we, ours. We are no longer hopeful. We are no longer willing to tolerate the high cost of hopefulness that you and the minority of men like you, and the majority of women who you are like, will learn.

              We will end parasitism via the commons just as we have ended it in the market. We will deny others the possibility of majority tyranny, and force those who benefit from parasitism by the government, or parasitism by free riding on the west’s commons, back into the markets for the private and common .

              If you fool me once with Pilpul, divine command, and christianity, shame on me. If you fool me twice with marxism, libertinism, neo-conservatism, the pseudo-rationalism of critical theory, and the pseudosciences of boaz, marx, freud, cantor, and mises, then same on me.

              The experiment in tolerance is over. Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Davenport were right. Time to return to our ancient occupation of domesticating the animals (which I assume includes you) for fun and profit in an effort to create peers rather than parasites.