Q&A: “Why Don’t You Debate The Rothbardians, Or [Insert Name Here]?”

(very important ideas in the longer answer)

[A]ny time. Any day. It’s because they’re afraid of me. Just as they’re becoming increasingly afraid of everyone else given the catastrophic failure of their ideology. Hans has said I am ‘too combative’ which is true – because one of the marxist techniques is to rely upon your good manners and lack of hostility to conduct loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, gossip, shaming and rallying. So I attack dishonestly in their arguments – even when they have no idea that they’re engaging in unconscious dishonesty (fallacy).

[L]ook, I’m trying to CORRECT the enlightenment: Not just the jewish, but ALL of it: French, Anglo, American, German and Jewish.

    1) The French literary catholicism is a catastrophe of empty justification resulting in the murder of their aristocracy, the arresting of the their civilization, the birth of napoleon, and his consequential destruction of old Europe.
    2) The Anglo classical liberal (market government) and empirical: the right method, but the aristocracy of everyone a failure.
    3) The American Legal, a success until the civil war, but a tragedy with the inclusion of women without their own house under democracy rather than rule of law.
    4) The German Kantian rationalist movement a correct ascertainment of man, but a failed attempt to recreate the aristocratic church as a means of preserving the martial order.
    5) The Jewish Pseudoscientific Hermeneutic Legal tradition which tries to recreate their separatist insular legal tradition in pseudoscientific language: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt School* Mises, Rand and Rothbard.

I’m trying to correct all of them. Including the fallacy that Mises is an Austrian empirical christian classical liberal and libertarian rather than a Ukrainian Jewish Pseudoscientific Cosmopolitan libertine who was born in predominantly Jewish Ukraine and happened to go to Vienna for School.

But why so much emphasis on correcting the cosmopolitans? Because they have little real concept of government, no concept of commons, no concept of natural law. But they have a well developed application of using money, finance, banking, and economics as a means of constructing a social order.
***When you combine banking with rule of law you have the basis of an amoral social science: a means of arguing amorally rather than morally.***

You see. It’s not that the cosmopolitans had a particular insight. It’s all the cosmopolitans had to work with. Its their internal system of government writ large: create a law(that one cannot fail to adhere to), justify it pseudo-scientifically (or religiously), propagate it widely (verbal, written, print, media propaganda), and use ostracization (gossip, rally, shame)defectors, and heroize (heap undue praise) on advocates. You can see from this list of attributes that this reflects the origins of both Mises’ and Rothbard’s works – as well as the better work of Georg Simmel’s on “The Philosophy of Money” which I tend to prefer, and pair with Popper’s “Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance”, and Hayek’s “Use of Information in Society”, and his “Law, Legislation and Liberty”, as well as his chapters on Traditional Knowledge
**The Humeian and Smithian argument does the same between states. But the Cosmopolitan argument does so Amorally*** (meaning without moral reference, vs immoral which means violation of moral prohibitions, and moral which means by adhering to moral prohibitions on involuntary imposition of costs.)

And you see, that’s the magic right there. Jewish law may be a parasitic group evolutionary strategy (objectively immoral), it may be polymoral (objectively immoral), and it may be constructed from scripture (babylonian and Egyptian appropriation). But besides being written down, and internally consistent, and rather complete in its coverage, the organizing principles of diasporic judaism of the ghetto, bazaar, steppe and desert peoples is i)separatism, ii)law and iii)communal banking/insurance. Just as the organizing principles of western man are i)martial universalism, ii)law, and iii)production.

Money and credit are more ‘precise’ forms of ‘instrumental measurement of individual behavior’ than are property and production and reputation. And that right there is pretty profound. Conversely, land is illiquid and production time consuming, and requires armies to hold it. This is very different from money and ledgers.

So as a new technology that was ADDITIVE to the aristocratic landed order, especially since the forced destruction of our own diasporic capitalists, the Knights Templar (in one of the great crimes of history second only to the forcible christianization of Europe under Justinian), the diasporic jewish people had been conducting a research program into management of political order by law, money and credit instead of by law, land and production. (And an eugenic reproduction program as great as westerners had been conducting in their different order).

( Note: EVOLUTION OF ORDERS: Tribe, Religion(universal – ostracization vs inclusion), Law(particular – punishment vs avoidance), Credit(individual – consumption vs hardship), (Truth????) )

And that’s why I emphasize this unification of a) the anglo empirical and truthful discourse under rule of law and a market for commons (b) the german martial patriarchal hierarchy of duty land holding man (c) the jewish unification of morality, credit and law – as the best of each culture’s research program without the errors, immoralities, and various fallacious constructions of each.

So we can now reconstruct our civic order, by combining our ancient traditions of property rights, our medieval market government, our enlightenment understanding of rule of law, our new understanding money, credit, and economics as a more granular application of law, and our understanding of biology, to unite into a single consistent framework the disciplines of biology, morality, law, philosophy, economics, politics, into a single unified system that is constructed amorally and therefore universally, and which provides decidability in all questions of conflict.

And that is pretty cool.

So the reason I pick on the cosmopolitans is because of their propagandizing of falsehoods and pseudosciences. While at the same time I try to reform all three enlightenments.

It’s not that I don’t make use of these men’s work. It’s that it’s only half right, and half wrong, and it’s useless as half wrong.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
* The Frankfurt School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

One response to “Q&A: “Why Don’t You Debate The Rothbardians, Or [Insert Name Here]?””

Leave a Reply