AN BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF THE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES UNTIL PRESENT

I consider each wave of conservatism (somewhere between around one generation (25) years between iterations to have been a failure.

Starting with the war interrupting Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Spencer, Nietzche, and the Romanticists and the second german scientific enlightenment, continuing with the failure of Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, Bridgman, and all their peers. (failing with science), moving to literature in the next generation (Kirk and contemporaries), moving to intellectual research in the late 70’s (the investment in the think tanks), to the conservative shift in the sciences due to the development of computers, magnetic imaging systems, and research in genetics, and the economic and historical evidence of a century of modernity in the late 1990’s.

So my perspective is that we are now in the hard science era picking up where the war disrupted the center of the completion of the enlightenment in Germany, and as a consequence throughout europe, and less so in america, where Poincare,Brouwer/Bridgman failed, (maxwell succeeded), Darwin failed to extend into social science and politics, Spencer failed to explain operationalism in social science, Hayek only partially succeeded in Cognition, Economics, Politics, and Law, and Popper only partially succeeded wth Critical rationalism (philosophy of science).

We are now completing (without understanding what we are doing) the 19th century (lost) german second half of the enlightenment (social science).

But this is why we must read and understand:

1 – Marx (jewish),

2 – Durant (french catholic)

3 – Toynbee (Anglo Tory), and

4 – Spengler(German ‘lutheran’), and Hobbes (‘aryan’),

Just as we must understand:

1 – marx/freud/boaz(jewish athoritarian pseudoscience),

2 – rousseu(catholic utopian moral literatue),

3 – kant(german duty and rationalism),

4 – locke/smith/hume/jefferson(english utopian empiricism).

To understand the different enlightenment strategies.

Everyone writes in their group evolutionary strategy under the assumption that it is ‘good’. But the only testable good independent of context (group evolutionary strategy) is ‘reciprocity’ (natural law).

Of those historians, and philosophers, who provides us with the closest approximation of natural law?

And what is the consequence if everyone practices natural law, but constructs the myth, institutions, law, norms, and commons most suitable to their people in truthful (scientific reciprocity) terms?

Criticisms of the past motivations are available for every single group that evolved under literacy (the enlightenment).

The question is, regardless of intentions, regardless of motivations, regardless of previous actions, what actions must we take today to create a future where the benefits of knowledge and understanding can continue to persist,and expand?

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine