Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Kudos, and A Question: “Do You Identify With the Label Alt-Right, or New Right?”

    Hi Curt, I wanted to let you know I discovered you and your work after listening to your appearance on The Right Stuff. Very interesting episode that stands out from the rest. I have never had much interest in libertarianism (I came from a left wing anarchist background) but I find all the material coming out of the propertarian institute to be incredibly lucid, coherent, articulate, and enlightening. I have watched a lot of your videos and read the posts you make and find the arguments you make to be salient in a way that is not typically found in discussions in the alt-right strata, or anywhere else for that matter. I’m curious if you would identify with the label of “alternative or new right” ? — Chris Jones

    [T]hanks Chris. You made my day. And it matters to me a great deal when I get these posts and messages. While in the past year or two I’ve been gaining popularity, and comprehensibility, I worked for many years to develop propertarianism as an amoral scientific language of ethics, morality and politics. And to do it, I worked hard to make enough money that I could afford to do it. And sometimes, when tired, overwhelmed, or subject to passionate criticism I wondered if it was worth it – the cost was my health, my marriage, and most of my wealth. So every compliment you folks give me is something I cherish. Propertarianism should evolve to replace psychology, ethics, sociology, morality, and politics the way reason eclipsed mysticism. I believe I have corrected the pseudosciences of the 19th century, and completed the enlightenment transformation from mysticism to rationalism by the transformation of rationalism to science. Now, as for how I consider myself, I consider myself an Aristocratic Egalitarian, or as we would say in common language “Conservative Libertarian”. What I share with the NRx movement is agreement that the Cathedral Complex has replaced the Aristocracy and Church, and done so at great harm to our people. What I share with the Alt Right is the disdain for the Cathedral Complex’s use of pseudoscience, propaganda, and the institutionalization of lying in its attempt to reinvent christian mysticism as a universal heresy we call democratic socialist secular humanism. What I share with both movements is a recognition that the enlightenment project has failed because it has resulted in the Cathedral Complex and the destruction of western civilization. How I differ is in defining causes, and seeking actionable solutions rather than offering criticisms. I realize that the west never wrote down its philosophy and religion, but practiced it as a tradition – as did our british-drudic ancestors, who were exterminated, and our aristocratic ancestors who were indoctrinated by the church – as did our aristocratic ancestors who have been indoctrinated by the Cathedral complex. And because of these losses we had no means of resistance against the cathedral complex. And the first conquest of the greco-roman west by the first great lie (babylonia/jewish/egyptian mysticism) was only saved by the reintroduction of aristotle (science). Just as in the current era, the second great lie (pseudoscience and lying) – both Jewish inventions. Both propagated by women and slaves (underclasses). And so in both eras jews invented great lies, that appeal to women and spread tot he underclasses as a means of destroying our civilization. The question is, since we cannot return the clock to the past, how do we innovate, rather than regress? We can write a bible of sorts (a canon of law) and we can reform our cult (religion of intergenerational pedagogy) and we can reform our government (means of producing commons) so that THE GREAT LIES can no longer be used by women and slaves (the underclasses) to destroy our civilization. Yarvin is a jewish continental, Hoppe a german rationalist, and I am an anglo empiricist. We all carry our traditions in the physical structures of our brains. But just as the greeks brought us out of ignorance with science, and the british brought us out of mysticism with science, we can bring ourselves out of pseudoscience and deceit with science. And use that science to construct institutions that satisfy the needs of the human animal while limiting our collective desire to harm, lie, cheat, steal, and conspire rather than engage in productive activities. Thank you for the support. And please stay with me on our journey. smile emoticon Hugs Curt

  • Kudos, and A Question: “Do You Identify With the Label Alt-Right, or New Right?”

    Hi Curt, I wanted to let you know I discovered you and your work after listening to your appearance on The Right Stuff. Very interesting episode that stands out from the rest. I have never had much interest in libertarianism (I came from a left wing anarchist background) but I find all the material coming out of the propertarian institute to be incredibly lucid, coherent, articulate, and enlightening. I have watched a lot of your videos and read the posts you make and find the arguments you make to be salient in a way that is not typically found in discussions in the alt-right strata, or anywhere else for that matter. I’m curious if you would identify with the label of “alternative or new right” ? — Chris Jones

    [T]hanks Chris. You made my day. And it matters to me a great deal when I get these posts and messages. While in the past year or two I’ve been gaining popularity, and comprehensibility, I worked for many years to develop propertarianism as an amoral scientific language of ethics, morality and politics. And to do it, I worked hard to make enough money that I could afford to do it. And sometimes, when tired, overwhelmed, or subject to passionate criticism I wondered if it was worth it – the cost was my health, my marriage, and most of my wealth. So every compliment you folks give me is something I cherish. Propertarianism should evolve to replace psychology, ethics, sociology, morality, and politics the way reason eclipsed mysticism. I believe I have corrected the pseudosciences of the 19th century, and completed the enlightenment transformation from mysticism to rationalism by the transformation of rationalism to science. Now, as for how I consider myself, I consider myself an Aristocratic Egalitarian, or as we would say in common language “Conservative Libertarian”. What I share with the NRx movement is agreement that the Cathedral Complex has replaced the Aristocracy and Church, and done so at great harm to our people. What I share with the Alt Right is the disdain for the Cathedral Complex’s use of pseudoscience, propaganda, and the institutionalization of lying in its attempt to reinvent christian mysticism as a universal heresy we call democratic socialist secular humanism. What I share with both movements is a recognition that the enlightenment project has failed because it has resulted in the Cathedral Complex and the destruction of western civilization. How I differ is in defining causes, and seeking actionable solutions rather than offering criticisms. I realize that the west never wrote down its philosophy and religion, but practiced it as a tradition – as did our british-drudic ancestors, who were exterminated, and our aristocratic ancestors who were indoctrinated by the church – as did our aristocratic ancestors who have been indoctrinated by the Cathedral complex. And because of these losses we had no means of resistance against the cathedral complex. And the first conquest of the greco-roman west by the first great lie (babylonia/jewish/egyptian mysticism) was only saved by the reintroduction of aristotle (science). Just as in the current era, the second great lie (pseudoscience and lying) – both Jewish inventions. Both propagated by women and slaves (underclasses). And so in both eras jews invented great lies, that appeal to women and spread tot he underclasses as a means of destroying our civilization. The question is, since we cannot return the clock to the past, how do we innovate, rather than regress? We can write a bible of sorts (a canon of law) and we can reform our cult (religion of intergenerational pedagogy) and we can reform our government (means of producing commons) so that THE GREAT LIES can no longer be used by women and slaves (the underclasses) to destroy our civilization. Yarvin is a jewish continental, Hoppe a german rationalist, and I am an anglo empiricist. We all carry our traditions in the physical structures of our brains. But just as the greeks brought us out of ignorance with science, and the british brought us out of mysticism with science, we can bring ourselves out of pseudoscience and deceit with science. And use that science to construct institutions that satisfy the needs of the human animal while limiting our collective desire to harm, lie, cheat, steal, and conspire rather than engage in productive activities. Thank you for the support. And please stay with me on our journey. smile emoticon Hugs Curt

  • Eli Harman One of Robert Axelrod’s findings from studying iterated prisoner’s di

    Eli Harman

    One of Robert Axelrod’s findings from studying iterated prisoner’s dilemma competitions (“The Evolution of Cooperation”) is that the standard “tit for tat” strategy can be improved upon by adding an element of forgiveness, to break otherwise insoluable and never-ending patterns of recrimination. Clinging steadfastly to vengeance as an aim, when peace and cooperation are within reach, is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.

    Quite simply, our parents and grandparents could afford a lot of folly that we cannot, now that they have squandered our inheritance on empty signaling.

  • Eli Harman One of Robert Axelrod’s findings from studying iterated prisoner’s di

    Eli Harman

    One of Robert Axelrod’s findings from studying iterated prisoner’s dilemma competitions (“The Evolution of Cooperation”) is that the standard “tit for tat” strategy can be improved upon by adding an element of forgiveness, to break otherwise insoluable and never-ending patterns of recrimination. Clinging steadfastly to vengeance as an aim, when peace and cooperation are within reach, is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.

    Quite simply, our parents and grandparents could afford a lot of folly that we cannot, now that they have squandered our inheritance on empty signaling.

  • Q&A: “Curt, What Do You Think of The Alt Right Authors?”

    —“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—

    [C]hris, (all) Great Question Chris. We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests. The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it. Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government. And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me. Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all. The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience. These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say). I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution. Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there. But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science. (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. ) I hope this helps. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev,

  • Q&A: “Curt, What Do You Think of The Alt Right Authors?”

    —“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—

    [C]hris, (all) Great Question Chris. We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests. The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it. Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government. And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me. Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all. The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience. These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say). I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution. Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there. But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science. (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. ) I hope this helps. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev,

  • I thought that you in particular would appreciate this!

    I thought that you in particular would appreciate this!

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 16:20:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ALT RIGHT AUTHORS?” —“I know that myself and ot

    Q&A: “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ALT RIGHT AUTHORS?”

    —“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—

    Chris, (all)

    Great Question Chris.

    We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests.

    The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it.

    Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government.

    And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me.

    Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all.

    The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience.

    These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say).

    I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution.

    Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there.

    But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science.

    (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpeting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-ooperational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. )

    I hope this helps.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 05:07:00 UTC

  • DEAR HOLLYWOOD (my casting gripe) Please stop casting lower middle class and upp

    DEAR HOLLYWOOD

    (my casting gripe)

    Please stop casting lower middle class and upper proletarian actors in upper middle class and upper class professional and intellectual roles.

    Please stop writing dramatic sequences between professionals that would only be spoken by blue collar and white collar clerical workers. I mean, go watch and Aaron Sorkin movie if you have to. But you know, impulsivity and emotionalism decline rapidly with competence.

    I mean, it’s embarrassing – and it eliminates any possibility of suspension of disbelief.

    You get one ‘gimme’ in any bit of literature. If you put together say, a sci fi movie, then you need the characters to work. If you put together a contemporary drama the ‘gimme’ can be the characters.

    But seriously. I mean, these things are expensive.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-22 15:03:00 UTC

  • (star wars. in russian. director did his job capturing the feeling of the franch

    (star wars. in russian. director did his job capturing the feeling of the franchise. felt forced and contrived. felt anti-white. looked pretty. not morally moving or inspiring. positivistic soap opera. But I didn’t want to walk out.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-20 14:37:00 UTC