Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

OPEN LETTER: CONTRA THE VIGOR OF PUBESCENCE

(I am not constructing a philosophy for losers. Sorry.)

You attack me for not agreeing with the sentimental religion of disaffected pubescent males longing for the romanticism of a bygone era?

And it would be nice to have more followers. But if that means followers are infantilized males shouting as coverage for lack of feminine attention, then that is an acceptable loss.

History provides us with the truth of man. Philosophy constitutes his attempts at construction of value systems with which to accommodate his place in history, and these philosophies are universally constructed in eras of class rotation. And class rotation is the product of economic and military success and failure – aesthetics productions are the result not cause of these transformations.

Works are the product of one’s age. Using the institutional technologies available. All great works whether military, artistic, technological, and intellectual arise from the middle class in times of change in celebration of the transfer of power.

I posted Durant’s criticism of Nietzsche yesterday and it’s rock solid. My own criticism is that aesthetics, arguments and religions justify reproductive strategies, and reproductives strategies reflect one’s gender and class. If one chooses the reproductive strategy of the masturbatory male lacking sufficient virility with which to attract women, then his choice of philosophy is codification of his reproductive strategy, class, and desirability.

That generation you venerate has passed. That era has passed. Philosophies are strategies for times of transition, given circumstances of transition. That time is past. We can no longer unite en masse under nationalist anti-modernity as did the nazi era (as aesthetically brilliant as it was.)

There is nothing incompatible between the overman and my work other than that the means of achieving our ultimate potential are a novel religion with which we must win a majority by conversion under your fantasy, and the systematic application of science and law by a minority willing to raise the cost of the status quo by violence in mine.

It may be true that you can resurrect a hokey 19th century religion. It may be true that traditionalists can resurrect medieval christianity. It may be true that classicists can resurrect pagan hero and nature worship. But it is more LIKELY true that we can continue to apply truthfulness in all walks of life, and create a competitor to jewish and islamic law, using natural law and truth telling, through which those more viscous philosophies gain their vigor.

The mistake you made was vanity, pride, and religious conviction in a fallacy. You called me out in public by attacking me when I asked you not to force me into that debate – knowing the result.

And by doing so you have both demonstrated the failure of the religion you devoutly worship as a means of obtaining self validity, and made it impossible for yourself to recant in front of your peers.

The mature man admits failure and passion, and the more mature man responds with understanding and forgiveness.

I am not sure you can admit failure, blame passion and youth – not because you are not intellectually capable of grasping the folly of your over-investment in a comic-book religion for sophomores (something all of us most do in order to transition from prior metaphysics to new ones), but because you would loose the esteem of your peers if you did.

This is wisdom. And your folly and pride will deprive you of it. Because my analysis of incentives means that the value you place on having friends who sympathize with your justification of your reproductive strategy, even if you and they err, and even if that strategy fails to advance your reproduction, is more important than achieving any existential result in this world.

On the other hand, I care only whether I give men of our age a means of achieving our ends using the tools and technologies of our time, by providing incentives to people of our time. To force the transofrmation of the most important institution in western history: property, judge, rule of law, jury, and senate. And to construct arguments in science rather than religion.

Good luck. I did the best I could afford to do with you. Not all investments pay returns.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.