Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Stuck on Malinvestments.

    ADHERENCE TO FALSIFIED THEORIES ISN”T DEMONSTRATING INTELLIGENCE – JUST LOSS AVOIDANCE GIVEN ONE’S OVERINVESTMENT IN MALINVESTMENT Sure I spent a lot of time at LvMI. But you know, once you know your theory is bullshit it’s time to seek another. There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.

    The organization of acquisition, inventory, transformation, and consumption, the organization of reproduction, the organization of production, distribution and trade, the organization of commons production and the organization of territorial limits. It is by the suppression of parasitism that we create the Liberty we seek.

  • Caplan Always Requires A Tablespoon Of Salt

    Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty. Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.

    Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent. The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it. Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract. And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order. So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production. We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it. Truth is the secret of the west. (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim). Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Caplan Always Requires A Tablespoon Of Salt

    Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty. Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.

    Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent. The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it. Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract. And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order. So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production. We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it. Truth is the secret of the west. (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim). Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Libertines And SJW’s Alike

    Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology. Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders. Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage. Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism. private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups. There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty. We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property. Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it. Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law. And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.

  • Libertines And SJW’s Alike

    Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology. Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders. Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage. Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism. private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups. There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty. We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property. Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it. Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law. And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.

  • Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.

    —“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>

  • Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.

    —“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>

  • ( You Evonomics folks are really sort of asking for a criticism of your borderli

    ( You Evonomics folks are really sort of asking for a criticism of your borderline pseudoscience. You vastly overstate your criticism and overestimate your theories. You have a created a tradition of criticizing straw men then proposing vacuous solutions that appeal to moral intuitions rather than institutional processes. I suppose I could spend my time on correcting you but I’d really prefer not to. The test of any science is in the explanatory power, and utility of its propositions, not in its criticisms of competing ideas. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-26 05:11:00 UTC

  • NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF ALT RIGHT-ERS? I THINK THAT”S A GOOD THING. 🙂 ( ) 1

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-caste-system-of-the-alt-right/I’M NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF ALT RIGHT-ERS? I THINK THAT”S A GOOD THING. 🙂

    ( http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/the-caste-system-of-the-alt-right/ )

    1) I don’t know whether to be thrilled or hurt by not being included in this list. 🙂 I think… I think maybe … that I like it. 🙂

    2) I wrote a similar list a few weeks ago. <a href=”https://propertarianism.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/the-new-right-class-structures/”>The New “Right” Class Structures</a> But I organized it by argumentative structure. Given our differences in abilities, we tend to argue differently at about every 10 points of IQ (with significant overlap). This division corresponds to both social and occupational classes as well as IQ. And I placed people in the alt-right given their method of argument. Which of course some people found insulting. But just as the English language contains three sets of terms: german for the lower class, french for the ruling class, and latin for the intellectual class, all political movements use a different language and argumentative method for every caste or class. (expressive, ridicule, moral justification, rational/historical justification, ratio-empirical-correspondence, and institutional. (And I consider myself in the NEW RIGHT rather than ALT RIGHT – for this reason: class argument method.) So view the world as the outgoing ‘hopeful’ old right(political). The resigned alt right(cultural). The traditional right in transition(religio-familial). The New Right (scientific-institutional).

    3) And, I do understand why I am not included in this post’s list:

    (a) I view the world as abandoning the 20th century battle between feminine universalism(socialism) and its paternal opponent masculine particularism(fascism), and that worldwide all groups are returning to Nationalism and Tribalism – in recognition of the failure of the anglo-contractual-commercial-universalism, and Jewish socialism-libertarian-neo-conservatism (ie: puritans and jews). And that we are just like everyone else – trying to reassert our traditional history now that the ‘market’ has been maximized by the universal adoption of consumer credit capitalism worldwide.

    (b) I blame us (whites) for not manning the fortress Europa , not those who have succeeded in breaching our walls – it is after all, the purpose of competition, and we are losing because we are lazy and unwilling to fight.

    (c) I spend my time worrying about institutional solutions, not trying to appease my bruised ego by ridiculing the wildlife for merely being wildlife. The scorpion DOES kill the frog before they get to the other side of the stream. Only a fool trusts the scorpion to act against its nature.

    So:

    i) Nationalism is for everyone, not just us. And anyone that it’s not for, is someone to be exterminated as a threat to the rest, not just us – to mankind.

    ii) We must fight, and stop talking as if we will win a democratic election. Hillary is just the Left’s Dole: the next anointed apparatchik available in a weak field of options.

    iii) We need a solution to fight for that restores our walls, and a process of transition, and a process of disrupting the economy and government such that surrender is obtained rather than ongoing hardship.

    CLOSING

    The alt-right is still a working-class and lower middle-class movement. because that’s where all the disenfranchised males are. And disenfranchised males are the only people who matter in creating a revolution. Unfortunately, the alt right has no answers to offer and is just a resistance movement.

    But Resistance is insufficient for revolution. Rebellion is insufficient for Rule. Criticism is insufficient for proposing a solution. And a solution is necessary to coordinate action. Instead we must have a solution to demand, a plan of transition, and a plan by which to demand our solution.

    The alt right is succeeding by adopting the methods of the Marxist/Socialist/Feminist/cultural-Marxists: poison the virtue signals of the opponents and make their status signals a worthless commodity. It’s working. And all we had to do was give up our ‘honor’ to do it. But once that’s done – “What’ch ya’ got there sonny?” Nothin’.

    Necessary does not mean sufficient. The Alt right is necessary but insufficient. That’s where others come in. And that combination of ALT-RIGHT(Culture/aesthetics), TRAD-RIGHT(Ethics and Family), and NEW-RIGHT(institutions), will be what provides the full compliment of classes necessary to change the power structures.

    But, in the end. “We gotta’ fight.”

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    L’viv Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-23 03:06:00 UTC

  • WHITES IN SPORTS (responding to: ) DISAGREE : We just frame the observation inco

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/on-whites-and-fighting/ON WHITES IN SPORTS

    (responding to:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/on-whites-and-fighting/

    )

    DISAGREE : We just frame the observation incorrectly.

    1) White men excel (dominate in war) because of how we act in GROUPS of individuals. Even the legendary quote that one Spartan is the equal of any other warrior, but together they are unequalled. The reason we do excel is something that we are just beginning to understand, but it appears to be a)lower impulsivity/higher calm, b) cultural indoctrination into indo european heroism c) our ability to spatially model groups – or better yet, to operate as a pack – this last one I am trying to find more research on, d) militia training or experience from youth with the expectation of war, and lastly e) what appears to be an iq advantage in our professional warrior class.

    2) The races can easily be stacked by degrees of sexual maturity – and degree of sexual maturity is second only to scale of class distributions in determining demonstrated racial differences. Asians lowest, whites second, black haired peoples third, and Africans highest. It is illogical to assume that we will not pay a price for our ‘domestication’. But we hold the ‘upper middle’ in both degree of sexual maturity, and balance of spatial vs verbal intellectual ability. The east Asians lack our verbal ability and they are by far the least sexually mature people (I have theories on that – since I’m pretty sure it’s selection of females that determines that trend, and greater immaturity was preferable(necessary) in the mongoloids than in the whites to create a similar behavior in male selection of females. All that interesting info said, Asians obtain longer life spans. Blacks obtain greater physical tolerance for damage, and require less nurture for shorter periods of time – both suitable for a low IQ population in a hostile environment. These small differences contribute significantly to the in-progress speciation of the races after we exterminated the previous human species. So blacks pay for their superior speed and strength far more so than we pay for our less superior speed and strength by gaining lower impulsivity, better organization, better use of weapons. (You don’t see that many black swordsmen either). So we have simple sports (basketball, weightlifting, and boxing) and we have complex sports (fencing, quarterbacking, and strategy games), and we are just not paying attention to how important the complex sports are in which we excel.

    3) Competitive sport in the west was generally for fitness (among militia and soldiers) and gambling (among militia and soldiers), and most often between men of similar abilities. (even judicial duels had to be reasonably ‘fair’ matches. But this sport does not demonstrate how we do in war. Empirical evidence does. (Black logistics, white special-forces, and officers.) So our physical fitness was (like Swiss men today) a property of our ‘everyone fights for the franchise’ system of enfranchisement. So the purpose of such fighting was in-group improvement of the group, not testing against outgroups. So we are ‘testing’ for the wrong thing. We’re running an indifferent test of the lower castes and judging ourselves against a false measure. Put 100 white men with weapons aginst 100 of anyone else and that’s the difference in our abilities. I would counter that the problem is that cheap sports are physically advantageous and expensive sports with lots of equipment are expensive. In real terms football is analogous a bunch of underclass peasants protecting the king (quarterback). (Conversely we do the same thing when competing with Jews. If we ‘stuck together’ like they do we would end their ability to employ the female reproductive strategy against us: shame, rally, divide, conquer, and siphon resources.)

    CLOSING

    So I suggest we remember WHO AND WHAT WE ARE: Spartans, Romans, Germans, Vikings. And we need to f_uck the Athenians/Venetians/Spanish/French/English and their effeminate pretenses.

    Rule or be ruled. We invented aristocratic egalitarianism: equality in sovereignty for those who fight.

    Let’s get back into legions and fight.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-23 01:46:00 UTC