Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Judgement of The Law – on The Left

    1. Reciprocity is the only reason for both sides to refrain from predation, parasitism, or boycott – cooperation or the option to cooperate is more valuable than non-cooperation, and the prevention of future cooperation.

    2. We create reciprocity via negativa by not imposing costs on others demonstrated interests

    3. The name we use for Demonstrated interests is property.

    4. In P-Law we use property in toto as the definition of property, meaning the empirical evidence of what demonstrated interests people defend.

    5. We are all dependent upon the informational commons for information.

    6. Some of us will defend the informational commons (or any commons) from other’s abuse of it. Some will not.

    7. When you make a truth claim to others, or others make a truth claim to you, the person making the claim can, if he errs, biases, justifies, or deceives, violates reciprocity with the audience (what we call unethical), causes you to harm the informational commons as a consequence (by externality), and if he makes that claim in public, harms the informational commons as well, and therefore violates reciprocity in the commons (what we call immorality).

    8. P-Law provides a definition of truth, and the means of falsifying (testing) statements for truthfulness by tests of testifiable, consistency, operational possibility, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity, completeness, full accounting, and possibility of warranty, and possibility of restitution upon error or deceit.

    9. Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by:

    (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.

    (b) that the solution was communism, or socialism, that would end our natural selection, our prosperity, and our competitive advantage, and our ability to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, and victimization by nature – when all civilizations that have tried any form of equality have died.

    (c) that to bring about communism, socialism, and the reversal of evolutionary transcendence, it was necessary to undermine our civlization at every level. Monopoly statism to undermine our tripartism. Atheism to undermine our tripartism. Anti-militarism to undermine our tripartism. Anti-rule of law to undermine not only our tripartism but the means by which we resolved disputes between the classes. Marxism to undermine the markets and cooperation between the classes. Cultural Marxism to undermine our culture, values, myths, traditions, and arts. Feminism to undermine the family as the compromise between the genders given our different reproductive strategies and biological differences. Postmodernism to undermine our ability to use social pressure to force conformity into realism, naturalism, operationalism, reciprocity, truthful speech, and defense of the commons so that it was optimu for the production of high trust citizenry; and again,postmodernism to deny the existence of truth or truthful speech – when truthful speech is the primary reason for not only our high trust society but our ‘european means of sense-making’ that made empiricism our laws, democratic participation, our science, medicine, and technology, possible. Postmodernism to use language for any purpose by which to obtain political power – abandoning all need for consistency, correspondence, rationality and liability. Political correctness to undermine the truth of the substantial differences between our advanced, neotenic, genetically, informationally, normatively, culturally, traditionally, and institutional superior people, so that they can be conquered quietly and slowly. Using immigration to reverse our darwinian history. Using frailty in our law and democracy to capture our territory and institutions. Using the academy to indoctrinate two generations of marxist-postmodernist-feminist-HBD-denialist “Priests and Priestesses” to indoctrinate our children by manufacturing their ignorance, feminizing our males, and making obese both genders. That’s only part of what they’ve done. I’ve just run out of tolerance for listing their crimes. JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW If the informational, normative, traditional, and institutional commons is common property of a people, then the (((anti-western left))) is an organized crime syndicate invading and conquering from within, in violation of the Westphalian peace. And as such these people are prosecutable for war crimes, and we shall have our restitution.

  • The Lies

    [T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers

  • The Lies

    [T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers

  • State Bankruptcy Is Necessary

    [S]tate bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core. It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade. Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason. Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.) While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment. Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them. Biggest organized crime in human history.

  • State Bankruptcy Is Necessary

    [S]tate bankruptcy is a long standing topic in bankruptcy reform, just as the EU is experiencing the problems of the catholic periphery vs the protestant core. It’s not a constitutional issue, b/c it’s one of the most important reasons for the formation of the federal system: unifying bankruptcy laws so interstate commerce and consequent scale was possible without continuous conflicts that constrained trade. Opponents would resist under the Contracts Clause but the court would eventually extend protection to the states since the states are not making the legal change, the federal government is, and despite the 10th (which is universally ignored anyway), the bankruptcy code is a power specifically granted to the federal government specifically for this reason. Add to the fact that it was done by false promise of ‘progressive’ (((socialist))) eternal growth on one end and financial (((rent seeking))) constructed using fractional reserves guaranteed by the federal government, and the credit expansion, all via the treasury and federal reserve, instead of retaining the returns for redistribution to the citizenry, and we have criminal conspiracy at least of conspiracy of interests not sufficiently defended against by a government lacking experience in financial corruption practiced in the Pale – especially ukraine and russia. (Where mises and rothbard inherited their ideas and tried to spread them to the west.) While screwing politicians, government employees, their unions, and investors that profited from seeking rents by offering credit that baits states into hazard, the populations of the states would benefit greatly from no longer spending their tax revenues on employee pensions as large as their medicare-medicaid expenses, leaving a single digit trickle of income for infrastructure and investment. Personally I would love to write a brief for the court on this, and bring the issue before the court because it would provide the impetus to end the fed, and nationalize the finance sector dependent upon treasury issue, and instead, force them to raise all capital from the private sector, forcing the sector to compete for savings rather than continuously destroy them. Biggest organized crime in human history.

  • The P Program and Our Purposes

    [B]ill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.

  • The P Program and Our Purposes

    [B]ill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.

  • Where Does the Propertarian Party Fit Into the Propertarian Movement?

    By Nathen I have been thinking about where this political party fits into the movement as a whole quote a bit recently. P is fundamentally an intellectual, not political movement, but it has profound political ramifications. I consider myself a Newb so take this for what it’s worth, but my observation is that Curt Doolittle is focusing primarily on developing leaders and teachers who can spread and grow this next intellectual revolution. While leaders like John Mark (who provided my introduction to P through his Youtube videos), ITV, Brandon Hayes, Bill Joslin and Noah Revoy are sharing the intellectual and political ideas of P with many people, there is not, as far as I know, a grassroots, boots-on-the-ground organization yet. In my opinion, this is the purpose of the Propertarian Party. While the internet is an incredible tool for sharing information and connecting people, we are hardwired for face-to-face interaction. If our goal is to enact real change, it must happen in meatspace, not in the electronic ether. While display and word can happen electronically, these must eventually be translated into deed. Deeds require hands and muscles and sweat and blood. If we talk but do not act, we are useless and have no place in the Pack. The effectiveness of political parties is in being able to look your neighbor in the eye and speak to him about how your political ideas can improve his life. Face-to-face communication is visceral, not just intellectual. People can experience your conviction, or lack thereof, much more completely. Consider the possibilities of setting up a table at a gun show (once we start having them again). Having the opportunity to meet dozens, if not hundreds of like-minded people from your area and talk to them about the solutions that P offers. People are familiar and comfortable with political parties. This may make us more approachable. The Party may also be a good vehicle for fund-raising. Another consideration is what happens after we achieve victory (we will) and the Propertarian Constitution, or as I think of it, the Revitalized US Constitution is enacted? How will these 1000 Aristocracies bloom? Having multiple local Propertarian Party organizations already in place will make the transition quicker and more focused. It all comes down to Boots On The Ground. This Group is a great way to start the process, but ultimately it is each of our responsibility to begin talking to people in our communities and introducing them to Propertarianism. The Propertarian Party is a vehicle to make it easier to start that conversation, but WE must be it’s advocates. We must each be willing to speak the difficult and uncomfortable truths directly to another person knowing we may anger or offend them and that we may get yelled at or even physically assaulted. Are you ready and willing to stand in front of another man and speak the truth he needs to hear even if it upsets him? Are you ready to deal with GSRRM right in your face? I am. Do you have the courage to stand up in front of a group of strangers and tell the truth regardless of cost?

  • Where Does the Propertarian Party Fit Into the Propertarian Movement?

    By Nathen I have been thinking about where this political party fits into the movement as a whole quote a bit recently. P is fundamentally an intellectual, not political movement, but it has profound political ramifications. I consider myself a Newb so take this for what it’s worth, but my observation is that Curt Doolittle is focusing primarily on developing leaders and teachers who can spread and grow this next intellectual revolution. While leaders like John Mark (who provided my introduction to P through his Youtube videos), ITV, Brandon Hayes, Bill Joslin and Noah Revoy are sharing the intellectual and political ideas of P with many people, there is not, as far as I know, a grassroots, boots-on-the-ground organization yet. In my opinion, this is the purpose of the Propertarian Party. While the internet is an incredible tool for sharing information and connecting people, we are hardwired for face-to-face interaction. If our goal is to enact real change, it must happen in meatspace, not in the electronic ether. While display and word can happen electronically, these must eventually be translated into deed. Deeds require hands and muscles and sweat and blood. If we talk but do not act, we are useless and have no place in the Pack. The effectiveness of political parties is in being able to look your neighbor in the eye and speak to him about how your political ideas can improve his life. Face-to-face communication is visceral, not just intellectual. People can experience your conviction, or lack thereof, much more completely. Consider the possibilities of setting up a table at a gun show (once we start having them again). Having the opportunity to meet dozens, if not hundreds of like-minded people from your area and talk to them about the solutions that P offers. People are familiar and comfortable with political parties. This may make us more approachable. The Party may also be a good vehicle for fund-raising. Another consideration is what happens after we achieve victory (we will) and the Propertarian Constitution, or as I think of it, the Revitalized US Constitution is enacted? How will these 1000 Aristocracies bloom? Having multiple local Propertarian Party organizations already in place will make the transition quicker and more focused. It all comes down to Boots On The Ground. This Group is a great way to start the process, but ultimately it is each of our responsibility to begin talking to people in our communities and introducing them to Propertarianism. The Propertarian Party is a vehicle to make it easier to start that conversation, but WE must be it’s advocates. We must each be willing to speak the difficult and uncomfortable truths directly to another person knowing we may anger or offend them and that we may get yelled at or even physically assaulted. Are you ready and willing to stand in front of another man and speak the truth he needs to hear even if it upsets him? Are you ready to deal with GSRRM right in your face? I am. Do you have the courage to stand up in front of a group of strangers and tell the truth regardless of cost?

  • The Dependence on Land and The Variation in Group Strategies

    –“I was working the rather large winter garden this afternoon I have planted with my father. Thinking about the respective Peloponnesian and Delian strategies. It got me thinking about two things. Agricultural productivity / output and the concurrent effervescence of commercial activity, economic growth, and thus civilisational expansion (consider this also in a Rome vs Carthage context too). The second angle was the context of one’s own personal independence and self-sovereignty, in this sense as a landowner, either large or small scale. Be it in terms of food supply, land as a hold of value, and also as an individual / family / community area with which to defend one’s own assets. Whilst Australia and America have different cultures and expressions of “homesteading” there are some similarities too, you might call it a “dying frontier of the self-owned man”. Do you have any pointers or suggestions from a Propertarian standpoint?”— A Friend

    [Y]es, you have the correct insight, that I would translate as “If a man is dependent upon the land, he intuits others are also dependent upon the land, and that he cannot defend his land nor can others without collective defense of land, and collective defense by almost everyone. This is the opposite of migratory pastoralists and disaporic traders (Carthage), or diasporic usurers (Jews), or diasporic thieves(gypsies), or diasporic raiders(muslims), diasporic rent seekers(russians, mongols), but not the same as settled(germans, spartans) or diasporic producers (europeans, chinese – and what should have been hindus). That is because we specialize in different strategies and our value of territory, built capital, institutional, and cultural commons, differs by where our revenue comes from and the composition of our ‘armies’ and the strategy that these men use for control of predation (raiding), parasitism (extractive rule, usury, theft), or domestication (productive rule, settlement, common capital production.)