Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ANSWERING A COMMON CRITICISM OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION —“Whenever I read somethi

    ANSWERING A COMMON CRITICISM OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    —“Whenever I read something like “disproportionate success of western civilization in the ancient” I think of the cult of Dionysus and their ritualized cannibalism, the Athenians and their practice of choosing -by popular vote! – a human “scapegoat” for their collective sins to banish to certain death, the fact that the Romans only *rarely* performed human sacrifice in situations like the wars with the Carthaginians, the fact that one of the most revered figures from the Ancient Greek philosophical tradition was a man – Diogenes – who masturbated in public and slept in a barrel, that the Spartans used to leave infants to die in the wild of exposure if they weren’t deemed “fit” as future soldiers, that Plato was a proponent of – in his “The Republic” – a totalitarian dystopia as the ideal society, that pederasty was considered a good thing by many of their “greatest” thinkers, and that they – Romans – then deteriorated into a state where the main public pastime was watching slaves murder each other and be eaten alive by animals, it makes me wonder how this could possibly be considered a success.”—-Abu Ayoub

    Someone on my management team defended me once by saying

    —-“Curt fails like the rest of us, the difference is we do a few things and some fail, he does ten thousand things, and some fail.”—

    I do not confuse perfect with THE BEST.

    Meanwhile most civilizations cannot produce anything resembling a western commons or polity, because they cannot cull or rule the underclasses, cannot produce a competitive aristocracy, cannot produce truth, trust, commons, defense of commons, and break the limits of family, clan, and tribe to produce goods. Only japanese and Koreans.

    They applied truth, they created naturalism and reason culminating in roman law, and by archimedes were on the verge of the industrial revolution in just a few hundred years – and we dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, and vicisitudes of nature. Why?

    They preserve competition in all walks of life, and deem it heroic.

    All the great civilizations of the ancient world are lost but east asia. Europe was rebuilt itself from the north. Harappan didn’t make it, but did it’s best from the east. And Judaism, christianity, and islam are a cancer that destroys all before it by reversing eugenic progress.

    The secret to success for a people is shrinking the lower classes until the middle classes are productive enough to carry what remains, without constant decline. the problem is it is preferable for rulers to keep people poor can concentrate wealth – everywhere except for far east and far west.

    China had Reason-lite and order before face but face before truth, the west had Reason, and truth before all and markets. With christianity as the cancer that we are still (some of us) struggling to escape. Africa, the pacific, and america had too little time. The middle east over extended and islam destroyed all the great civilizations as a cancer of uncontrolled underclass growth. ANd we simply see this in the data.

    That said, your criticisms are legit. they are just immaterial in relation to the successes.

    If you were ruled, were you better off under any rule than you are under western? There is no comparison of rule between civilizations even between chinese rule and western rule.

    The the greatest mistake my people made was expanding aristocratic egalitarianism (aristocracy of everyone) beyond the possible. The second greatest mistake my people made was the white man’s burden. It is true. But we should never have tried to carry that burden. The third greatest mistake my people made was trying to preserve the ‘market’ of the balance of powers, rather than letting the russians retake constantinople, and the germans eastern europe. The fourth greatest mistake my people made was the sequence of falure to return the slaves to africa, liberating our ancient enemy the jews, not prosecuting the communists with an inquisition, and the postwar immigration act – these are christian errors.

    All of these are the same mistake – optimism about mankind – and virtue signaling.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 09:37:00 UTC

  • NICEA They consolidated power in the most SEPARATIST religion they could control

    NICEA

    They consolidated power in the most SEPARATIST religion they could control. They had ‘control’ over the jesus character, but not control over the god character. So they chose the most useful storyline: the one with no competitors, and such that they could ‘parasite’ upon existing ‘god’.

    ie: Jesus is a parasitic character on the narrative history of gods, taking his legitimacy from a god, but unbound by the previous (really horrible semitic) god.

    They couldn’t make him a god, but wanted him to have the power of a god. So they made a parasitic character dependent upon these gods.

    This provided the priests with the control they needed to displace not only the previous religions, but through mass militant adoption, the aristocratic peoples (military and law) with a priesthood.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-23 21:39:00 UTC

  • A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with

    A BLACK PILL

    Here is the harder question.

    What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, …

    And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences.

    And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism.

    In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences.

    And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences….

    So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception.

    And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 19:43:00 UTC

  • You know recent events have just further convinced me that while we all use lang

    You know recent events have just further convinced me that while we all use language most people have very limited consciousness and even more limited agency, and are just intuition-boxes with a speech engine attached. Unless we teach truthful speech they can’t do it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 16:20:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098618442565992454

    Reply addressees: @I_Vae_Victis_I @NewRightAmerica @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098617787407319042

    IN REPLY TO:

    @I_Vae_Victis_I

    @curtdoolittle @NewRightAmerica @JFGariepy Had a great discussion with my wife yesterday teaching her some of the core tenants of propertarianism while watching the News. It goes without saying, I wasn’t short of examples. 😉

    Mainly about commons, truth telling in courts, it’s foundation for West Civ, application of..

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098617787407319042

  • THE TRADE WITH XIANITY 1 – Look. I have an agreement ‘with management’ to stop h

    THE TRADE WITH XIANITY

    1 – Look. I have an agreement ‘with management’ to stop harshing on Xianity now that my tests are done. You have really good people on the christian side. I recommend a lot of them. James fox Higgins and Vox Day among the obvious. Distributist is good at what he does too. …

    2 – … so given that we are speaking in different grammars, me in via negativa science and law of dispute resolution, and you are speaking in via positiva of theology of organization, it’s not possible to discourse.

    3 – So, if you want your faith I’ll fight for it if you fight for my law.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:25:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52491576_10157003298252264_642453036

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52491576_10157003298252264_642453036

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52491576_10157003298252264_6424530364756131840_o_10157003298247264.jpg PROPERTY IN TOTO IS DEAD SIMPLEMartin ŠtěpánThe way I was trying to explain this to people asking if leftists can have properties such multiculti, equality etc. is that just because we recognize something as property doesn’t automatically mean we also recognize your right to having it. But I guess that might just cause more confusion.Feb 21, 2019, 3:49 PMSimon Ström2) is merely justification for 1) and 3) describes a situation of mutually assured warranty, ultimately rooted in 1) applied to institutions of legal practiceFeb 21, 2019, 4:06 PMCurt DoolittleGod i love it when you are around. …. thank youFeb 21, 2019, 4:17 PMJosh King4) something that a government may not seize or search without a proper warrant, because it was not earned by the state.Feb 21, 2019, 5:26 PMEthan TriceMight pretty much does make right. We may not like it, but that’s a far more valid theory than social contractsFeb 21, 2019, 5:45 PMJimmy KnowlesWhen you consider it as a nation it makes sense as well. Willing to defend, invest tax money for infrastructure mutual defense and retirement, without imposing cost on others as a parasite, you can have a clear definition of citizen via that route.Feb 21, 2019, 5:50 PMStephen ThomasInvestment (accountable resources)

    Honest Acquisition (without impositions or fraud)

    Defense (forceful/violent protection)

    Will you invest in it? Have you honestly acquired it? Will you fight or die to secure it?

    If so, how can anyone rightfully claim it is not yours?Feb 21, 2019, 6:11 PMJim CatreHalf of this conflates defense of property with the acquisition of property.Feb 21, 2019, 7:18 PMJim CatreAre there any economists in this group other than myself?Feb 21, 2019, 7:20 PMCurt Doolittle—“Jim Catre Half of this conflates defense of property with the acquisition of property.”—

    Explain???Feb 21, 2019, 7:25 PMJim Catre>Men are willing to defend with violence.

    Suggests that someone who is unable to defend said property doesn’t actually own it. Furthermore, it doesn’t address whether the defense of said property has to be performed by the owner of the property. In either case, it does not describe a method by which one acquires authority over said property.

    >Have a provable investment.

    This can be open to interpretation. For example, if I purchase a large plot of real-estate and have the contract to prove as much, it doesn’t mean that the person who sold the real estate had the authority to sell to begin with.

    The other interpretation, and the one that 99% of ideologies seem to follow, implies something akin to Lockean methods of property acquisition.

    >Acquired property without imposing costs on other parties.

    Absolutely asinine statement. Due to scarcity and opportunity costs, virtually any kind of transaction can impose an external cost on others.Feb 22, 2019, 12:47 PMCurt DoolittleLearn something.

    —“Suggests that someone who is unable to defend said property doesn’t actually own it.”–

    He may in fact possess it. He may have invested in it. Under reciprocal conditions others may choose not to use it. But in physical reality ‘ownership’ is determined by an insurer who decides disputes (in most cases, the court, the police, the military, etc).

    You can demonstrate investment. you can hold possession. you can agree with others that you will respect possessions (property), and you can construct an insurer that insures your possessions are not involuntarily transferred.

    End the insurer and you don’t ‘own’ anything.

    End the normative agreement and you don’t have ‘property’ only possession.

    End your sufficiency of self defense against an aggressor and you don’t have possession.

    Ergo. no. absent sufficient defense you don’t ‘own’ anything.Feb 22, 2019, 1:35 PMJim Catre>But in physical reality ‘ownership’ is determined by an insurer who decides disputes (in most cases, the court, the police, the military, etc).

    Again, you’re not answering the question of acquisition. How did the court, police, etc. gain ownership over the real estate or natural resources?

    >absent sufficient defense you don’t ‘own’ anything.

    But you completely contradict this statement when you bring up property norms and the individual and social benefit gained from having property rights. Market failure occurs when property rights cannot be defined.Feb 22, 2019, 1:40 PMCurt Doolittle—“>Have a provable investment. “…. This can be open to interpretation. For example, if I purchase a large plot of real-estate and have the contract to prove as much, it doesn’t mean that the person who sold the real estate had the authority to sell to begin with. The other interpretation, and the one that 99% of ideologies seem to follow, implies something akin to Lockean methods of property acquisition.”—

    Which claim are you making?

    1. you failed due diligence and must appeal to the court despite having done so in order obtain restitution or title.

    2. the other party engaged in fraud or error, and you must appeal to the court for his having done so, in order to obtain restitution or title.

    3. you have demonstrated investment (performed) some investment even if you cannot demonstrate (provide evidence) that you have done so, and therefore have some moral right to either restitution or the property regardless of the court if you can find someone who can enforce it, or if you are able to physically enforce it yourself.Feb 22, 2019, 1:41 PMJim CatreSee? That’s my point. It definitely seems as though your entire argument is “might makes right” and, if that’s the case, you need to stop beating around the bush and fucking own it.Feb 22, 2019, 1:41 PMJim Catre4. None of the above. I’m looking for what gives someone the right to initially claim authority and ownership over capital.Feb 22, 2019, 1:42 PMCurt DoolittleJim Catre

    —“might makes right”—

    No, we are correcting you’re use of moralisms, idealism, and special pleading. Might MAKES EVERYTHING, PERIOD. The question of whether it makes reciprocity (right), parasitism (wrong), or predation (very wrong).

    —“4. None of the above. I’m looking for what gives someone the right to initially claim authority and ownership over capital.”—

    Claim to whom?, How can one have ‘authority’ or ‘ownership?

    —“claim”—

    Under test of reciprocity: demonstrated interests (cost in time, effort, resources) in acting to obtain that interest, or forgoing opportunity to take interest, by limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of the same by externality upon others.”

    (In case the deduction is not obvious, that includes homesteading.)

    But again… claim before whom?

    HERE (“property for the 1000’th time”)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157003524812264Feb 22, 2019, 1:48 PMCurt Doolittle(I am not beating around the bush. I am falsifying your priors in order to disambiguate your language such that it is no longer pop philosophy sophism. It’s not like you’re alone man. we do this every day.)Feb 22, 2019, 1:52 PMJim Catre> How can one have ‘authority’ or ‘ownership?

    It’s axiomatic, and is a natural result of self-ownership and the social and economic need for organization. Ownership, after all, is just a derivative of authority. No one can exert higher authority over my mind and body than myself. If I own my body, I own and am responsible for it and its actions. Since I own my actions, I own and am responsible for the result of said actions.Feb 22, 2019, 1:52 PMJim CatreI think we’re coming from the same place, with the same conclusions. Violence is the supreme authority from which all authority derives. However, you can’t ignore the fact that, individually and socially, we get more utility through peace and non-violence.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMJim CatreThat’s WHY we’ve developed property norms.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMCurt DoolittleJim Catre there we go. that’s right.Feb 22, 2019, 1:54 PMOliver CrokeMichael WitcoffFeb 22, 2019, 2:09 PMSteve PenderProperty is that which has such benefit that people are willing to bear the cost of defending it to continue deriving that benefit.Feb 22, 2019, 2:32 PMPROPERTY IN TOTO IS DEAD SIMPLE

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 14:37:00 UTC

  • GO GET YOUR OWN LEADER OR BECOME ONE YOURSELF. Let me help you. I don’t want to

    GO GET YOUR OWN LEADER OR BECOME ONE YOURSELF.

    Let me help you. I don’t want to ‘lead’. Especially losers. I want to provide a solution. I want to arm people with possibility. I want leadership to emerge by attracting talent to the solution. I want our people to win.

    And it won’t be ANYONE on the alt right that emerges.

    OK? NO ONE. NEVER HAPPEN. EVER.

    Getting alt-righters what they want as working class men and leading the alt right are contradictory propositions. I’m in it for the little guy. They guy with a job, a family, and who is being fked by the Cathedral complex. And for our people’s persistence.

    I don’t need to be inspiring. I don’t seek to be. I need to manufacture a weapon that will work. And I need people to not cause damage to that weapon through stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, and signaling.

    And I’ve led most of my life thanks. The only reason I end up leading is if everyone better than I am fails. So stop trying to make me a cult leader, OR insult me for NOT being a cult leader. Because you do both. Which is ironic. I am either not a cult leader and therefore not good, or a cult leader and therefore bad. When the fact is I am an educator and solution provider, and that is all. What you mean is, you want me to carry your water. Because you can’t.

    I’ve done the engineering. You need to do the work.

    But your bullshit just hurts you. Not me. I can’t lose. The worst that happens to me is I produce a Tome that will bear my name for years, while I enjoy what remains of my life. The worst that happens to you is exactly what you fear.

    -cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 14:06:00 UTC

  • WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason,

    WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL?

    (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.)

    (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.)

    ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.)

    (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.)

    ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.)

    ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.)

    (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. )

    (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. )

    (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence.

    (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.)

    (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.)

    (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.)

    (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.)

    (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism.

    (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 10:51:00 UTC

  • Crossing the Line Into Legally Actionable

    [L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.

  • Rothbard (Jewish Pale) and Hoppe (German Free Cities) via positiva, via rational

    Rothbard (Jewish Pale) and Hoppe (German Free Cities) via positiva, via rationalism. Doolittle(Rights of Englishmen) via negativa, via empiricism. Construct a value system by appeal(RH), or prohibit an anti-value system with violence (D). Inspiration and indoctrination (RH) vs prohibition and market for prosecution(D). Unlimited suppression of parasitic behavior that generates retaliation (D), suppression limited to intersubjectively verifiable property (RH). Suppression of blackmail, defamation, public sophism, supernaturalism pseudoscience( marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism). Doolittle: existential survivable without imperial protection, vs Rothbard and Hoppe: dependent, non existential without imperial protection. Doolittle: demonstrated, vs Rothbard and Hoppe: not demonstrated, not modelable, not survivable under competition. RH not possible due to praxeological incentives, and D possible because of praxeological testable incentives. No RH community can form or survive market for polities without parasitic dependence upon an empire because of insufficient incentives for defense and production of commons and their resulting multipliers in competition with free riders. vs Any D community can survive in the market for polities because it does not depend upon an external empire because of sufficient incentives for defense and production of commons and their resulting multipliers in competition with free riders. Crusoe’s island depends upon the ‘free’ protection of a vast ocean. The ghetto depends upon the host city or state. And the Free Cities, The Pale (european wildlands), The American/Australian wildlands, and Iceland/Greenland – all depend upon the host empire, and are economically subsidized by lack of political competition, and the availability of cheap and settleable land. The ghetto ethics of the jews and being exterminated for it on a regular basis versus the high trust ethics of the people who dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance superstition poverty starvation disease hard labor early death…. and the quality of life that people seek despite the costs of commons required to do so. ie: RH consists of pretense that ‘children’ polities, subsidized by parents, can compete against adult polities on their own merits in competition by military, political, economic, religious, demographic, warfare that never ends.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 08:21:00 UTC