Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • YES, WHITE SHARIA IS A JOKE, BUT WE DON’T HAVE AN EQUIVALENT. —“White Sharia m

    YES, WHITE SHARIA IS A JOKE, BUT WE DON’T HAVE AN EQUIVALENT.

    —“White Sharia makes me laugh with some truth-like connections, but then cringe if it’s meant seriously. We’re better than that.”—Bryan Nova Brey

    Of course we’re better than that, because natural law is (a) scientific, (b) constantly evolving and adapting, (c) innovative, eugenic and transcendent.

    Sharia is none of those things. It’s supernatural, fixed, ignorance-creating, developmentally inhibitory, dysgenic, and devolutionary.

    That said, we don’t have an equivalent term for Zero Tolerance Law Every Man Must Enforce.

    I use Natural Law, The Oath, and Every Man A Sheriff. But the general idea that every member of a civilization must adhere to a law, an oath, and the duty to defend both, doesn’t have a name in western civilization precisely because prior to the present we had no idea *any alternative existed*.

    —“Sharia is the Bedouin equivalent of the Talmud.”—Howard Van Der Klauw

    And Natural Law, The Oath and Every Man A Sheriff and a Warrior, is the equivalent of those laws. The problem is, truth science evolves, our literature covers every discipline, and all must survive competition from one another – and theirs don’t. They are monopolies not markets.

    —“It’s a joke. But, White Sharia will be an even funnier joke once there are no more Muslims.”–Eli Harman

    Um… Eli is always on message. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 19:35:00 UTC

  • VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTORS Don’t kid your self. Investors matter. Investor person

    VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTORS

    Don’t kid your self. Investors matter. Investor personality matters more. Investor strategy regarding exit matters more. Investor’s funding source stability more so. They will always think they are smarter than you are for the simple reason that they have to. They aren’t. They are however, better at insuring you against failure. The simple act of keeping them informed so that they know your progress, while performing such that they don’t feel the need to ‘interfere’ is the way to use their insurance value to insure you maintain the right behavior. In every company I’ve NOT bought the central problem has been trying to expand too early so that the hard work of interacting with customers is offloaded so that the team can ‘masturbate’ by working internally rather than working with customers and constantly adapting the organization to those customers. In every company I have bought, the opposite is true: they are constantly focused on customers and they real problem is that they underinvest in sales and marketing.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 18:31:00 UTC

  • PATERNALISM IS LOVE Women mature early so that they may parent their offspring.

    PATERNALISM IS LOVE

    Women mature early so that they may parent their offspring.

    Men continue to mature much longer so that they may parent their tribe. Love women as they love their children. But truth, reason, and group persistence are as exclusively male as childbirth is female. If women’s intuition is given license the tribe will die. If men cease parenting, their tribe will die, just as certainly as if women cease parenting their children, the children will die.

    (see how much trouble I can get into today)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 08:36:00 UTC

  • LOVE WOMEN. BUT TRUTH, TESTIMONY AND REASON ARE MALE ATTRIBUTES: THE FEMINISTS A

    LOVE WOMEN. BUT TRUTH, TESTIMONY AND REASON ARE MALE ATTRIBUTES: THE FEMINISTS ARE RIGHT.

    (see if I can get in trouble for this one)

    Around 40% of women have mental illness of some sort. And from a man’s perspective as a rational human, around double that have problems with correspondence with reality, and all but a handful are limited by social cognitive biases they cannot escape.

    It’s true that only about 20-30% of men are reproductively desirable, but 80% are rational.

    But it’s also true that 70-80% of women are (at least for some period) reproductively desirable, but 80% are not rational.

    Man evolves reason and evolution lets us drag women along behind us at rather great distance. In fact, women do not select for intelligence in men, but aggression. They do not wish their children to be competitive, but sociable.

    We focus on intelligence overmuch, when rationality determines how intelligence is demonstrated.

    Ask any woman a NAXALT question, whether we should pursue equality or reciprocity, whether men by and large defend women or threaten them, and what percentile their children are in – and you will find these estimates correct.

    Women are wonders. But war, politics, law, economics, and truth are as unique to men as childbirth is to women.

    My understanding is that men provide the environment, and women provide the generations. As such men think and women feel. For the simple reason that children require immediate action, and the tribe requires longer term planning.

    Love women as they love their children.

    This is the lesson of patriarchy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 08:28:00 UTC

  • THREE OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE (And obvious.) 1) Libertarians(7%) are smarte

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-intelligence-average-IQ-test-scores-any-calculated-metric-of-the-average-American-conservative/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=54709e6f&srid=u4QvALL THREE OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE (And obvious.)

    1) Libertarians(7%) are smarter than Liberals(25%).

    2) Republicans(26%) are smarter than Democrats(29%).

    3) Liberals(25%) are smarter than Conservatives(36%).

    Why? Increases in size of groups regresses to the mean. (Again, obvious). Smaller groups of educated people will test higher than larger groups.

    PROBLEMS WITH ALL SUCH MEASUREMENTS

    1) People, but men in particular, do not mature (in IQ) until 22 (at least).

    2) We have no test of adult IQ, only children.

    3) We tend to use SAT scores as a proxy for IQ. (Good but subset)

    4) We tend to use degrees as a proxy for IQ. (Bad proxy)

    5) We cannot match SAT and Degrees to Political Preference.

    6) We can only survey REPORTED Political Affiliation with REPORTED degree.

    7) The vast majority of degrees are (a) ‘nonsense’ degrees (gut courses) and of those the vast majority are (b) by women.

    8) The vast majority of advanced degrees are equally nonsense degrees (education, etc). And a disproportionate number of men do not pursue degrees since the trades do not require them.

    9) The gender gap is large and ever increasing. Meaning white marrieds, and males against unmarried women of all groups and minorities (who are no longer minorities).

    THE REAL ANSWER IS NOT INTELLIGENCE BUT GENDER

    As far as I know the distributions are relatively normal

    As far as I know gender is a better predictor than intelligence.

    As far as I know the country is entirely red by men’s vote and almost entirely blue by women’s vote.

    For this reason also: democrats and liberals dominate mental illness.

    For this reason also: democrats and liberals report lower happiness.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-intelligence-average-IQ-test-scores-any-calculated-metric-of-the-average-American-conservative/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=54709e6f&srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 21:42:00 UTC

  • THREE OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE (And obvious.) 1) Libertarians(7%) are smarte

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-intelligence-average-IQ-test-scores-any-calculated-metric-of-the-average-American-conservative/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=54709e6f&srid=u4QvALL THREE OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE (And obvious.)

    1) Libertarians(7%) are smarter than Liberals(25%).

    2) Republicans(26%) are smarter than Democrats(29%).

    3) Liberals(25%) are smarter than Conservatives(36%).

    Why? Increases in size of groups regresses to the mean. (Again, obvious). Smaller groups of educated people will test higher than larger groups.

    PROBLEMS WITH ALL SUCH MEASUREMENTS

    1) People, but men in particular, do not mature (in IQ) until 22 (at least).

    2) We have no test of adult IQ, only children.

    3) We tend to use SAT scores as a proxy for IQ. (Good but subset)

    4) We tend to use degrees as a proxy for IQ. (Bad proxy)

    5) We cannot match SAT and Degrees to Political Preference.

    6) We can only survey REPORTED Political Affiliation with REPORTED degree.

    7) The vast majority of degrees are (a) ‘nonsense’ degrees (gut courses) and of those the vast majority are (b) by women.

    8) The vast majority of advanced degrees are equally nonsense degrees (education, etc). And a disproportionate number of men do not pursue degrees since the trades do not require them.

    9) The gender gap is large and ever increasing. Meaning white marrieds, and males against unmarried women of all groups and minorities (who are no longer minorities).

    THE REAL ANSWER IS NOT INTELLIGENCE BUT GENDER

    As far as I know the distributions are relatively normal

    As far as I know gender is a better predictor than intelligence.

    As far as I know the country is entirely red by men’s vote and almost entirely blue by women’s vote.

    For this reason also: democrats and liberals dominate mental illness.

    For this reason also: democrats and liberals report lower happiness.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 21:42:00 UTC

  • You see, let a thousand nations bloom, and let a thousand philosophers bloom. Pr

    You see, let a thousand nations bloom, and let a thousand philosophers bloom. Propertarianism is just science. What you do with that science is not my business – other than to enjoy the works you make with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 18:17:00 UTC

  • UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS You know when you’ve been out of college a while and

    UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS

    You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle?

    Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market.

    Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around.

    What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx).

    Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market.

    Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language.

    Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this.

    I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it.

    We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex.

    The question I want to answer, is where from here?

    For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why?

    There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 17:55:00 UTC

  • SOCIOPATHS AND HATE VS NATURAL LAW AND LOVE So apparently my favorite sociopath

    SOCIOPATHS AND HATE VS NATURAL LAW AND LOVE

    So apparently my favorite sociopath is upset that I’m referring to him as my favorite sociopath. I mean, he’s indeed my favorite sociopath. Not that, you know, I know any others. So, it’s not like I have a lot of sociopaths to choose from.

    You know, there is room for religion, especially for the disaffected that need it. There is room for occult for the broken who need it. There is room for literary utopias for the weak that needed. There is room for propaganda for the insecure that need it.

    Men form tribes. It’s in our nature. We want as little difference between ourselves and our leaders as possible.

    But not all men will find truth is enough for them.

    Why? Because the Truth has no mercy for the self that lacks agency. And the weak of mind, of emotion, of intelligence, and of body are

    The question is, can those so weak that they cannot bear the Truth rule? It’s not whether they can fight. Sure they can fight. So can a dog. We can train any domesticated animal to fight.

    It’s whether they can rule. Whether they can be trusted. Whether you want a faction of the weak to deal with after you succeed. And most importantly, whether you want a faction that the vastness of humanity justifiably hates, providing an excuse for resistance.

    It is one thing to restore our faith in our superiority, our ancestral values: Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, and the Domestication of the Animal Man, and our Transcendence into the gods we imagine.

    The reason being that in the end result it will not only achieve those values but will produce a better more prosperous and rewarding order for all humanity.

    It is another thing to think hate, a network of justificationary excuses, ritualized superstition, or fantasy literature is the solution to anything other than perpetual little echo-chamber tribes ginning up the courage to talk with one another but providing no solution by which millions, tens of millions, or even billions can rally.

    Excellence, Truth, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, The domestication of the animal man, requires nothing other than the natural law of reciprocity, nations that can customize their commons to the needs of their members, houses for the classes for the production of commons, an independent judiciary, and an intergenerational hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort.

    There is nothing but love for mankind in reciprocity, and an intolerance for free riding, parasitism, predation upon others.

    Let a thousand nations bloom.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 15:17:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM ISN”T TECH IT’S GOVERNMENT USURPATION OF JUDGEMENT OVER THE COMMONS

    THE PROBLEM ISN”T TECH IT’S GOVERNMENT USURPATION OF JUDGEMENT OVER THE COMMONS

    —“Technology explodes the prevalence of externalities–not just the frequency, but also the variety. The faster the pace of technological evolution, the more urgent the need to develop better and better systems of accounting for externalities, and mechanisms for adequately imposing costs on those who generate them.”— Skinner Layne

    I would state it as wealth from technology makes it cheap to explore our differences and export externalities, for the simple reason that there is a delay between our development of any technology, the discovery of externalities, and the production of prohibitions on the actions that produce those (negative) externalities. And that the reason is government usurpation of our rights to use the courts to defend the commons as well as private and semi-private property. The wealthier we get the easier it is to use the courts and private interests to police innovations and externalities produced by them. The problem isn’t tech, or fear of tech, but that we have no systematic means of acting to constrain externalities in the commons because government has taken from us that role.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 11:27:00 UTC