Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely an

    Look, truthful speech is expensive, which is why humans practice it so rarely and westerners alone were able to discover deflationary truth.

    For a man, truthfulness is cost, but that cost comes as a form of self sacrifice to the pack, warriors, tribe, army, and nation – a means of paying for his share of the opportunity, just as his actions pay for a share of the kill.

    For a woman it is a risk to speak the truth – no so much because of men, but because of what other women will do to her, and her greater dependence upon those women than upon the men, who most often treat her (in her opinion) as property, utility, or livestock.

    I think all of us struggle for agency, and truth and discipline are the means by which we obtain it. But agency is of different value to different group evolutoinary strategies.

    While i am certain that different classes possess different agency, I am just as certain that the jews my people complain about possess no more agency than the women they complain about, and for exactly the same reason: evolutionary biology.

    I wonder how much agency east and southeast asians have despite their accomplishments. I mean, is it as simple as theh require the high context civilization to functoin, just as we funciton best in the low context civilization? Have our brains evolved likewise?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 18:17:00 UTC

  • Aristocracy as Agency: and The Vertical And Horizontal Class Structures

    ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’? We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational. But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)? Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training? Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency? Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist? This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force). And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract). We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force). One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals. Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical. I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight. Curt Doolittle

  • Aristocracy as Agency: and The Vertical And Horizontal Class Structures

    ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’? We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational. But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)? Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training? Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency? Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist? This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force). And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract). We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force). One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals. Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical. I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight. Curt Doolittle

  • The Curse of Puritanism

    THE CURSE OF PURITANISM The french and catholic side of my family, which is fairly large, seems to have done fairly well leading upper working and lower middle class lives, with a sprinkling of professionals across the full spectrum. I wasn’t thrilled around them as a kid because the culture gap between my (unconscious) aristocratic value system from my father’s side of the family was just too large – and many of them still spoke french or accented french. My father’s side of the family, which is excessively puritan, seems to have produced a whole host of alcoholics and drug users. (I’m including myself in the ‘problem’ set – although I seem to have made something of myself anyway). My sisters and I, very conscious of what alcohol had done, don’t self medicate ‘the autism’. My sister Jean and I, much like our grandmother, have developed a cheerful stoicism instead. My sister does not require ‘chemical assistance’ like I do, and I’ve learned a lot living with her about how she (and I maybe should have) handled it through life simplification and self discipline. My daughter has taken the same route. Unfortunately, I was far too competitive to choose the simple life until I realized the cost to my health. Is it that simple: that our protestant mythos is actually harmful to our happiness, just as it has been harmful to our civilization? Has the empiricism and abandonment of the church been right, but the protestant work ethic a mistake? I noticed the same thing in Ukraine. The traditional families had fewer commercial achievements, but generally more stable offspring and as long as they could avoid drinking too much (which tends to be caused in russia by the military culture), they seem much more functional – more like our italian families here in the Northeast (the northeast is now dominated by sicilian / southern italian / and irish culture, just like the south is dominated by the scotts irish gene pool. i think the only anglo gene pools left of any purity are in Utah and New Hampshire. The germans did it right as well. They still remain a familial and provincial people despite their productivity. Why? They are the only people (west germans) to preserve both stoicism and the family, and ‘the oath'(piety and humilty), and martial duty. Those are the requirements for western civilization. The problem is the germans themselves do not understand them scientifically, only spiritually. And that the postwar period has destroyed their aristocracy and opened them up to an over reaction to the nazi era – an era that was CREATED BY anglo puritanism. And you see, that is the difference between the sickness of anglo germanic puritanism, and the perfection of our ancient stoicism. Puritanism breeds virtue signaling. It did. Everywhere. And it was this virtue signaling that destroyed western civilization through the english, french and jewish lines. The germans almost saved us with a second scientific revolution. A scientific revolution that america was the beneficiary of, not the creator of. The question is whether we few, we happy few, can save the germans from themselves. And then the germans will save the rest.

  • The Curse of Puritanism

    THE CURSE OF PURITANISM The french and catholic side of my family, which is fairly large, seems to have done fairly well leading upper working and lower middle class lives, with a sprinkling of professionals across the full spectrum. I wasn’t thrilled around them as a kid because the culture gap between my (unconscious) aristocratic value system from my father’s side of the family was just too large – and many of them still spoke french or accented french. My father’s side of the family, which is excessively puritan, seems to have produced a whole host of alcoholics and drug users. (I’m including myself in the ‘problem’ set – although I seem to have made something of myself anyway). My sisters and I, very conscious of what alcohol had done, don’t self medicate ‘the autism’. My sister Jean and I, much like our grandmother, have developed a cheerful stoicism instead. My sister does not require ‘chemical assistance’ like I do, and I’ve learned a lot living with her about how she (and I maybe should have) handled it through life simplification and self discipline. My daughter has taken the same route. Unfortunately, I was far too competitive to choose the simple life until I realized the cost to my health. Is it that simple: that our protestant mythos is actually harmful to our happiness, just as it has been harmful to our civilization? Has the empiricism and abandonment of the church been right, but the protestant work ethic a mistake? I noticed the same thing in Ukraine. The traditional families had fewer commercial achievements, but generally more stable offspring and as long as they could avoid drinking too much (which tends to be caused in russia by the military culture), they seem much more functional – more like our italian families here in the Northeast (the northeast is now dominated by sicilian / southern italian / and irish culture, just like the south is dominated by the scotts irish gene pool. i think the only anglo gene pools left of any purity are in Utah and New Hampshire. The germans did it right as well. They still remain a familial and provincial people despite their productivity. Why? They are the only people (west germans) to preserve both stoicism and the family, and ‘the oath'(piety and humilty), and martial duty. Those are the requirements for western civilization. The problem is the germans themselves do not understand them scientifically, only spiritually. And that the postwar period has destroyed their aristocracy and opened them up to an over reaction to the nazi era – an era that was CREATED BY anglo puritanism. And you see, that is the difference between the sickness of anglo germanic puritanism, and the perfection of our ancient stoicism. Puritanism breeds virtue signaling. It did. Everywhere. And it was this virtue signaling that destroyed western civilization through the english, french and jewish lines. The germans almost saved us with a second scientific revolution. A scientific revolution that america was the beneficiary of, not the creator of. The question is whether we few, we happy few, can save the germans from themselves. And then the germans will save the rest.

  • AND THE CURRENCY OF AFFECTION FOR THE OTHER .. Ultimately it is our mortality th

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/the-evolution-of-cooperation/SCARCITY AND THE CURRENCY OF AFFECTION FOR THE OTHER

    ..

    Ultimately it is our mortality that gives us a meaningful sense of time. The fact that life will end for all of us, and its reality is ever present as a probability percentage, no matter how low or high.

    ..

    (Affection and some of its forms: Compassion, Empathy, Nurture, Respect, etc.)

    ..

    Given this inescapable biological truth, and without entertaining transhumanism, we must acknowledge that while our time is limited so too is our capacity to extend affection to the Other. At first glance this may appear to be radically insignificant, but its implications are vast and stand in stark contrast to the dangerous ideas of our day. I put emphasis on the word “dangerous” because when an ideological framework insists that any human emotion, burdened by the very real constraints of biology, are somehow infinitely unrestricted, it necessarily creates expectations that will forever be unrealized and guide human behavior irresponsibly. In the same way, I may plant 50 carrot seeds and expect an infinite number of carrots to yield, without respect to how long carrots take to grow, or conditions which carrots require, then I have failed to construct expectations which conform to biological reality and simultaneously succeeded in deluding myself about the nature of carrots.

    ..

    When we acknowledge that our affection exists in limited supply, or at least our capacity to express it, we can begin to ask more implicative questions.

    ..

    Who deserves or is entitled to my affection? How many people can I afford to give affection to at any one time? Is my affection given freely without respect to the actions of the Other? Can one be more or less deserving of my affection? Can unconditional affection have a sensible context? Do we give affection in degrees based on the values of the Other?

    ..

    An examination of those questions gives rise to the reality that if we value the Other, our affection must have a value of its own, and its value must be inextricably linked to who we bother giving affection to in the first place.

    ..

    We must never forget that the context of affection has always been cooperation, and that cooperation has been the only successful means at organizing civilization. Affection is a critical mechanism of cooperation, and like any valuable currency, should be budgeted wisely. How are you spending your affection? Your empathy? Your compassion? Your respect? Are you going broke? Are you investing for the future?

    ..

    To learn more about cooperation:

    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=382099852163689&id=100010910319967

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:00:00 UTC

  • THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE” Aside from the c

    THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE”

    Aside from the conquest of the west by byzantine mysticism, the central problem of western philosophy was thinking and ruling classes avoidance of the centrality of economics. We get philosophy to circumvent the traditional law. And we get science to circumvent the traditional church. And we finally get jewish pseudoscience and puritan outright deceit as ways of circumventing science, economics, an law.

    Economics really doesn’t come into being until smith’s combination of it with ethics, morality, and politics, or turn into a science until menger. Then just as the german scientific revolution is about to kick in, we get the wars, and the postwar era keynes replaces pseudoscience with obscurantist immoral mathematics that menger and smith had sought to avoid. Then the americans kick in – so proud they are to have found a way to destroy civilization faster using stocks as money.

    Lesson? Get your hands dirty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 13:42:00 UTC

  • THE CURSE OF PURITANISM The french and catholic side of my family, which is fair

    THE CURSE OF PURITANISM

    The french and catholic side of my family, which is fairly large, seems to have done fairly well leading upper working and lower middle class lives, with a sprinkling of professionals across the full spectrum. I wasn’t thrilled around them as a kid because the culture gap between my (unconscious) aristocratic value system from my father’s side of the family was just too large – and many of them still spoke french or accented french.

    My father’s side of the family, which is excessively puritan, seems to have produced a whole host of alcoholics and drug users. (I’m including myself in the ‘problem’ set – although I seem to have made something of myself anyway).

    My sisters and I, very conscious of what alcohol had done, don’t self medicate ‘the autism’. My sister Jean and I, much like our grandmother, have developed a cheerful stoicism instead. My sister does not require ‘chemical assistance’ like I do, and I’ve learned a lot living with her about how she (and I maybe should have) handled it through life simplification and self discipline. My daughter has taken the same route. Unfortunately, I was far too competitive to choose the simple life until I realized the cost to my health.

    Is it that simple: that our protestant mythos is actually harmful to our happiness, just as it has been harmful to our civilization? Has the empiricism and abandonment of the church been right, but the protestant work ethic a mistake?

    I noticed the same thing in Ukraine. The traditional families had fewer commercial achievements, but generally more stable offspring and as long as they could avoid drinking too much (which tends to be caused in russia by the military culture), they seem much more functional – more like our italian families here in the Northeast (the northeast is now dominated by sicilian / southern italian / and irish culture, just like the south is dominated by the scotts irish gene pool. i think the only anglo gene pools left of any purity are in Utah and New Hampshire.

    The germans did it right as well. They still remain a familial and provincial people despite their productivity. Why? They are the only people (west germans) to preserve both stoicism and the family, and ‘the oath'(piety and humilty), and martial duty.

    Those are the requirements for western civilization. The problem is the germans themselves do not understand them scientifically, only spiritually. And that the postwar period has destroyed their aristocracy and opened them up to an over reaction to the nazi era – an era that was CREATED BY anglo puritanism.

    And you see, that is the difference between the sickness of anglo germanic puritanism, and the perfection of our ancient stoicism. Puritanism breeds virtue signaling. It did. Everywhere. And it was this virtue signaling that destroyed western civilization through the english, french and jewish lines.

    The germans almost saved us with a second scientific revolution. A scientific revolution that america was the beneficiary of, not the creator of.

    The question is whether we few, we happy few, can save the germans from themselves.

    And then the germans will save the rest.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 11:54:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES. Eli Har

    ARISTOCRACY AS AGENCY, AND THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLASS STRUCTURES.

    Eli Harman makes a very important point, that I should, and we all should consider, when we refer to western man: that when constructing a class of Western man that we call ‘aristocracy’, which is a ‘class’ regardless of social and economic class, are we in fact referring to the preference for, necessity of, and selection for ‘Agency’?

    We use the term time preference; we use the term impulsivity. But these terms refer to the ‘negatives’ without stating a positive that is informative and testable. I use the term truthful. Others rational.

    But isn’t the central question agency? Isn’t that the question going into battle? Isn’t that the question building a social order? Isn’t that a question building a ruling class? Isn’t that a question building a judiciary class? isn’t that a question building an entrepreneurial class (Field Officers)? Isn’t that a question building a administrative class (lieutenants)? Even building the managerial class (sergeants)?

    Isn’t it a facsimile of agency that we build in military training? How to ‘report’ (testify), how to hold formation, how to overcome fear, embarrassment, emotion, exhaustion, pain, through training?

    Isn’t that military training the involuntary construction of stoicism? isn’t stoicism the construction of agency? Isn’t Aristocracy the achievement of agency? Isn’t that what Sovereignty results in? Agency?

    Isn’t Sovereignty an existential Condition in-fact, but Agency the Resource that makes Sovereignty both cognitively possible, and reciprocally necessary for the condition to exist?

    This is one of the questions I have been trying to solve for the past few years: Aristocracy consists of a class, like the military consists of a class: Priesthood(gossip), Scientist(craftsman), Aristocracy (force).

    And that one can join the aristocracy at many levels in society, just as one can join the military at many levels in society. We join aristocracy through the pursuit of sovereignty, through the use of agency(stoicism), and through the use of loyalty (shareholder contract).

    We construct horizontal classes: genetic class, social class, economic class. And we construct vertical classes: Priestly(gossip), Scientific (innovation and production), and Aristocratic (force).

    One of my own mistakes has been misconstruing the hierarchy of production, which is scientific, entrepreneurial, financial (administrative), craftsmanly(managerial), and laboring (transforming) classes as science vs craft and this was an error driven by the western tendency for the priesthood to fund ‘writing’ (gossip) intellectuals, and the aristocracy to fund engineers and artists (action) intellectuals.

    Like everyone else, despite identifying the three methods of coercion as three sets of elites, I gave too much emphasis to horizontal class structures, and not enough to vertical.

    I’ll continue to work on this analytically. But Eli has been framing this for a while now, and I just gleaned his insight.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 09:54:00 UTC

  • ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM) Anne (All), You know, I

    ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM)

    Anne (All),

    You know, I can actually write a short book, “The Law of Nature”, with help from a few others in this group of ours. Although I still need a little help from the “Occultists” etc to color it a bit.

    Even a few months ago I thought I couldn’t do it yet. But I’ve realized over the past few weeks that I can. I can make a very short, very small book. In fact, I am getting close to thinking that I can write something as small as a pamphlet or paper. That’s the value of taking so long. I get better at ‘simplificating and adding brevity’.

    But you know, I’ve put more than a million dollars of my own money, and not insignificant amounts of my friends money, in to our product and I need to get it to commercial-quality done.

    That is my moral imperative.

    And honestly, evidence is that the longer I take, the more demand goes up, the better I get at saying it in fewer words.

    Our (my advisors and I) original plan still holds:

    1 – put out enough of a skeleton on the web site that I can attract early adopters and good criticism from ‘near neighbors’ in the community.

    2 – put out a booklet or pamphlet, or ‘paper’ that contains the full argument but without all the narrative and all the historical content and examples.

    3 – put out ‘the bible of western civilization’ which will forever serve as the legal, moral, and religious basis of western peoples – and all peoples who wish to transcend.

    If it was easy someone else would have figured it out. But you know, christianity put an evil dent in our people. The defeat of roman civilization put an evil dent in our people. The muslim conquest put an evil dent in humanity. and unfortunately, and quite counter-intuitively, Mathematical reasoning put an evil dent in the greek philosophers.

    The basis of western civlization was always there: the cult of sovereignty: the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.

    “I shall speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth even if it brings me death. I will take nothing not paid for. And I will cause no other to bear cost by my words or deeds. And if I break this oath I ask you my brothers to kill me for it.”

    If you practice this oath of initiation on a civilizational scale (and regardless of gender), with near-kin, then you will get western civlization because one cannot both keep that oath and do anything other than construct western civlization: sovereignty, truth, and markets in everything.

    All I am doing is making even an argument against this oath prosecutable to the point of death.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 14:13:00 UTC