Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Yes. We Domesticated Ourselves. We’re Just Another Animal.

    IT”S NOT LIKE I”M GONNA WIN A POPULARITY CONTEST FOR THIS LITTLE BIT OF TRUTH. You know, it’s not like if I walk around telling people ‘Well, we learned how to herd females, and domesticate one another so that we could cooperate more effectively, and that there isn’t any difference between now and then other than the complexity of the methods we use because rather than just genders and alphas we have entire classes and generations. We didn’t have to invent domestication of other animals. We’re the first animals we domesticated.

    So (a) that all our cognitive differences are just a division of perception (b) our differences in perception and value are just reflections of reproductive strategy (c) we herded women and had to, and domesticated ourselves then the rest of the world (d) the only question is whether we continue domestication (eugenics) or we revert to animals (dysgenics). The west invented the most profitable and fastest way of domesticating human beings: markets in everything (empirical civilization – meaning meritocracy), and cull the herd with winters, starvation, pestilence, war, and aggressive hanging of malcontents. Yeah. Well, you know the optimum is a market society where we just limit the unproductive to one child. Eventually, this takes care of itself. And I think that’s the compromise that’s just as … necessary… as the institution of monogamous marriage, and rule of law. No one wants to be forced into marriage no one wants to be forced to limit herself to a single child, no one wants to be forced to contribute to the maintenance of defense, and no one wants to be prosecuted by the law for the imposition of costs upon others. It’s not a matter of want. Sigh.

  • Public Speech As Risky Behavior

    WORDS AND IDEAS AS RISKY BEHAVIOR I understand. Some people want to experiment with physical risk, some with sexual risk, some with chemical risk, and some of us with verbal risk. In other words, we all want to obtain stimuli from exploring new sensations with the method of sensory acquisition that’s most rewarding for us. When you take physical risk of skydiving or surfing it’s likely that you’ll hurt only unless you get a rescue worker harmed trying to save you. When you experiment with sexual risk, you can spread disease, or interfere with relationships and families. When you take chemical risk you can hurt yourself, but you can also use machines and vehicles, or even words, that bring you and others to harm. When you experiment with words and ideas you can bring yourself to harm, you can speak and bring others to harm, and if you’re very good at it, and promote or publish it, you can cause the deaths of more people than anything other than the great plagues.

    We all want to ignore external costs to others. We all want to say our pursuits of stimulation are not harmful to others. But it’s always false. What’s counter-intuitive, is that the most dangerous things you can do to others is to promote damaging ideas. The only worse thing you can do is engineer contagious diseases.

  • Public Speech As Risky Behavior

    WORDS AND IDEAS AS RISKY BEHAVIOR I understand. Some people want to experiment with physical risk, some with sexual risk, some with chemical risk, and some of us with verbal risk. In other words, we all want to obtain stimuli from exploring new sensations with the method of sensory acquisition that’s most rewarding for us. When you take physical risk of skydiving or surfing it’s likely that you’ll hurt only unless you get a rescue worker harmed trying to save you. When you experiment with sexual risk, you can spread disease, or interfere with relationships and families. When you take chemical risk you can hurt yourself, but you can also use machines and vehicles, or even words, that bring you and others to harm. When you experiment with words and ideas you can bring yourself to harm, you can speak and bring others to harm, and if you’re very good at it, and promote or publish it, you can cause the deaths of more people than anything other than the great plagues.

    We all want to ignore external costs to others. We all want to say our pursuits of stimulation are not harmful to others. But it’s always false. What’s counter-intuitive, is that the most dangerous things you can do to others is to promote damaging ideas. The only worse thing you can do is engineer contagious diseases.

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers

  • Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?

    WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.

    2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • The Truth Is Visible In Jesus’ Mythos

    THE TRUTH IS VISIBLE IN JESUS’ MYTHOS Jesus told us to love one another. He did not teach us to lie. But he was raised in a culture of myths and lies. And the language of mythology and lies was the only language of persuasion available to him. If he knew greek, he had not – like most primitive people’s – yet learned Greek reason. And if he did know of greek reason, it’s quite possible he saw it as a threat, since it was the language of government and contract, not the language of the slaves, fishermen, herders, and farmers. We tend to forget that his people at that point in time were the equivalent of the Brazilian favelas, north American ghettos, Arab hinterlands, and Indian slums. So Jesus spoke in the form of persuasion available to him: myth and lie, and probably in the language he was raised with: Aramaic. And under the influence of the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish totalitarian fairy tales we call the old testament. If you compare those authoritarian fairy tales to , Aesop’s Fables, Anglo, Scandinavian, Germanic, and Slavic Fairy Tales, the Geek and Roman Myths, the Arthurian Legends, the Germanic Niebelugelied, the Illiad and the Odyssey,, the Carolingian Saga, and Whig History (the continuous evolution of Europa), you will see the difference between the heroic man competing with the gods to sit among them, and the submissive man under a tyrannical god’s authority, producing the cultures of stagnation, and anti-science, and pervasive deceit. Why? The difference between many competing tribes in the fertile crescent with the concentration of wealth in the industrialization of the river valleys, and many homogenous tribes in the Eurasian forests and plains, limited to relatively small individual manors and farms. So Jesus he asked us to love one another the only way that he knew how, with the only appeal to truth and authority he know how, in the only language he knew how to use. His advice was that if we unified with love we could resist the aristocracy – that the solution to authoritarianism whether eastern totalitarian and immoral, or western contractual and moral, was to love each other, and to resist them. We cannot blame the people in prior eras for lacking the persuasive technologies that we invented after they passed. In each era we do the best that we can with the tools available to us. Yet with the luxury of our current knowledge, we can restate his very simple teachings from his ancient primitive language, from his ancient mysticism, from his ancient authoritarianism, from the language of deception, into the current language. 1) Treat others as you yourself would be treated. Treat no other as you would not wish to be treated yourself. There is no law above the two sides of this moral coin. 2) Reserve time to commune with your neighbors and contemplate how you may do this. 3) Impose no costs upon those things that others have labored to obtain, because it will provoke retaliation by others, and this will harm all of us. In case we need reminding, this refers to: – The life, body, offspring, mates, and relations of others. – The property that others have obtained by discovery, production or trade, from those things justly discovered, produced, and traded. – The norms, traditions, laws, and institutions of others so long as they do not violate these rules. – Speak the truth at all times, no matter the consequence. – Neither act, coerce others to act, nor even think of these things. – Show charity to those who need it to the limit of your ability, without violating these rules. – In total: treat all others as your family – and we all shall become one. One family. Not in our imaginations, but in practice. Out of many we shall become one.