Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Nobility like liberty, and like status is obtained in exchange. One cannot make

    Nobility like liberty, and like status is obtained in exchange. One cannot make it alone. For this reason we should obtain our coats of arms by the combination of symbols of those who reciprocally insure us and our sovereignty as we insure them and their sovereignty. This is the origin of the coat of arms. Families did not have such things. Every individual had a different one. It was the symbols that identified families. The shield displayed a set of signatories to the nobility of its bearer. Individuals obtain reciprocal insurance. Noble Families are just talented at developing relationships of mutual insurance. Almost all known today are fake. They were purchased by the middle class as symbols of pretention. you cannot buy liberty or nobility. you must exchange it with others who hold the same currency: honor.

    h/t: Justin Ptak

    And yes, i am sure my family’s coat is nonsense also. But it’s still cute.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-17 04:35:00 UTC

  • What Causes Racism?

    People think and speak aware of race because people act aware of race.

    1. People vote as racial blocks. And therefore firm political competition for status and rent seeking.
    2. People associate in racial blocks.
    3. People work in racial blocks.
    4. People reside in racial blocks.
    5. Vast differences in reproductive desirability between races.  And people mate in racial blocks except at the margins.
    6. Vast differences in the eugenic elimination of the evil 80s underclasses between racial blocks.
    7. Vast differences in criminality between the racial blocks.
    8. Significant differences in the abilities of racial groups because of the failure to suppress reproduction in the lower classes.

    We are different. People are rational. They act rationally. Humans practice kin selection.  They must.  Or those that do practice kin selection will replace them.

    Cooperation between families and tribes is only beneficial if each perceives a benefit. Otherwise instead of arguing against racism one is merely practicing war by a substitute of religion, rather than war by religion or war by violence.

    https://www.quora.com/What-causes-racism

  • What Is After Socialism And Capitalism?

    We have always had mixed economies and always will. Neither extreme is possible since under pure capitalism commons cannot be produced because incentives to produce them don’t exist, and under pure socialism production is impossible in no small part because incentives to produce don’t exist. 

    These two terms are also questionably dishonest. Capitalism refers to the voluntary organization of production of consumption and commons. Socialism to the involuntary organization of production of consumption and commons. 

    There is no state of post capitalism. It is possible that there is a form of pure contractualism available to us – and I am working on that solution.

    But as long as women can bear children at will without certain to if the ability to support them or their eventual self support, then there will always be intolerable want.

    The egalitarianism of Northern Europe was achieved through centuries of systemic eugenics under manorialism and its predecessors. And westerners do not like to admit this truth. They’d rather attribute their current luxury to the product of their character.

    Hanjal line character is the product of dispassionate eugenics in all walks of life.

    The early northern people delayed reproduction and outbred. The anglo Saxons starting in the Netherlands practiced manorialism. The rest of Europe hung half to one percent of the population every year as entertainment and constant suppression of the criminal underclasses.  The peasantry was not oppressed – it was domesticated.

    It is far more important for a people to eliminate the ‘Evil 80s’ from the population than it is to create genius.

    This knowledge is the crisis of our age. mixed economies have won. There is no end to capitalism in the consumer economy and socialism in the commons economy.

    Not as long as we are discussing humans. 

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-after-socialism-and-capitalism

  • So back to technicals (Andy Edwards Jay Dyer), it is always better to seek to un

    So back to technicals (Andy Edwards Jay Dyer), it is always better to seek to understand than to assume you are correct. At present, as far as I know, my work provides the greatest explanatory power that is currently available to us. The problem with it may be the problem with all the sciences: that as a science of the rule of law, it survives all scrutiny. That I can also create a revolutionary demand for it. But that as a personal philosophy, and an ideology, a science is insufficient. And that my estimate that truth is enough of an incentive because it provides a purely meritocratic ethic – is insufficient to inspire. The question remains only whether I am able to do that which I did not set out to do. I set out to create a language, that language has evolved into a science, and a science that is sufficient to restore the west to it’s orgins as the people who take the oath to speak the truth and not steal. But that it is not sufficient to inspire a war. It is still open to me whether that is something I should try to do or not. If to counter our upcoming defeat is not sufficient an inspiration, then I do not see why a story (narrative) would matter. But then I am not motivated by such things, I find them somewhere between entertaining, childish and silly. It is not my language. But that does not mean it is not the language of others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 08:53:00 UTC

  • The lower end of conservatism wants to be smart. They want arguments. To engage

    The lower end of conservatism wants to be smart. They want arguments. To engage in democratic debate. To persuade.

    Unfortunately this is not a conservative’s function in the division of perception, cognition, knowledge and advocacy. It is the libertarian or a progressive for whom republican libertarianism and equalitarian democracy was invented.

    Your purpose, function, existence, is to set limits to individual gratification if it comes at the expense of the tribe, to defend those limits with threat and violence, to punish the offenders of those limits, and to kill those who cannot otherwise be stopped.

    You aren’t supposed to think very hard. You are supposed to act. And to leave gossip and rallying and shaming to the women.

    Punish the wicked. Do not debate them. Violence is our art. Negotiation libertarians, and gossip the feminine progressive. We negotiate for mutual benefit. But there is no permissible gain at the expense of the tribe.

    That is your duty.

    Think less. Do more. Punish the Wicked in your realm. Let those of us in the upper arts of law punish those in ours.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-14 06:32:00 UTC

  • Eli is very smart. And he starts with the necessary intuitions. He has always be

    Eli is very smart. And he starts with the necessary intuitions. He has always been a better communicator than I because he has better emotional intelligence than I. But what I wasn’t sure of, was whether he would make the last jump and fully detatch from a reliance upon intuitionistic reasoning. And he has recently done so. He will be as good or better than I. We have a few more guys that are up and coming. They know who they are. We know who they are. It takes a long time. It’s very hard. But they are doing it. When we have five of us that can construct these arguments – pure propertarian arguments – we will have an intellectual movement. From there we can scale. Because with that number of us we can teach. Every new person can descirbe his journey. Each journey is different. Each journey a lesson in HOW TO journey. Each different journey a practical tool set with which to help others journey. With scale – just dozens – we will crush lies everywhere. This is how intellectual movements change the world. A few of us at a time. We are the future of social science. We are the creators of a new logic and a new law. With this new logic and this new law we will end the lies. Just as science ended mysticism we will end pseudoscience and deceit. We will end the century of lies and save mankind from another dark age.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-13 05:28:00 UTC

  • At this point in my work, I feel that others’ efforts at going after Hoppe, Wood

    At this point in my work, I feel that others’ efforts at going after Hoppe, Woods, and Molyneux is frustrating. To some degree the same for Tucker. First, you probably don’t understand Hoppe. Even if you do the only criticism are technical and beyond you. I am not always sure Hoppe understands Hoppe. Woods is a saint in every capacity both personal and public. Tucker is a pure soul who is unfortunately overly optimistic and perhaps too late for the last generation and too early for this one. Any criticism of Molyneux is due to be technical and out-shadowed by the vast good that he has done and continues to do. As far as I can tell these are all good christian men doing moral duty.

    I care mostly that we don’t project pseudo-science or pseudo-morality. That we escape the misesian economic, rothbardian ethical, kantian rationalist fallacies. Other than that, moral advocacy of liberty is a good thing no matter how imperfectly it is done.

    I would like us to understand that anarcho capitalism is as illogical and as impossible as communism – the incentives don’t work out. And and I would like to eliminate many other of the remaining absurdities of rothbardianism, such as competing legal systems rather than a single logical law of non-parasitism, and the sufficiency of the NAP under physical property.

    On the conservative side thinkers generally are terrible. Even Kirk is a joke. He tries in english to do what the germans excel at: creating a secular christianity. Only Buchannan’s pretty much been right all along and he’s the only social scientist I’ve seen in conservatism.

    Everyone else of note is in the sciences.

    Myself, I write in the language of philosophy but for all intents and purposes I am writing the social scientific basis of law. (Which was about as far from my intentions as I can imagine.)

    I would like us to unify the NEW RIGHT with the Classical Libertarian under rule of law. And what I do not wish to preserve is the jewish attempt to create a separate system inside our system (libertarianism) as we have universalizing their system (communism), an making the world safe for their system (neo-conservatism).

    There is only one moral objective for western man: domestication of man and universe so that we produce an eden(paradise) of it. We do this by one act: the total suppression of involuntary transfer between men, and between man and nature. If we eliminate all involuntary transfers between men, and between man and nature, then all that will remain are voluntary transfers between man and nature, and that is what eden looks like.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 11:35:00 UTC

  • THE CURE FOR SUGGESTION AND DECEIT. Rationalism was invented to attempt to recon

    THE CURE FOR SUGGESTION AND DECEIT.

    Rationalism was invented to attempt to reconstruct christianity without mysticism. I understand the great deceits. It’s but one of them.

    Rationalism’s Obscurantism and Scriptural Mysticism are similar techniques. The Contemporary version uses propaganda and repetition. But the technique is reducible to suggestion by loading framing and overloading in all three. Suggestion works. The science says that we can’t even defend ourselves from it even if we work hard at it.

    This is why we invented analytic philosophy and operational definitions in science. And why I have completed that project with testimonialism and propertarianism.

    To make suggestion impossible.

    At least to make it impossible in matters of finance, politics and law where it can be so readily used for ill.

    Suggestion is necessary or teaching each other by analogy would be impossible.

    Suggestion is necessary or supposition of intent would be impossible.

    Supposition of intent is necessary or cooperation is impossible.

    Cooperation is necessary or a division of labor and exchange is impossible.

    But in all human cooperation and all transfer there is a difference between suggestion of meaning, and the test of truth.

    We have been, as normal humans, attempting to define a single test of truth for millennia. But we have failed.

    Because epistemology requires the transfer of meaning by suggestion, and the test of truth by criticism.

    As such the single most important solution to communication is to limit the divergence between the means of communicating meaning, and the means of criticizing meaning.

    This is what I believe we, I, have accomplished: to speak in a manner that the least difference between meaning and truth exists.

    This is testimonialism and propertarianism.

    The scientific method is a process of creativity followed by criticism. invention followed by testing. Imagination followed by survival from scrutiny.

    The easiest way to limit suggestion is to refer to existential operations using a continuous point of view.

    Operationalism.

    With the tests of operationalism, we slowly train ourselves to speak the truth, just as we have slowly trained ourselves to speak in the language of science instead of the language of mystical analogy.

    And the benefits of this truthfulness will be as great as the benefits of science.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 08:11:00 UTC

  • CURRENT ERA REQUIRES KNOWLEDGEABLE EDITORS. SOURCES NO LONGER HOLD MEANING. JUST

    http://194.44.123.114/THE CURRENT ERA REQUIRES KNOWLEDGEABLE EDITORS. SOURCES NO LONGER HOLD MEANING. JUST THE OPPOSITE.

    Wikipedia:

    Comment on Sourcing.

    There is a significant intellectual problem that Wikipedia is contributing to by seeking traditional (mainstream) sources that supply editorial filtering of content, when the ascent and increasing dominance of political discourse is conducted outside of those traditional circles precisely because those traditional editorial filters have demonstrated consistent bias.

    We see today’s political movements as extremely reactionary, on all three points of the political compass. The contemporary version of Paris in the 20’s is taking place on the internet, and instead of pamphlets that compete against newspapers, we are producing internet content against television, radio, magizine and newspaper. Precisely to overthrow the previous generation of thinkers and the political strategies that they advocate on both sides.

    I’m probably the most influential alt-right philosopher, and my generation of thinkers does not even bother with traditional publications. We work entirely on the net. Because we reach the audience without editorial interference from the status quo. A status quo which both right and left are demonstrably rejecting in the current election.

    – Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    I think you know that are articles are meant to be based on quality sources and not the opinion of editors. – Doug.

    Circular. The question is whether or not you are in fact relying upon quality sources, or making excuses with which to intentionally bias the content. When you use the term ‘quality’, what you mean is ‘sources requiring physical capital to produce’. This is in fact the criteria. The quality of the material is not in fact a criteria. The truth content is not in fact a criteria. Only that it cost someone something to produce it. That is your criteria. In any event. I have better things to do. But falsehood is still falsehood. And in the current era, capital is not relevant. Author and survival of theory from criticism is. Any imbecile can rank capital. It takes specialized knowledge to construct criticism. And capital is no longer a sufficient criteria for determining anything whatsoever. -Curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-10 13:39:00 UTC

  • Love Thyself. Love Thy Kin. Love Thy Nation. But Transcend all of man.

    [I] will say it again. Of course I love my family and tribe above all. But I also wish every other family and tribe to prosper, evolve, and transcend. As far as I can tell, our differences are just differences in skills when we practice truthfulness in all walks of life. And yes, I understand that some groups practice untruthfulness and parasitism as strategies. But that is not a genetic necessity it is a cultural utility. And yes, I understand that some peoples cannot compete without parasitism and untruthfulness. I do not see why to harm them, but I see no value in expanding them. Any man who fights for truth and liberty is my brother. Any man who uses truth and liberty to advance his family and tribe is a nobleman whom I will reciprocally insure. This is how our families and tribes rase each other into transcendence. And it is the way we build numbers in the world with which to domesticate or eliminate the hordes of animals unable to transcend from beast into man.