Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE THIRD WAY (the end of history) IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY I am not sure how Fuk

    THE THIRD WAY (the end of history) IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY

    I am not sure how Fukuyama missed it, other than it seems like all throughout his career he seeks to justify his theory of monopoly bureaucracy, and his admiration of Sinic civilization.

    He investigates the problems of bureaucracy under democracy – the failure to develop an independent professional bureaucracy first, and then democracy, such that patronage jobs are not given out.

    But he does not demonstrate that the public intellectual class and private companies would not create problems of the Deep State’s self maximization of self interest, the parasitism of bureaucracy, and the bureaucracy’s attempt to eliminate all competition, and it’s enforced stagnation.

    To create a high trust society one requires (a) a near universal militia (b) private property rights, independent judiciary (‘priesthood’) and rule of law proper (c) a natural nobility with long term interest in the territory, (d) insurers of last resort operated by professionals.

    One does not require a monopoly bureaucracy. It is an admission of the failure of a people to develop and maintain rule of law.

    One requires rule of law, law sufficiently articulated that it is inescapable (decidable), and universal standing such that the people can make use of it to control anyone acting in a public capacity in addition to private capacity.

    If the basis of law is articulated as the total prohibition on free riding in all its forms, including: violence, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, invasion and conquest; and if we defend the informational commons from pollution (“Abusus”), by requiring proof of existence and morality in any claim of common good; and if we construct a market for the construction of commons between the classes; then the end of history is not as Fukuyama claims – the professional bureaucracy.

    Instead, the professional bureaucracy is yet another example of the failure of a people to develop an answer to the problem of politics, ethics, economics and the social sciences.

    Chinese failed first to solve the problem of politics. They created the monopoly state first, and never discovered the rule of law. And in doing so, they failed first.

    The end of history – at least the end of history that we can see today – is the truthful society. And democratic polities of all stripes are yet another failure to construct rule of law applicable to every living soul.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-28 02:40:00 UTC

  • Why The Anne Hathaway Effect? The Cold Hard Truth: Shaming Alphas

    [W]e have overwhelming data, in all walks of life, that shows that ‘beta’ women and ‘beta’ males fear standards (other’s behavior) that they cannot themselves adhere to, and that are existential reminders of the inferiority of their social standing. The technique that they use to vent their self loathing is gossip. Or what we call “rallying and shaming”. There are three purposes to Rallying and Shaming. (a) To alter the public perception of what is admirable, (b) to deprive the exceptional person of status signals (c) to decrease the relative distance between the ‘beta’ and the ‘alpha’. We see this technique used pervasively in economics and politics under ‘inequality’, in the gender wars as ‘paternalism’, in the race wars as ‘privilege’, and in the arts as subjectivism. But in all cases, it is the same behavior: the less desirable, able, and articulate, polluting excellence so that it is not copied by others, by rallying and shaming against those who are objectively their superiors. By shaming what is objectively superior, they hope to prevent being ‘left behind’ as inferiors, and to maintain their relative social standing – at least in their own minds, and among their peers. This strategy is known as ‘keeping each other down.”

  • Why The Anne Hathaway Effect? The Cold Hard Truth: Shaming Alphas

    [W]e have overwhelming data, in all walks of life, that shows that ‘beta’ women and ‘beta’ males fear standards (other’s behavior) that they cannot themselves adhere to, and that are existential reminders of the inferiority of their social standing. The technique that they use to vent their self loathing is gossip. Or what we call “rallying and shaming”. There are three purposes to Rallying and Shaming. (a) To alter the public perception of what is admirable, (b) to deprive the exceptional person of status signals (c) to decrease the relative distance between the ‘beta’ and the ‘alpha’. We see this technique used pervasively in economics and politics under ‘inequality’, in the gender wars as ‘paternalism’, in the race wars as ‘privilege’, and in the arts as subjectivism. But in all cases, it is the same behavior: the less desirable, able, and articulate, polluting excellence so that it is not copied by others, by rallying and shaming against those who are objectively their superiors. By shaming what is objectively superior, they hope to prevent being ‘left behind’ as inferiors, and to maintain their relative social standing – at least in their own minds, and among their peers. This strategy is known as ‘keeping each other down.”

  • An Insight into the Damage by Monotheism and Psychology to Western Thought

    [J]ust an insight into one of the many ways authoritarian cosmopolitan pseudoscience of psychology has damaged our world view: introversion is the result of deep thinking, and ‘neuroticism’ (worry) is the result of deep thinking. Both of which are criticized rather than rewarded. Everyone else is just ‘noise’ without the deep thinkers. My work on Propertarianism taught me to see us as locally specialized ants, and that there is no such thing as an ideal individual other than one who does so honestly and knowingly. Our observable personalities advocate for acquisition on behalf of our genes. Because of our different reproductive costs, very desirable males, very desirable females, and every gradation in between, is merely negotiating using his or her necessary strategy. What makes us ‘crazy’ is when we construct lies. MONOTHEISM did this damage via ‘one-ness’. That’s how damaging it is. It’s freaking tragic. Polytheism did not do this to us. This is a profound restatement of the nature of man. We are expensive creatures. We must act to acquire ‘property’ – that which we inventory for our own use and consumption. Cooperation is so disproportionately rewarding a means of acquisition we must bias in favor of cooperation to acquire. But cooperation invites parasitism. So we must act to punish violations of cooperation. And cooperation is always an act of experiment: trial and error. So we must preserve non-cooperation in our genes in order to ensure that unlike lemmings, we break off when cooperation is no longer in our interests. This is man. Everything else is accumulated lie. Most of it from babylonian and levantine deceit. Meanwhile in every epoch europeans seek to overturn this authoritarian deceit and return to our pagan egalitarian origins. Propertarianism tells us how. (a) we are all different and therefore need our own ‘gods’ for use in our own virtue ethics. (b) Monotheism is more damaging because of ‘one-ness’ (and equality) whereas polytheism (correctly) preserves differences (and hierarchy). (c) Perfect rulers are infallible and demand we obey(positivism), and imperfect rules are not always working in our interests and demand only we do not irritate them (falsificationism). Freudian Psychology further expanded one-ness and servitude by demanding conformity to a personality type that could be forcibly indoctrinated through peer pressure, guilt and shaming (and it worked), whereas polytheistic reasoning, and darwinian reasoning, and scientific analysis tell us that we each fulfill niche’s that need exploiting. Monotheism, 20th century Democracy, and Freudian psychology, all perpetuate a catastrophic fallacy of man. But why was this fallacy developed? Well, in Judaism it was developed for the same reason monotheism was developed between the Iranians and the Indians, who were originally the same people: to put them into conflict so that the Iranians could be controlled (by lying). Just as the jews needed a reason to unite different primitive tribes (by lying). Whereas in the west we did not encounter this problem since rule was achieved by arms, not deceit. It was only once Rome was too weak to enforce rule by arms that Justinian closed the schools and imposed christianity on the west. The value of christianity is in that it was ‘germanicized’ and that the central proposition: extension of kin love to non-kin was useful in uniting Europe under christian kings sanctioned by the church. This criticism of ‘monopoly’ and ‘monotheism’ and ‘one-ness’ and ‘equality’ is an application of the propertarian principle of the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy, between the consumptive (feminine) productive (libertarian), and accumulative (conservative) biases, wherein the only means by which we can make use of all available perception, cognition, and knowledge in the spectrum, is to conduct voluntary exchanges between the classes in that division of perception, cognition, and knowledge, just as the only means by which we can make use of the knowledge in the market is by voluntary exchange, money, prices, and contract. This a profound reformulation of the enlightenment vision of man, and the necessary form of government that assists him in production, reproduction, and genetic persistence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Testimonialism, Propertarianism, New Classical liberalism. The Propertarian Institute , Kiev, Ukraine.

  • The Return of Wisdom?

    [T]he terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion. First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”. An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms? We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise. Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics). Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues. Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe. One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists. So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience. Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences. Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine Source: Curt Doolittle

  • The Return of Wisdom?

    [T]he terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion. First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”. An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms? We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise. Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics). Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues. Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe. One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists. So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience. Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences. Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine Source: Curt Doolittle

  • THE RETURN OF WISDOM The terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fash

    THE RETURN OF WISDOM

    The terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion.

    First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”.

    An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms?

    We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise.

    Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics).

    Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues.

    Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe.

    One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists.

    So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience.

    Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences.

    Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-26 03:20:00 UTC

  • THE THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAWS (Natural Law is an exc

    THE THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, AND THE EVOLUTION OF LAWS

    (Natural Law is an excuse that justifies indo-european / Hanseatic property rights)

    There are only three means of coercion (weapons of influence), although they can be, and are frequently, used in concert:

    1) Force (threatening, punishing, killing)

    2) Remuneration (payment/opportunity – boycott/deprivation)

    3) Gossip (rallying, shaming, ostracizing)

    We can engage in force to create property, remuneration once we possess it, and gossip to advocate it. Or we can do just the opposite.

    The Jewish historical method is to apply the female reproductive strategy (gossip), because they lack the numbers (and the ability) to fight. Westerners took the libertarian strategy(synthesis). The barbarians take the masculine strategy of predation.

    Jewish law, Islamic law, and Natural Law represent the three attempts to construct a legal system on first principles. However, jewish and islamic maintained ingroup/outgroup polylogical ethics, mysticism and authoritarianism.

    Natural law (which propertarianism translates from rational to scientific, just as lock translated it from theological to rational) is typically western attempt at science (“without intent”), by stating that these principles are required for flourishing – which is true. However, that is the reverse logic. The obverse is that these rules are required for voluntary cooperation and the voluntary organization of production, and to suppress parasitism of the people by the rulers(nobility), governors(politicians), and state (bureaucracy).

    I do not use the term natural law for propertarainism, just as I do not use critical rationalism for testimonialism. The reason being that these archaic terms are too loaded and open to bias and interpretation. But for all intents and purposes I have continued the Natural Law tradition, just as the natural law philosophers continued the greek and roman traditions: noble families would not surrender power to a tyrant and as such required rules of voluntary cooperation. Just

    So I see the battle between western science, libertarianism, universalism, and truth telling and eastern pseudoscience, authoritarianism, separatism, and deceit, as continuing.

    We first had an invasion of babylonian mysticism and authoritarianism.

    Then we had an invasion of Christianity.

    Then we had the invasion of Marxism/Boazianism/freudianism (pseudoscience)

    Then we had the invasion of Cultural Marxism (ridicule of excellence – shaming us for our excellences.)

    Three waves of increasingly articulate lies.

    The only way to defeat lying as a strategy, is to defeat lying altogether as a possible strategy, just as we have defeated every other form of fraud.

    Testimonialism and the legal protection of the informational commons under universal standing may seem a bit expensive.

    But it is less expensive than the alternatives: the ongoing conquest of the west. And the loss of the truth telling civilisation to another dark age.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 05:49:00 UTC

  • WHY THE ANNE HATHAWAY EFFECT? THE COLD HARD TRUTH: SHAMING ALPHAS We have overwh

    WHY THE ANNE HATHAWAY EFFECT? THE COLD HARD TRUTH: SHAMING ALPHAS

    We have overwhelming data, in all walks of life, that shows that ‘beta’ women and ‘beta’ males fear standards (other’s behavior) that they cannot themselves adhere to, and that are existential reminders of the inferiority of their social standing.

    The technique that they use to vent their self loathing is gossip. Or what we call “rallying and shaming”. There are three purposes to Rallying and Shaming. (a) To alter the public perception of what is admirable, (b) to deprive the exceptional person of status signals (c) to decrease the relative distance between the ‘beta’ and the ‘alpha’.

    We see this technique used pervasively in economics and politics under ‘inequality’, in the gender wars as ‘paternalism’, in the race wars as ‘privilege’, and in the arts as subjectivism. But in all cases, it is the same behavior: the less desirable, able, and articulate, polluting excellence so that it is not copied by others, by rallying and shaming against those who are objectively their superiors.

    By shaming what is objectively superior, they hope to prevent being ‘left behind’ as inferiors, and to maintain their relative social standing – at least in their own minds, and among their peers. This strategy is known as ‘keeping each other down.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 03:36:00 UTC

  • ITS ABOUT LYING BY RUSSIANS AND UTOPIANISM BY AMERICANS I don’t disagree with Ru

    ITS ABOUT LYING BY RUSSIANS AND UTOPIANISM BY AMERICANS

    I don’t disagree with Russian strategy in the sense that more civilized peoples should both protect themselves from less civilized people, support strong rulers if they must, rule them if they must, and reduce them to servitude or barbarism if they must.

    I disagree that Russians are more civilized than eastern europeans – they’re objectively not: the degree of suppression of free riding (imposed cost, parasitism) is the objective measure of the inferiority or superiority of any people.) By this measure Russians regress civil societies.

    And even more, I disagree with their constant lying about themselves, and what they’re doing. Lying is not a sign of strength. It is an admission of weakness. It is an admission of failure. The strong need not lie.

    If Russians came out and said the truth: that they are surrounded on the south and east by vast numbers of barbarians even less civilized than themselves, and that they must either rule them or parent them into modernity, then most of us would agree with them – it’s just true by every single objective measure. I don’t understand why Russians shouldn’t parent their neighbors into modernity or at least contain them through strong rule.

    If they came out and said the truth: that western democracy has handed over civilization to barbarians both old and new, due largely to the destructive impulses of women, then that also would be true. If they came out and said that they must create a diverse economy, increase their native population, expand rule of law and crush corruption, and that they need oil revenues captured by the state to do so, we would understand.

    But, they lie. If Russians are really strong and brave and in the right. then why are all the lies necessary? Because they know the opposite is true: Russia is weak, has always been weak, and Moscow has overstretched its capabilities beyond those of its population, economy, and institutions – just like the Mongols did. Russians still are the product of mongol invasion. They never developed a militia, a middle class, professional managers, chivalry, rule of law, or the enlightenment, or the dream of an aristocracy of everyone.

    Conversely, westerner’s don’t lie you know. We vary from the Continentally optimistic, to the anglo idealistic, to the american christian utopian. Americans actually believe their utopian ideology and its marxist and christian origins. That’s what is wrong with America and the west. They believe the fallacy of equality.

    The truth is in the middle: between Russian Paternalism and Western Truth Telling. And exclusive of Russian nihilistic lying and Western utopianism. And it is the truth that will unite us.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-24 05:01:00 UTC