Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Religions Come In Many Forms

    [T]o act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.

    Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology. I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific.

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • ON GAYS, GAY MARRIAGE, AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF BREAKING THE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE (

    ON GAYS, GAY MARRIAGE, AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF BREAKING THE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE

    (interesting) (some novel ideas)

    Two over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travellers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.)

    I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilisation. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really.

    But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives.

    But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism.

    And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant.

    I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratically regulate reproduction through property rights.

    Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either.

    The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment.

    I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange.

    Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject.

    So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now.

    If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law.

    And that’s my plan.

    And it’s working.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-16 05:32:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSALISM: LOVE OF MAN Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I al

    UNIVERSALISM: LOVE OF MAN

    Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.

    I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes.

    There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference.

    A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher.

    ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION.

    Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict.

    I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia.

    But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites.

    Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone.

    Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 07:11:00 UTC

  • ON REPAIRING WESTERN PRESS Roman got me thinking last week, about the central di

    ON REPAIRING WESTERN PRESS

    Roman got me thinking last week, about the central difficulty with western press’ reliance on telling both sides of the STATED story, instead of whether they tell the truth given the INCENTIVES of both sides, regardless of what they state.

    Telling both sides merely gives the liars equal air play as the truth tellers.

    And it’s much easier for a ‘journalist’ to report on someone’s feelings, and speech than it is to report on facts and incentives. It’s much easier to create moral outrage or high ground with verbalism that obscures incentives, rather than the incentives themselves.

    To report ‘scientifically’ is possible with propertarian incentives and testimonial truth. We can systematically criticize what people say, and report on their incentives rather than their propaganda.

    But that means retraining a lot of ‘journalists’ and eliminating the perverse incentives that we have produced with the popular press.

    And the press, who free rides on destruction of the informational commons, may not like carrying the burden. On the other hand, we would have a lot fewer ‘journalists’ and they would be highly respected – and highly paid.

    And I think that’s something all of us would like.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 04:02:00 UTC

  • What Is The Significance Of Jean Baudrillardâ´s For A Critique Of The Political Economy Of The Sign?

    As an activist philosopher engaged in restoring modernism I see Baudrillard’s work as one of the death rattles of postmodernism.  

    But that does not mean that it is not possible to restate some of his ideas in ratio-scientific terms.  And that is, that as we grow in prosperity, our patterns of consumption changes from survival, to risk reduction, to fulfillment, to purely signaling.  And that much of the consumer economy consists of little more than signaling. 

    Unfortunately, by couching his thought in postmodern pseudoscience, empty verbalism,  and pretense of reason, he doomed his contributions to the dustbin of history along with all of marxism.

    The more interesting question is when does such signaling become lying?  When are signals of falsehoods occurring at the expense of material improvement of life?

    That’s a problem I haven’t spent much time on, but I think it’s the scientific means of exploring his ideas.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-significance-of-Jean-Baudrillard´s-For-a-Critique-of-the-Political-Economy-of-the-Sign

  • RELIGIONS COME IN MANY FORMS To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict

    RELIGIONS COME IN MANY FORMS

    To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we requre a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of cognitive labor.

    Progressivism: Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible cannot be possible). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology.

    I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and unscientific.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-11 07:59:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINES. YOU’RE INFECTED. BUT WE HAVE A CURE: PROPERTARIANISM Dear Cosmopolit

    LIBERTINES. YOU’RE INFECTED. BUT WE HAVE A CURE: PROPERTARIANISM

    Dear Cosmopolitan Libertines:

    You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders.

    So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.)

    And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park).

    And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law).

    And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade.

    Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert.

    You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason.

    And you’ve been infected.

    It’s OK. We have a cure.

    Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-09 09:02:00 UTC

  • Aristocratic Libertarianism vs Ghetto Libertinism

    [Y]ou know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

    So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity. I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism. So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading. And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media. So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty. And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities. We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism. And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.