Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • There is a myth that above 120 IQ, returns are limited. I used to think that abo

    There is a myth that above 120 IQ, returns are limited. I used to think that above 140 IQ returns were limited. Driven largely by the fact that cognitive and social disabilities seem to creep in rather rapidly above the 140s. But the data is looking pretty good now, that if you filter out the disabilities, there really isn’t a point of diminishing returns. What we seem to see is that emotional incentives for personal well being gate performance in very high ranges. So there seems to be over representation of achievement in the 150-160 range compared to the higher ranges. Probably because social bonding with peers is still numerically possible.

    The problem for those of us at the extremes is finding a peer group within our own culture and value system. Otherwise social frustrations consume too much of our time and effort. This is one of the best reasons for the perpetuation of academic families. You feel ‘normal’ in those families above 150 because you’re in a peer social circle.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-05 00:26:00 UTC

  • “THE WHITE FALLACY: THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY” You know, most of my criticism

    “THE WHITE FALLACY: THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY”

    You know, most of my criticisms are directed at the ridiculous beliefs of white people. I don’t blame others for their evolutionary strategy nearly as much as I blame my tribe for it’s vulnerability to the evolutionary strategies of others. Particularly when all that’s being acquired in exchange is short term status signals – the most hedonistic form of conspicuous consumption, by those undeserving of them.

    ON GOVERNMENT

    If you have an aristocratic pagan monarchy and judiciary that denies access to political power, leaving everyone with the necessity of participation in the market, plus rigid property rights including prohibitions on inbreeding and near-breeding, mandatory language adoption, universal standing, and pay-to-enforce rather than redistribution, and the requirement for operationalism in public speech, then I am not sure it matters what religions you rely upon.

    ON RELIGION

    Problem with christianity is it’s anti-rational, anti-tribal, and politically weak because it’s pacifist in its current state. Without the aristocracy to cooperate with the church, it is powerless. The Problem with islam is static knowledge, mystical dogma, anti-rationalism, inbreeding, and un-earned, mandatory respect. Problem with hinduism is mysticism, abandonment of reality and inbreeding. Problem with Buddhism is prescriptive inaction, detachment and inbreeding. Problem with judaism, is institutionalized deception via obscurantism, and parasitism. But regardless of these various verbal means of forcible indoctrination into a system of arbitrary cooperation – monarchy, paganism, property rights and scientific speech (operationalism) limit the damage that can be done by each of ALL of them.

    ON ENFORCEMENT

    The same goes for levels of impulsivity and violence. I am not convinced that the more impulsive tribes would not be better off constraining their own with violence rather than by incarceration, and less impulsive tribes better off constraining their own with ostracization and incarceration. We are unequal in both ability and incentives.

    “THE WHITE FALLACY: THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY”

    This enlightenment fallacy that everyone can join the aristocracy is the source of as much suffering in the world as is the combined mysticism of the scriptural religions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy.

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-04 11:38:00 UTC

  • ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS (truth, optimistic, po

    ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS

    (truth, optimistic, politically incorrect)

    —“The backbone of the race denial movement was a specific radical Jewish subculture that had become entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community by the early twentieth century—the subject of Chapters 2and 3 of The Culture of Critique (see also here). There is excellent evidence for their strong Jewish identifications, their concern with specific Jewish issues such as anti-Semitism, and for their hostility and sense of moral and intellectual superiority toward the traditional people and culture of America.Jonathan Marks is a contemporary example of this long and dishonorable tradition.”—

    Eh… Well, on one hand its true, and there isn’t anything novel about the argument – it’s central to the jewish enlightenment: how to use secular arguments to justify retention of jewish group evolutionary strategy. On the other hand, if a people, white people in this case, are susceptible to self-hatred, excessive gullibility, and universalism, I tend to blame the gullible not those trying to justify fitting into society.

    Whites have an exceptional evolutionary strategy: high trust universalism, cult of the warrior, organized arms, technology, conquest and colonization. This is an evolutionary strategy for a minority that must compete against wealthier and more numerous peoples. Decentralization is a very powerful force for competing against centralized societies better able to concentrate force. Conversely, Jews have traditionally relied upon a more parasitic rather than competitive or colonial strategy. These two strategies actually help one another because each group basically needs the other, because it avoids the specializations of the other.

    But we can’t deny that christians are responsible for predatory colonialism and jews for the promulgation of, and absurd success at, creating pseudosciences and pseudo moral arguments justifying parasitism.

    Just how is is. We whites shouldn’t be exporting war and colonization even if it drags people out of ignorance and poverty. And jews shouldn’t be propagating pseudosciences to justify their inclusion in society while retaining their parasitism. But we do. ‘Cause its been an evolutionary success to do so. And evolutionary success matters. You can criticize someone’s evolutionary success. If it’s guns, germs and steel, or if its pseudoscience and parasitism the difference is irrelevant. They’re both means of predation upon others.

    I tend to not deny the truth of our past actions, but to ask what we can do going forward to take advantage of our natural superiorities without parasitism and predation.

    Curt Doolittle

    (edited and reposted for archival purposes)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-03 15:52:00 UTC

  • Compatibilism: The Compatible Predatory Strategies of Whites and Jews

    ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS (truth, optimistic, politically incorrect) —“The backbone of the race denial movement was a specific radical Jewish subculture that had become entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community by the early twentieth century—the subject of Chapters 2and 3 of The Culture of Critique (see also here). There is excellent evidence for their strong Jewish identifications, their concern with specific Jewish issues such as anti-Semitism, and for their hostility and sense of moral and intellectual superiority toward the traditional people and culture of America.Jonathan Marks is a contemporary example of this long and dishonorable tradition.”— Eh… [W]ell, on one hand its true, and there isn’t anything novel about the argument – it’s central to the jewish enlightenment: how to use secular arguments to justify retention of jewish group evolutionary strategy. On the other hand, if a people, white people in this case, are susceptible to self-hatred, excessive gullibility, and universalism, I tend to blame the gullible not those trying to justify fitting into society. Whites have an exceptional evolutionary strategy: high trust universalism, cult of the warrior, organized arms, technology, conquest and colonization. This is an evolutionary strategy for a minority that must compete against wealthier and more numerous peoples. Decentralization is a very powerful force for competing against centralized societies better able to concentrate force. Conversely, Jews have traditionally relied upon a more parasitic rather than competitive or colonial strategy. These two strategies actually help one another because each group basically needs the other, because it avoids the specializations of the other. But we can’t deny that christians are responsible for predatory colonialism and jews for the promulgation of, and absurd success at, creating pseudosciences and pseudo moral arguments justifying parasitism. Just how is is. We whites shouldn’t be exporting war and colonization even if it drags people out of ignorance and poverty. And jews shouldn’t be propagating pseudosciences to justify their inclusion in society while retaining their parasitism. But we do. ‘Cause its been an evolutionary success to do so. And evolutionary success matters. You can criticize someone’s evolutionary success. If it’s guns, germs and steel, or if its pseudoscience and parasitism the difference is irrelevant. They’re both means of predation upon others. I tend to not deny the truth of our past actions, but to ask what we can do going forward to take advantage of our natural superiorities without parasitism and predation. Curt Doolittle (edited and reposted for archival purposes)

  • Compatibilism: The Compatible Predatory Strategies of Whites and Jews

    ON THE COMPATIBLE PREDATORY STRATEGIES OF WHITES AND JEWS (truth, optimistic, politically incorrect) —“The backbone of the race denial movement was a specific radical Jewish subculture that had become entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community by the early twentieth century—the subject of Chapters 2and 3 of The Culture of Critique (see also here). There is excellent evidence for their strong Jewish identifications, their concern with specific Jewish issues such as anti-Semitism, and for their hostility and sense of moral and intellectual superiority toward the traditional people and culture of America.Jonathan Marks is a contemporary example of this long and dishonorable tradition.”— Eh… [W]ell, on one hand its true, and there isn’t anything novel about the argument – it’s central to the jewish enlightenment: how to use secular arguments to justify retention of jewish group evolutionary strategy. On the other hand, if a people, white people in this case, are susceptible to self-hatred, excessive gullibility, and universalism, I tend to blame the gullible not those trying to justify fitting into society. Whites have an exceptional evolutionary strategy: high trust universalism, cult of the warrior, organized arms, technology, conquest and colonization. This is an evolutionary strategy for a minority that must compete against wealthier and more numerous peoples. Decentralization is a very powerful force for competing against centralized societies better able to concentrate force. Conversely, Jews have traditionally relied upon a more parasitic rather than competitive or colonial strategy. These two strategies actually help one another because each group basically needs the other, because it avoids the specializations of the other. But we can’t deny that christians are responsible for predatory colonialism and jews for the promulgation of, and absurd success at, creating pseudosciences and pseudo moral arguments justifying parasitism. Just how is is. We whites shouldn’t be exporting war and colonization even if it drags people out of ignorance and poverty. And jews shouldn’t be propagating pseudosciences to justify their inclusion in society while retaining their parasitism. But we do. ‘Cause its been an evolutionary success to do so. And evolutionary success matters. You can criticize someone’s evolutionary success. If it’s guns, germs and steel, or if its pseudoscience and parasitism the difference is irrelevant. They’re both means of predation upon others. I tend to not deny the truth of our past actions, but to ask what we can do going forward to take advantage of our natural superiorities without parasitism and predation. Curt Doolittle (edited and reposted for archival purposes)

  • REMINDING MYSELF (AND EVERYONE ELSE) : HOPPE Uniting conservatives and libertari

    REMINDING MYSELF (AND EVERYONE ELSE) : HOPPE

    Uniting conservatives and libertarians once again, and permanently undermining postmodernism requires reforming libertarianism, which in turn seems to require adopting the operationalism of the scientific method as a defense against obscurantism. To reform libertarianism, I have to restate what is currently in that easily criticized, absurdly erroneous continental and cosmopolitan nonsense we call apriorism, and restate it, cleansed of those errors, in ratio-scientific language. The language of science it transparent. Because of that transparency, It is an extremely ethical language. And that is its primary value to our disciplines of ethics, politics and economics.

    But if I do make that restatement of libertarianism in scientific language, and invalidate most of the fallacies in libertarian and austrian arguments, then what does that really mean for libertarianism? What changes? If I invalidate the fallacy of economics as aprioristic rather than empirical, then do Hoppe’s arguments outside of apriorism survive? Of course they do. That economics is an empirical science, and that the current justifications for property rights are fallacious, doesn’t mean that all of hoppe’s arguments based upon property rights do not survive. They do.

    In fact, while an uncomfortable amount of Hans’ work is hero-worship, or promotion of Mises and Rothbard, his own contributions to the criticism of democracy, the necessity of property, the analysis of incentives, and the use of private insurance companies to provide regulation and commons are consistently exceptional. His durability in spite of the failure of Misesian apriorism is a demonstration of the quality of his theories.

    I don’t really see Hoppe addressing Rothbardian ethics so much as property itself. And in all cases I can think of, Hoppe emphasizes the use of institutions to compensate for the limits of rothbardian ethics, rather than justifying rothbardian ethics. (I still have to go over everything or talk to him in person to make sure I understand him on this matter or not.)

    I am pretty sure I have put a permanent death sentence upon rothbardian ethics already – particularly the fallacy of aggression (NAP/IVP). And I am very close to doing the same to misesian apriorism and the fallacy of economics as non-empirical. But the basis of libertarian POLITICAL ECONOMY is constituted in property rights, the (private) common law, an independent judiciary, and the use of competing insurance organizations to provide regulatory services for the commons. And all of those bases survive my criticisms of Rothbardian “ghetto” ethics, and misesian Continental apriorism.

    Even if, as some have argued, Hoppe’s critique of Democracy is a restatement of Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and not an innovation in itself. Even if argumentation ethics fail the test of sufficiency. Even if misesian apriorism is a fallacy. Even if rothbardian ethics and the NAP were more harmful to the pursuit of liberty than beneficial. Hoppe’s contribution to formal institutions would survive. And more importantly, and most importantly, his successful completion of the program of reducing all ethics and politics to statements of the voluntary exchange of property as a rigorous form of argument would survive.

    And it is that particular lesson that I learned from him. And the profundity of that lesson, is one that the world has been missing for two thousand five hundred years. The missing logic of cooperation which we call ‘ethics’, is nearly solved. And by adapting Ostrom’s form to Hoppe’s property, we can finish the formal logic of cooperation. And fulfill the promise that mises intuited, but could not himself solve. He knew too little of logic and mathematics, and we had not yet understood computability at the time. Rothbard was a good historian and a terrible philosopher. Hoppe turns out to have been a pretty important philosopher in the history of ideas.

    That is, if we complete this work based upon his, before someone else does and deprives hans of the credit.

    Credit is due.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-01 11:54:00 UTC

  • (movies)(fun) Finally saw the Alien 3 Assembly Cut, which is the film restored t

    (movies)(fun)

    Finally saw the Alien 3 Assembly Cut, which is the film restored to close to original director’s intent. And a bad movie became a good one. The studio massacres so many movies.

    While Orlando Bloom was an odd choice of leading man, Kingdom of Heaven must be seen in the director’s cut – in which it’s a totally different movie.

    Blade Runner must be seen in the director’s cut as well, without the voiceover.

    I would love to see 13th Warrior restored along the same lines to McTiernan’s original vision. That would be legendary.

    This whole philosophy of ‘cutting to the minimum’ is an artifact of a period in time, and is not the absolute truth we take it to be, and I would like to see that removed from both literature and film. Your sense of character building in the editing room is not the same as our sense of character building as a member of the first-view audience. More is better. Very rarely are cut scenes as disposable as the editor believes.

    We know that the success of the animated children’s movies is in their emphasis on characters. Special effects are only as interesting as the characters and their journey. Good films will require two things to occur:

    (a) less global targeting of blockbusters, which dilute the moral message that can be contained in movies.

    (b) exhaustion of special effects of the digital age and return to character development.

    Both of these should happen as the studio system continues to fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-31 12:16:00 UTC

  • ON “MANSPLAINING” A few weeks ago, Alice Townes justly ridiculed men for ‘man-sp

    ON “MANSPLAINING”

    A few weeks ago, Alice Townes justly ridiculed men for ‘man-splaining’. And, since I spend so much time in coffee shops, restaurants and clubs, I’ve been actively watching the crowd for incidents of mansplaining. And like anything that you begin to notice once you start looking for it, I started seeing it everywhere. Because it’s going on everywhere. And now I have this terrible urge to start collecting pictures of the female face of ‘listening to mainsplaining’.

    I’m pretty vocal about criticizing female solipsism, rallying and shaming. And I try to somewhat raise awareness of the problem of aspie logical autism, individualism and emotional blindness, so that I might help guys on my end of the spectrum with self awareness, in order to improve their feelings of membership in the human race.

    So, I think I’ll explore the idea of promoting solutions to man-splaining. Because the truth is, men are never going to be collectively solipsistic (treating feelings as material) and women are never going to politically autistic (treating facts as the only material). Because in no small part this is what it means to be man and woman.

    This is why women are as ‘dumb’ about anything political and material as men are ‘dumb’ about anything empathic and experiential.

    Celebrate our differences. We’re not equal, we’re compatible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-31 11:08:00 UTC

  • A Journal Of Aristocratic Government – Of Voluntary Exchanges

    A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine

  • A Journal Of Aristocratic Government – Of Voluntary Exchanges

    A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine