Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Q&a: Curt: Can We Shape Capitalism Or Is It Just Demographics?

    —Do you think that national culture can shape capitalism to be an effective force without the downward shift of consumer choice tending toward mass culture, and government corruption? Or does it all come down to demographics?—It’s just demographics and redistribution. Better demographics, more homogenous demographics greater redistribution lower personal consumption for the purpose of signaling.

  • Q&a: Curt: What’s Your Criticism Of Kant?

    —Curt, Thanks for doing this. I would appreciate it if you could expand upon your criticism of Kant and what exactly he got wrong (and what he got right if anything). What is the problem with Critique of Pure Reason?— I think anyone can read wikipedia and understand the philosophical criticisms of Kant. I think most of us understand that there are problems of internal consistency, and of obscurantism, that allow him to reason from vague generalizations to specifics, and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rahter than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call empiricism but is reducible to the sequence: free association, question, hypothesis, theory, law. Secondly, He did this in order to sew doubt. (which was Rand’s criticism). He wanted to sew doubt in order to attack empiricism. Thirdly, He was seeking a way to preserve germanic christianity in rational post-mystical terms as a means of AVOIDING the challenge posed by empiricism – and the vast literary nonsense that constittutes german (continental) philosophy is evidence of the damage he has done. And the use of his work by generations of pseudoscientists that followed him (Marx and Freud, Mises and Rothbard, The Frankfurt School, the posmodernists, and just about every other miscreant group of pseudo intellectuals) each took his verbal obscurantism as a method of overloading, suggestino, and deceit, to new heights, producing in the end, what we call, political correctness (outright lying), and the total destruction of social science under an ocean of postmodern pseudorational and pseudoscientific analogistic babble. So is his categorical imperative incorrect? No. But he is the inventor of pseudorationalism as a substitute for mysticism. As such it is his TECHNIQUE that is nothing but an enormous justificationary network designed to preserve church, monarchy, and state, order using pseudo-rational rather than mystical speech, out of fear that individual sovereignty and empirical analysis would threaten that order. Kant was a very bright man who created the rhetorical equivalent of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. And while the authors of the bomb rependted, and so have their followers, kant and his followers revel in the ongoing damage he has done. If you read the European Right, the reason they fail is they are stuck in kant’s restatement of christianity – still servants of nonsense, appealing to emotion using the pretense of reason, rather than appealing to reason regardless of emotional response. Because that’s what science means: cleansed of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&a: Curt: What’s Your Criticism Of Kant?

    —Curt, Thanks for doing this. I would appreciate it if you could expand upon your criticism of Kant and what exactly he got wrong (and what he got right if anything). What is the problem with Critique of Pure Reason?— I think anyone can read wikipedia and understand the philosophical criticisms of Kant. I think most of us understand that there are problems of internal consistency, and of obscurantism, that allow him to reason from vague generalizations to specifics, and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rahter than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call empiricism but is reducible to the sequence: free association, question, hypothesis, theory, law. Secondly, He did this in order to sew doubt. (which was Rand’s criticism). He wanted to sew doubt in order to attack empiricism. Thirdly, He was seeking a way to preserve germanic christianity in rational post-mystical terms as a means of AVOIDING the challenge posed by empiricism – and the vast literary nonsense that constittutes german (continental) philosophy is evidence of the damage he has done. And the use of his work by generations of pseudoscientists that followed him (Marx and Freud, Mises and Rothbard, The Frankfurt School, the posmodernists, and just about every other miscreant group of pseudo intellectuals) each took his verbal obscurantism as a method of overloading, suggestino, and deceit, to new heights, producing in the end, what we call, political correctness (outright lying), and the total destruction of social science under an ocean of postmodern pseudorational and pseudoscientific analogistic babble. So is his categorical imperative incorrect? No. But he is the inventor of pseudorationalism as a substitute for mysticism. As such it is his TECHNIQUE that is nothing but an enormous justificationary network designed to preserve church, monarchy, and state, order using pseudo-rational rather than mystical speech, out of fear that individual sovereignty and empirical analysis would threaten that order. Kant was a very bright man who created the rhetorical equivalent of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. And while the authors of the bomb rependted, and so have their followers, kant and his followers revel in the ongoing damage he has done. If you read the European Right, the reason they fail is they are stuck in kant’s restatement of christianity – still servants of nonsense, appealing to emotion using the pretense of reason, rather than appealing to reason regardless of emotional response. Because that’s what science means: cleansed of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: Two Questions: Operationalism, And Nick Land.

    First, I don’t use the term ‘verifiable’ because that implies the fallacy of justificationism. For a general rule to exist and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*: categorical consistency,
    internal consistency,
    external consistency,
    moral consistency,
    scope consistency(limits, full accounting, and parsimony). So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions. When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true. TWO: NICK LAND I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful. Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument. I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: Two Questions: Operationalism, And Nick Land.

    First, I don’t use the term ‘verifiable’ because that implies the fallacy of justificationism. For a general rule to exist and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*: categorical consistency,
    internal consistency,
    external consistency,
    moral consistency,
    scope consistency(limits, full accounting, and parsimony). So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions. When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true. TWO: NICK LAND I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful. Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument. I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&a: How Do You Propose We Restore Eugenics?

    Aug 15, 2016 2:07pm—You wrote earlier about the differences in races being, in part, a difficulty for certain peoples to cull the lower classes. Would you be in favour of an organized plan of eugenics in order to correct this?— I advocate that we are not conducting a trade with the lower classes, and harming our civilization and mankind. They have nothing to trade in the market, and we do not permit or assist them in exit, yet we make the pay the high behavioral costs of observing private and public property rights. So I advocate we pay them rather than demand payment for nothing in return. I have no problem paying people for demonstrating normative behaviors, and perhaps participating in the maintenance of the commons. And restricting to one child and no immigration below graduate level education is sufficient within just a few generations to hollow out the lower classes. Especially if we literally pay educated women in above 106 to have children. Demographics produce deterministic results. We aren’t equal. And worse, the people at the bottom are ‘worse’ or all of us than the people at the top are ‘good’ for all of us. This is just true. Enough lies. We’ve not completely domesticated the planet. In fact, we’ve only domesticated a small piece of it, and we’re reducing that three-thousand year effort every day. But we will have to use direct violence, rather than indirect reproductive violence to negotiate that exchange. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&a: How Do You Propose We Restore Eugenics?

    Aug 15, 2016 2:07pm—You wrote earlier about the differences in races being, in part, a difficulty for certain peoples to cull the lower classes. Would you be in favour of an organized plan of eugenics in order to correct this?— I advocate that we are not conducting a trade with the lower classes, and harming our civilization and mankind. They have nothing to trade in the market, and we do not permit or assist them in exit, yet we make the pay the high behavioral costs of observing private and public property rights. So I advocate we pay them rather than demand payment for nothing in return. I have no problem paying people for demonstrating normative behaviors, and perhaps participating in the maintenance of the commons. And restricting to one child and no immigration below graduate level education is sufficient within just a few generations to hollow out the lower classes. Especially if we literally pay educated women in above 106 to have children. Demographics produce deterministic results. We aren’t equal. And worse, the people at the bottom are ‘worse’ or all of us than the people at the top are ‘good’ for all of us. This is just true. Enough lies. We’ve not completely domesticated the planet. In fact, we’ve only domesticated a small piece of it, and we’re reducing that three-thousand year effort every day. But we will have to use direct violence, rather than indirect reproductive violence to negotiate that exchange. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • How Do We Shift The Overton Window

    Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk about our ideas in public and on campus again?— Moral men need a reason to demand change under the threat of violence. We need to give them: 1) a set of demands to alter the status quo. 2) a plan of transition 3) a means of rebellion And I”m working on it. There is no alternative to violence. Just get others to grow a pair. Because we’re going to have a revolution. And the best revolution is one where the enemy is so certain of defeat that they come to the table to compromise. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • How Do We Shift The Overton Window

    Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk about our ideas in public and on campus again?— Moral men need a reason to demand change under the threat of violence. We need to give them: 1) a set of demands to alter the status quo. 2) a plan of transition 3) a means of rebellion And I”m working on it. There is no alternative to violence. Just get others to grow a pair. Because we’re going to have a revolution. And the best revolution is one where the enemy is so certain of defeat that they come to the table to compromise. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: “Curt: Does Eugenic Reproduction Place Too Much Power In The Hands Of Government?”

    Great question, let’s take another example: Economists argue one group is correct or incorrect, but this is false framing of the discipline. The discipline of economics can be broken into three schools that describe a degree of discretion. The Austrian(aristocratic/ conservative) school pursues social science: the means by which we improve (reduce the frictions) of cooperation, without interfering in (lying) the information system we call the economy. The Chicago(classical liberal / libertarian) school pursues rule of law: we can interfere as long as those engaged in planning understand the rules under which we will interfere, and that they are non discretionary, and non-arbitrary, formulae. This achieves the desired result of compensating for ‘stuck’ patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, but does so ‘truthfully’ and ‘transparently’ and ‘predictably’. The saltwater(left/social democratic) school seeks the maximum interference (lying) that we can perform that will produce the maximum amount of consumption, under the assumption that we can repair externalities using the same tools at a later date, and that the benefits of discretionary rule to those who engage in planning is sufficient to compensate for their increased risk and hardship. The same is true for eugenic policies. We cannot do much under the non-interference of social science except attempt to educate others on the consequences of reproduction – yet they are the most impulsive and least open to education.
    We can construct rule of law under which we pay people subsidies for single children, and anyone can prosecute anyone on behalf of the commons, if it’s violated, and people will be involuntarily sterilized, lose their subsidies, and be sent to the desert to live in unpleasant communes (slums) for their crimes. If sterilization is legal and subsidy is highest for non-child bearing women, and lower for child bearing women, and non-existent and accompanies by punishment for multiple childbearing women, then this is merely rule of law.
    There is no government intervention here other than the courts. I think the opposite is true, is that we must expand rule of law and eliminate government discretion. Not just in economics, but throughout the production of commons. Markets not government. Rule of law, not discretion. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute