Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Q&A: “CURT: DOES EUGENIC REPRODUCTION PLACE TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF GOVER

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:28:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk abou

    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 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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:11:00 UTC

  • Q&A: HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE RESTORE EUGENICS? —You wrote earlier about the diff

    Q&A: HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE RESTORE EUGENICS?

    —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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:07:00 UTC

  • Q&A: TWO QUESTIONS: OPERATIONALISM, AND NICK LAND. First, I don’t use the term ‘

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:01:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: WHAT’S YOUR CRITICISM OF KANT? —Curt, Thanks for doing this. I woul

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:48:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: CAN WE SHAPE CAPITALISM OR IS IT JUST DEMOGRAPHICS? —Do you think t

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:33:00 UTC

  • Q&A: A GENTLE EUGENICS? –What is the gentlest way to restrain underclass reprod

    Q&A: A GENTLE EUGENICS?

    –What is the gentlest way to restrain underclass reproduction?–

    The gentlest way to restrain underclass reproduction is to be honest about it, transfer from services to direct redistribution, and to make redistribution contingent on single child reproduction, and offer free sterilization after the fist birth, and require sterilization of those with severe histories in the family (we have studies on this it’s pretty obvious stuff).

    And secondly to limit immigration to those with IQ’s 125 and above.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: IS THERE ANY MORALITY BEYOND SELF INTEREST?”— —“Do you believ

    Q&A: —“CURT: IS THERE ANY MORALITY BEYOND SELF INTEREST?”—

    —“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—

    I don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.

    Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).

    When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.

    We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.

    So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.

    Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.

    Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.

    So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.

    There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).

    I hope this provided the answer you sought.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:52:00 UTC

  • exactly

    exactly.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 03:51:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765033195670765568

    Reply addressees: @TEDTalks @d3lilley

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/760816295738826752

    IN REPLY TO:

    @TEDTalks

    “We are one of the loneliest societies that has ever been.” https://t.co/r8zIyU5xoD

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/760816295738826752

  • Mr. Doolittle, From my (very limited) knowledge of your work, you seem very conc

    http://propertarianism.com/reading-list—“Hi Mr. Doolittle, From my (very limited) knowledge of your work, you seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.

    Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights? From what I’ve seen, most of us favor an overall capitalistic economic structure with the caveat that economic activity should support the nation, both financially and morally (spiritually?), such as through the limiting of pornography and the banning of usury (actual usury, such as predatory lending terms, not merely interest on capital), and limiting the activity of foreign interests in domestic issues. I ask whether you think it’s a weakness that we don’t discuss this because even though there is a general consensus, I dislike having blind spots in my worldview.

    Lastly, have you read James Burnham’s Managerial Revolution and/or Sam Francis’ follow-up Leviathan and its enemies? If so, what were your thoughts on the theory presented re: the transformation of capitalist society to a managerial society?”—

    Great questions. I”m going to reframe the first one:

    –“ou seem very concerned with legal rights and economic questions (based upon a moral framework), which is a definite departure from many on the Alt-Right who focus primarily on socio-political issues.”–

    I’ll restate this as I try to unify science, morality, law, and philosophy into a single discipline that merely requires we speak truthfully in matters of the commons, and I advocate the forcible restructuring of our institutions using the language of institutions: law.

    What you see in the alt right, despite the alt right’s embrace of science, is the perpetuation of moral language. The question is, if we evolved from supernatural to reason, to rationalism, to science, and in my work “complete scientific realism”, then why would people continue to argue in reasonable and rational terms, and partly scientific terms, when scientific and completely scientific are available?

    Well, there are four reasons: (a) moral language helps us rally and shame. (b) moral language helps us with catharsis, (c) moral language is intuitionistic even if unscientific, and (d) scientific l language is none of the above.

    So to simplify that, I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer.

    —“Do you think it’s a weakness of our movement to avoid discussion of economic & legal rights?”—

    All rights are contractually exchanged, that’s the only way they can exist. Natural rights are those we generally require if we are to avoid conflict with one another, and foster cooperation and competition with one another. Otherwise they’re not contract rights or natural rights, but legislative rights enforced by an insurer of last resort. We do not contract for our rights. In our case the government is an insurer. And the government works to construct LEGISLATIVE rights, not NATURAL RIGHTS.

    SO in answer to your question, it’s not useful to discuss rights other than those we require.

    Instead, I’ve stated it differently: that our position can, and must be, that the only reason we do not use our wealth of personal violence, group violence, and organized violence, to construct legal rights in our interests alone at the expense of other’s desired natural rights, is if we all possess natural rights and natural rights alone.

    So I’ve tried to restore the reality of political philosophy to the state prior to the set of lies we created in order to justify adding women to the franchise, in an equivalent house, rather than in their own separate house of government: that the only reason to forgo our desire to rule in our own self interest, is if we rule by rule of law in one another’s equal interest. And if that is not the case, then we simply license parasitism and our own destruction.

    The first question of ethics and politics is ‘why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff’. It’s only after we’ve decided that we will cooperate that we enter the question of ethics (how not to disincentivize cooperation), or politics (how not to disincentivize the production of commons.)

    We value a MERITOCRATIC commons (political), economy (ethics), reproductive (family), structure that is against the interests of those who lack competitive reproductive desirability, competitive productive ability, and productive ability to contribute to the commons. That you phrase the question as moral, and I phrase it as economic is the problem with the alt-right that I am trying to solve by providing a rational and scientific language for the discussion, comparison, and contrast of all epistemic, ethical, political, and group evolutionary strategies.

    The weakness is that we will not come to terms with the fact that meritocracy and eugenics and our ability to produce wealth and commons are antithetical to democracy, and that without the restoration of the market for commons and a judicial monarchy (inherited), we cannot possess the liberty and meritocracy we desire.

    Eugenics is incompatible with democracy. The original settlers (my ancestors included) used different language but the American colonies were an experiment in eugenics. The disaster was the Louisiana purchase that requires vast immigration to populate the new territory so that it would not be seized (yet again) by the European powers. The new territory would have extended slavery, and this would have firmly put both taxation (on export goods) and the power of the federal government, in the hands of the agrarians and their international market, at the expense of the new industrialists and the domestic market. Had we retained the original colonies it is possible that we could have retained the eugenic experiment – even with the handicap of the Scotts-Irish in the south.

    Of course, I have read Burnham and I consider him one of my greater influences – he gave me the moral courage so to speak to abandon my cultural allegiances as a member of the puritan families, the anti-monarchy forces in the English civil wars, and the anti-monarchy movement in the American revolution. I consider all of these to be failures. You can see my entire reading list on Propertarianism.com/reading-list, and you can contact Ramsey because he maintains our library, and we have most of the work in digital format available for readers.

    Burnham’s observation is not unique, but he was trying to warn us about it. There are a couple of human tendencies that we should be aware of:

    1) the models we use like analogies to animals, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, and now computational (information) change with every era, and we misapply properties of those models to man.

    Man is an organism that grows and is changed by his growth from conception to old age. We tend to try to hang on to a model and extend the use of that model in our minds to ever greater scope. But they’re just analogies, with information in both physics and social science the current state of our ability to represent the world.

    2) tendency to thing obvious trends are special and novel. But if we look at all human organizations they go through the same cycles and Burnham was trying to tell us that. Like Hayek and popper, or perhaps even Simmel, he was trying to describe the problem of political order as an information and decidability problem. So just as monarchies fell because their families lacked sufficient population to produce sufficient technocrats to run things, and just as private companies had to give way to corporations with professional managers, the size and scale of the modern state requires institutions. Whether those institutions could have been provided by market services is a question of maturity. At first, no, but over time yes.

    He was critical because he did not have a solution. We have all be correct in criticizing socialism. What we haven’t been correct about is in criticizing capitalism and democracy. Yes, we can have a star trek society with an average IQ of 125 or higher. But the Arabs cannot with an average IQ of 85-90 at the best. Neither can the Brazilians with such an enormous underclass in relation to the productivity and quality of their institutions.

    I hope this gave you some ideas to work with.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 16:55:00 UTC