Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Posts Explaining American Postwar Foreign Policy

    September 5th, 2018 5:54 PM POSTS EXPLAINING AMERICAN POSTWAR FOREIGN POLICY (and one on what trump is trying to do) 1 – WHAT IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE USA? propertarianism.com/2017/03/13/what-is-the-foreign-policy-of-the-united-states-of-america-in-the-western-hemisphere/ 2 – WHY THE AMERICAN FASCINATION WITH EXPORTING DEMOCRACY? propertarianism.com/2016/09/19/qa-why-the-usa-fascination-with-exporting-democracy/ 3 – IS THE USA A ROGUE STATE? propertarianism.com/2016/01/19/is-the-united-states-a-rogue-state/ 4 – TERROR, PROGRESS, AND ISLAM propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/terror-progress-and-islam/ 5 – TRUMP’S STRATEGY( IF IT COMES UP) propertarianism.com/2018/06/10/trumps-grand-strategy-for-ordinary-people/

  • Nietzsche, Rand, Marx, and The Adolescent Right

    September 5th, 2018 9:47 AM
    NIETZSCHE, RAND, MARX, AND THE ADOLESCENT RIGHTThere are a lot of young men who are active on the right and they are all looking for an ideal to rally around because they lack the skill, sociability, talents, relationships, and resources to rally men by material outcomes. So I view fascination with Nietzsche like fascination with rand (or harry potter for that matter) as a necessary phase of young adulthood. A lack of maturity. And driven by a lack of sexual social economic and political market value. This small group of adolescent males otherwise unsuccessful in life due to lack of talent, skill, character, and resources, who attempt to persuade me to justify their urges for dominance that they cannot achieve in real life. And I won’t. Men will revolt and act on change not because some microscopic group of social malcontents want justification for their failure of market value, but because the social, economic, and political change is achievable by implementation of institutional change. Teaching young men on the internet is a bit like running a class in a fourth grade locker room. I assume however that these men will eventually own homes, have children, find gainful employment or run businesses and at that point grow from reading moral fictionalism to reading balance sheets, contracts, constitutions, and papers on business, economics, engineering and science. There is no difference between Marxists, Randians and Nietzscheans other than the degree of desperation and unsatisfied aggression. Rulers use law. Because they have the power to. Because the organized incentives of enough men to apply force to obtain that power.

  • The Poverty of Philosophy

    September 5th, 2018 1:14 PM THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY [T]heology exists because philosophy excludes its fallacies, and philosophy exists because science excludes its falsehoods. Science exists because math excludes its fallacies. Math exists because logic excludes its fallacies. The question is why there is a demand for those excluded fallacies? Why? Either to bridge the gap between one stage of ignorance and the next, or to use fallacies for the purpose of conducting some sort of fraud. Philosophy just means ‘we don’t know enough to write history, law, science, and mathematics yet’. Philosophy serves as young adult literature that prepares you for adult literature: history, law, science, and mathematics, just as children’s stories, fables, and fairy tales prepare you for young adult literature. Its storytelling. Stories provide context for history, law, science, and math. So in that sense, the reason philosophy is largely dead, is that history, law, science, mathematics, and logic has rendered it young adult moral fantasy literature. The knowledge required at each state of declining ignorance is much greater than the previous. (I’ve had to master a lot of fields as a judge if not as a craftsman. It took a very long time. I had the luxury of the wealth and time necessary to invest that time.)

  • Nietzsche vs Doolittle

    September 5th, 2018 9:47 AM NIETZSCHE VS DOOLITTLE : Critique vs Science. Value vs Truth. Inspiration vs Institutions. I need to address this issue again for the little boys in the audience. What I take from Nietzsche is his attack on supernaturalism, and submission, and his attempt to restore classicism – which is also what I am also trying to do: discover our origins (I have), and solve the institutional problem (i think I have) of restoring them. Nietzsche created a Critique of semitic religion, and tried to articulate and express the ethic of the classical tradition (heroism, the dominance of man over nature) but was unable to solve the problem of how – just as many post-darwinist were. Unfortunately the abrahamists have nearly won again with marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. And they have won by continuing his technique: abrahamic critique. —“Nietzsche’s thought after Hegel was to incorporate Evolution and to reverse everything possible in prior thinkers. So he reverses Hegel by searching for a way for the Noble to have self-consciousness. He reverses Schopenhauer by attempting to be positive about life and its prospects. He reverses Wagner by rejecting the Christianization of the Pagan mythologies. Of course he then reverses many long held beliefs that were unquestioned within the western worldview such as the necessity to kow tow to Christianity as a religious belief system. … So basically Nietzsche went after as many Sacred Cows of the European tradition as he could”— Kent Palmer I systematically attack all our sacred cows and falsehoods – just as he did. Not for VALUE but for TRUTH. I look for everything FALSE not everything we VALUE. However, I attempt to restore classicism through formal INSTITUTIONS rather than the usual german sophomoric philosophy that is little other than a desperate attempt to restore the ‘woo’ of christian submission by rational sophistry rather than supernatural sophistry. As for ‘spirit’ I see nietzsche’s ‘spirit’ as a choice, and an individual choice, not a truth,or a political movement, or an institutional solution – and I see nietzsche as having failed to discover a solution. And worse, I find his silly german ‘suffering'(struggling) abhorrent – the voice of the weak. The strong do not struggle they just do. Nietzsche was prescient precisely because he FAILED. As did all german thinkers – desperate provincial romanticists appealing to the heartstrings of the pubescent. I see nietzsche as ‘weak’. A polemicist. Like say, Rand, he is a gateway that gives you permission to abandon traditional religion, just as rand is a gateway to abandon traditional political ethics. But they are … childish … works by childish people. Which is fine, because we all work at some level of sophistication available to us at our own stage of maturity. Nietzsche’s rant against his status who is nothing more than what all adolescent men do: express their identities and autonomy as unbound by parental debts, when they reach some level of agency. But in the end, he just was an insightful polemicists that failed to provide a solution other than infinite skepticism and a return to a celebration of life. A pair of sentiments otherwise politically inactionable. Nietzsche practiced critique: he remained an abrahamist. He offered us nothing to supplant the past. And understood the classical civilization only in silly germanic romantic and literary terms – rather than the tedious administration of half domesticated man by the use of military, law, bureaucracy, commerce, and education. Rome was the adult that athens matured into. We are only now, right now, restoring the state of development at which rome fell.

  • September 5th, 2018 11:55 AM QUESTION : —“Hi Curt, if you don’t mind I’ve got

    September 5th, 2018 11:55 AM QUESTION:

    —“Hi Curt, if you don’t mind I’ve got a question on Sovereignty after reading your recent posts. Is Sovereignty only achieved through combing agency and reciprocity (I think I’ve seen you say this somewhere)? In which case, thinking about this in terms of individualism vs collectivism: -Groups of people who lack individual agency, but act as a collective can only ever beg for what they want (the herd). -Individuals who possess agency, but are unwilling to reciprocate with one another will be unable to achieve results at scale (lone wolves). -Therefore it’s not individualism vs collectivism; it’s agency AND reciprocity which when combined creates Sovereignty (the pack). Not sure if I’m stretching things here?”—- Andy Lunn

    ANSWER: Um. (a) very well structured argument, (b) correct conclusion. (c) nice work! A+

  • September 5th, 2018 8:49 AM [W]e rarely act until we must, and when we must it i

    September 5th, 2018 8:49 AM

    [W]e rarely act until we must, and when we must it is merely more expensive than having acted when we could. Hence the problem of democracy: acting only when we must on that which we can, and acting when we can on that which we must not.

  • Age-Dependent Narratives

    September 5th, 2018 10:18 AM AVOID GETTING STUCK IN AGE-DEPENDENT NARRATIVES [A]esop’s fables, Fairy Tales, Arthurian Legends, Homer, the greek myths, are all not only helpful but possibly necessary. We mature from those to novels, then to biographies, then histories, then maybe economic histories, and then into the sciences. But some of us PEAK in life at some particular point and freeze – we all know high school kids who are still living in that world where peer-pressure was the only form of education that worked on them. And some of us continuously mature until very old age, precisely because peer pressure does not force us into conformity but into advancement. So I view nietzsche as a necessary critique for those that are not able to judge without sentimental and emotional associations. The human differs from the animal in distance from impulse and emotion. The adult differs from the child in further increase in distance. The sage differs from the adult in further distance. The point is to make use of STAGE SPECIFIC INFORMATION while not getting STUCK in childish pubescent, young adult stage – and continue to mature.

  • September 5th, 2018 10:09 AM —“Debunking Paul Krugman is a little like beating

    September 5th, 2018 10:09 AM

    —“Debunking Paul Krugman is a little like beating up the special ed kid”– Joe Redtree

  • Nietzsche, Rand, Marx, and The Adolescent Right

    September 5th, 2018 9:47 AM
    NIETZSCHE, RAND, MARX, AND THE ADOLESCENT RIGHTThere are a lot of young men who are active on the right and they are all looking for an ideal to rally around because they lack the skill, sociability, talents, relationships, and resources to rally men by material outcomes. So I view fascination with Nietzsche like fascination with rand (or harry potter for that matter) as a necessary phase of young adulthood. A lack of maturity. And driven by a lack of sexual social economic and political market value. This small group of adolescent males otherwise unsuccessful in life due to lack of talent, skill, character, and resources, who attempt to persuade me to justify their urges for dominance that they cannot achieve in real life. And I won’t. Men will revolt and act on change not because some microscopic group of social malcontents want justification for their failure of market value, but because the social, economic, and political change is achievable by implementation of institutional change. Teaching young men on the internet is a bit like running a class in a fourth grade locker room. I assume however that these men will eventually own homes, have children, find gainful employment or run businesses and at that point grow from reading moral fictionalism to reading balance sheets, contracts, constitutions, and papers on business, economics, engineering and science. There is no difference between Marxists, Randians and Nietzscheans other than the degree of desperation and unsatisfied aggression. Rulers use law. Because they have the power to. Because the organized incentives of enough men to apply force to obtain that power.

  • Nietzsche vs Doolittle

    September 5th, 2018 9:47 AM NIETZSCHE VS DOOLITTLE : Critique vs Science. Value vs Truth. Inspiration vs Institutions. I need to address this issue again for the little boys in the audience. What I take from Nietzsche is his attack on supernaturalism, and submission, and his attempt to restore classicism – which is also what I am also trying to do: discover our origins (I have), and solve the institutional problem (i think I have) of restoring them. Nietzsche created a Critique of semitic religion, and tried to articulate and express the ethic of the classical tradition (heroism, the dominance of man over nature) but was unable to solve the problem of how – just as many post-darwinist were. Unfortunately the abrahamists have nearly won again with marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. And they have won by continuing his technique: abrahamic critique. —“Nietzsche’s thought after Hegel was to incorporate Evolution and to reverse everything possible in prior thinkers. So he reverses Hegel by searching for a way for the Noble to have self-consciousness. He reverses Schopenhauer by attempting to be positive about life and its prospects. He reverses Wagner by rejecting the Christianization of the Pagan mythologies. Of course he then reverses many long held beliefs that were unquestioned within the western worldview such as the necessity to kow tow to Christianity as a religious belief system. … So basically Nietzsche went after as many Sacred Cows of the European tradition as he could”— Kent Palmer I systematically attack all our sacred cows and falsehoods – just as he did. Not for VALUE but for TRUTH. I look for everything FALSE not everything we VALUE. However, I attempt to restore classicism through formal INSTITUTIONS rather than the usual german sophomoric philosophy that is little other than a desperate attempt to restore the ‘woo’ of christian submission by rational sophistry rather than supernatural sophistry. As for ‘spirit’ I see nietzsche’s ‘spirit’ as a choice, and an individual choice, not a truth,or a political movement, or an institutional solution – and I see nietzsche as having failed to discover a solution. And worse, I find his silly german ‘suffering'(struggling) abhorrent – the voice of the weak. The strong do not struggle they just do. Nietzsche was prescient precisely because he FAILED. As did all german thinkers – desperate provincial romanticists appealing to the heartstrings of the pubescent. I see nietzsche as ‘weak’. A polemicist. Like say, Rand, he is a gateway that gives you permission to abandon traditional religion, just as rand is a gateway to abandon traditional political ethics. But they are … childish … works by childish people. Which is fine, because we all work at some level of sophistication available to us at our own stage of maturity. Nietzsche’s rant against his status who is nothing more than what all adolescent men do: express their identities and autonomy as unbound by parental debts, when they reach some level of agency. But in the end, he just was an insightful polemicists that failed to provide a solution other than infinite skepticism and a return to a celebration of life. A pair of sentiments otherwise politically inactionable. Nietzsche practiced critique: he remained an abrahamist. He offered us nothing to supplant the past. And understood the classical civilization only in silly germanic romantic and literary terms – rather than the tedious administration of half domesticated man by the use of military, law, bureaucracy, commerce, and education. Rome was the adult that athens matured into. We are only now, right now, restoring the state of development at which rome fell.