Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Spectrum of Agency

    MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.

    Demonstrate the degree one lives by their own agency dictates which class they belong (vertically) regardless of horizontal class (much talk with Joel on this in January) Testimonialism forces one to “demonstrate due diligence in speaking truthfully”. But this can also be stated as “demonstrating the degree of agency (due diligence) one has invested in the speech act (truthfulness). This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism – in that one can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it(low agency)…. one can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it (mid agency)… or one can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership)”—– Bill Joslin Now lets look at that last paragraph again: This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism – LOW AGENCY One can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it…. or MIDDLE AGENCY One can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it… or AGENCY One can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership) Agency of the youth, the adult, and the wise. -Curt

  • The Curse of Puritanism

    THE CURSE OF PURITANISM The french and catholic side of my family, which is fairly large, seems to have done fairly well leading upper working and lower middle class lives, with a sprinkling of professionals across the full spectrum. I wasn’t thrilled around them as a kid because the culture gap between my (unconscious) aristocratic value system from my father’s side of the family was just too large – and many of them still spoke french or accented french. My father’s side of the family, which is excessively puritan, seems to have produced a whole host of alcoholics and drug users. (I’m including myself in the ‘problem’ set – although I seem to have made something of myself anyway). My sisters and I, very conscious of what alcohol had done, don’t self medicate ‘the autism’. My sister Jean and I, much like our grandmother, have developed a cheerful stoicism instead. My sister does not require ‘chemical assistance’ like I do, and I’ve learned a lot living with her about how she (and I maybe should have) handled it through life simplification and self discipline. My daughter has taken the same route. Unfortunately, I was far too competitive to choose the simple life until I realized the cost to my health. Is it that simple: that our protestant mythos is actually harmful to our happiness, just as it has been harmful to our civilization? Has the empiricism and abandonment of the church been right, but the protestant work ethic a mistake? I noticed the same thing in Ukraine. The traditional families had fewer commercial achievements, but generally more stable offspring and as long as they could avoid drinking too much (which tends to be caused in russia by the military culture), they seem much more functional – more like our italian families here in the Northeast (the northeast is now dominated by sicilian / southern italian / and irish culture, just like the south is dominated by the scotts irish gene pool. i think the only anglo gene pools left of any purity are in Utah and New Hampshire. The germans did it right as well. They still remain a familial and provincial people despite their productivity. Why? They are the only people (west germans) to preserve both stoicism and the family, and ‘the oath'(piety and humilty), and martial duty. Those are the requirements for western civilization. The problem is the germans themselves do not understand them scientifically, only spiritually. And that the postwar period has destroyed their aristocracy and opened them up to an over reaction to the nazi era – an era that was CREATED BY anglo puritanism. And you see, that is the difference between the sickness of anglo germanic puritanism, and the perfection of our ancient stoicism. Puritanism breeds virtue signaling. It did. Everywhere. And it was this virtue signaling that destroyed western civilization through the english, french and jewish lines. The germans almost saved us with a second scientific revolution. A scientific revolution that america was the beneficiary of, not the creator of. The question is whether we few, we happy few, can save the germans from themselves. And then the germans will save the rest.

  • The Curse of Puritanism

    THE CURSE OF PURITANISM The french and catholic side of my family, which is fairly large, seems to have done fairly well leading upper working and lower middle class lives, with a sprinkling of professionals across the full spectrum. I wasn’t thrilled around them as a kid because the culture gap between my (unconscious) aristocratic value system from my father’s side of the family was just too large – and many of them still spoke french or accented french. My father’s side of the family, which is excessively puritan, seems to have produced a whole host of alcoholics and drug users. (I’m including myself in the ‘problem’ set – although I seem to have made something of myself anyway). My sisters and I, very conscious of what alcohol had done, don’t self medicate ‘the autism’. My sister Jean and I, much like our grandmother, have developed a cheerful stoicism instead. My sister does not require ‘chemical assistance’ like I do, and I’ve learned a lot living with her about how she (and I maybe should have) handled it through life simplification and self discipline. My daughter has taken the same route. Unfortunately, I was far too competitive to choose the simple life until I realized the cost to my health. Is it that simple: that our protestant mythos is actually harmful to our happiness, just as it has been harmful to our civilization? Has the empiricism and abandonment of the church been right, but the protestant work ethic a mistake? I noticed the same thing in Ukraine. The traditional families had fewer commercial achievements, but generally more stable offspring and as long as they could avoid drinking too much (which tends to be caused in russia by the military culture), they seem much more functional – more like our italian families here in the Northeast (the northeast is now dominated by sicilian / southern italian / and irish culture, just like the south is dominated by the scotts irish gene pool. i think the only anglo gene pools left of any purity are in Utah and New Hampshire. The germans did it right as well. They still remain a familial and provincial people despite their productivity. Why? They are the only people (west germans) to preserve both stoicism and the family, and ‘the oath'(piety and humilty), and martial duty. Those are the requirements for western civilization. The problem is the germans themselves do not understand them scientifically, only spiritually. And that the postwar period has destroyed their aristocracy and opened them up to an over reaction to the nazi era – an era that was CREATED BY anglo puritanism. And you see, that is the difference between the sickness of anglo germanic puritanism, and the perfection of our ancient stoicism. Puritanism breeds virtue signaling. It did. Everywhere. And it was this virtue signaling that destroyed western civilization through the english, french and jewish lines. The germans almost saved us with a second scientific revolution. A scientific revolution that america was the beneficiary of, not the creator of. The question is whether we few, we happy few, can save the germans from themselves. And then the germans will save the rest.

  • The Final Word on Rand and Objectivism

    Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Final Word on Rand and Objectivism

    Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Copy and Paste Argument Against Libertarianism

    THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good ideas — And arsenic has good uses as well. Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man. But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources; As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy. Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western, social order. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Copy and Paste Argument Against Libertarianism

    THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good ideas — And arsenic has good uses as well. Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man. But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources; As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy. Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western, social order. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    [No text content]

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    [No text content]

  • How Many Human Races Are In The World?

    Most anthropologists recognize that there are four major race classifications in the world, which include caucasian, mongoloid or asian, negroid or black and australoid. The race classification was created by Carleston S. Coon in 1962. The four major races can then be further subdivided into 30 subgroups.

    https://www.quora.com/How-many-human-races-are-in-the-world