Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Church Failed To Reform And The Sciences Didn’t Have Time To Complete Their Evolutionary Program

    I mean, another way to look at the 20th century is that in response to Darwin, Maxwell, Spencer, (a) the church failed to reform in response by stating that god and natural and physical laws were the same expression of his divinity, and (b) our intellectual class failed to synthesize operationalism as a means of reforming scientific thought-at its new-grand-scale, and (c) the Jewish pseudoscientists (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor) filled a void that both state, academy, and finance could use to profit from the new wave of democratic voters (customers), students (customers), and consumers (customers) who they could not force to spend down their accumulated cultural and institutional capital.

    We can easily argue that this is the same strategy the ancient Jews took in response to the imposition of (scientific Aryan-universalist) roman law on top of their (mystical authoritarian separatist) Jewish law. I mean, it worked against classical civilization, why wouldn’t it work against restored classical civilization of the enlightenment? Intellectuals provide a product for a market. I am just concerned that we do not let another era of fraudulent defective products like ancient Jewish mysticism and modern Jewish pseudoscience into a civilization where second tier intellectuals, women, and the underclass are all too willing to embrace utter falsehoods at the expense of their civilization and it’s progenitors – and in the case of western civilization, all of human kind that benefits from western creativity. So what we see, is that between the failure of democracy, the progressive failure of Keynesian economics, the failure of Freudian psychology, of Boazian anthropology, of Marxist economics and sociology, and even Cantorian infinity to survive scrutiny by late 20’th and early 21st century science, that we have at least a temporary opportunity to overthrow the Second Great Deceit’s attack on western truth, science, and eugenics. But we have a short time before the second great deceit and it’s customers in women and the underclasses, possess such numbers that we can be forced into another dark age. And that the promise of a eugenic north America, like a eugenic Europe, insulated from the steppe, desert, and jungle, can continue to provide an engine of innovation for mankind. For the simple reason that we pay the high cost of truthfulness: That discipline of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, that we call ‘science’. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine We must achieve by force what they have achieved in both the ancient and modern world by deceits.

  • Paraphrasing by Alexander Brown

    HERE IS A PARAPHRASE OF WHAT HE SAYS: “Natural law is truth compatible. And universally beneficial. Natural law, truth and truth telling, being demonstrably the best means to tribal = national transcendence under the most suitable nationalist leadership, rulership, or government possible. BUT only when coupled with effective, sustainable underclass culling.
    Natural law universality is testable. And its positively transformational outcomes are demonstrable. With the possibility of tribal transcendence for all people on the globe. So that every human tribe is very capable of transcendence, were it to first be natural law complaint. And second, more effective at underclass culling.” – Curt Doolittle.

  • Paraphrasing by Alexander Brown

    HERE IS A PARAPHRASE OF WHAT HE SAYS: “Natural law is truth compatible. And universally beneficial. Natural law, truth and truth telling, being demonstrably the best means to tribal = national transcendence under the most suitable nationalist leadership, rulership, or government possible. BUT only when coupled with effective, sustainable underclass culling.
    Natural law universality is testable. And its positively transformational outcomes are demonstrable. With the possibility of tribal transcendence for all people on the globe. So that every human tribe is very capable of transcendence, were it to first be natural law complaint. And second, more effective at underclass culling.” – Curt Doolittle.

  • The Pseudosciences

    Empirically speaking, we already overspend on Grad and PhD students. We overspend on most sciences (because they’re psuedosciences) and underspend on those that matter (physics, material science, chemistry, biological chemistry, genetics, archaeology) Virtually all other programs (psychology, social sciences, political sciences), and certainly all pseudosciences (the humanities) are a waste of money. Even in those hard sciences we can see in the cites that the number of scientists that do meaningful work remains relatively constant over time, no matter how many scientists we add to the pool it seems to make very little difference. Just why this is true, we aren’t sure.

  • The Pseudosciences

    Empirically speaking, we already overspend on Grad and PhD students. We overspend on most sciences (because they’re psuedosciences) and underspend on those that matter (physics, material science, chemistry, biological chemistry, genetics, archaeology) Virtually all other programs (psychology, social sciences, political sciences), and certainly all pseudosciences (the humanities) are a waste of money. Even in those hard sciences we can see in the cites that the number of scientists that do meaningful work remains relatively constant over time, no matter how many scientists we add to the pool it seems to make very little difference. Just why this is true, we aren’t sure.

  • Yes, Lying Is A Strategy For The Left – But Not The Right.

    —The proof is in the Left’s success.— Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy. If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded? —Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.— Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation. Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident. So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends. —And they are a very eugenic group.— If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science). –libertarianism is a straw dog — Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: “If lying works we should use it” AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING “Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default” we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now. TRUTH IS ENOUGH So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well. That’s my response. 😉

  • Yes, Lying Is A Strategy For The Left – But Not The Right.

    —The proof is in the Left’s success.— Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy. If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded? —Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.— Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation. Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident. So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends. —And they are a very eugenic group.— If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science). –libertarianism is a straw dog — Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: “If lying works we should use it” AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING “Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default” we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now. TRUTH IS ENOUGH So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well. That’s my response. 😉

  • Curt: Who Are Your Influences?

    —“Every philosopher can point out influences of which he may call his teachers or derive his ideas from. Nietzsche for instance read Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Plato, and Heraclitus among his other influences. So let us hear yours. How many people have you read, and who do you derive your thoughts from? (Btw, wikipedia level understanding does not count. You can’t cite someone as an influence unless you have read his works)”— Well, I answer this question a few times a year. And it might surprise you but I read science, economics and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi-secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle-class criticism of the status quo. So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

    My reading list is pretty extensive and published on my site. And I’ve read everything on it I think. Ramsey keeps all of the works in digital form in our library. And recently he has added new works to it that are relevant but that I have only skimmed. There is something in the content of the neutral point of view we find in encyclopedias.  And aside from those works, I found  the Germanic Fairy Tales, Pinnocchio, Johnny Tremain, Ivanhoe, Harlan Ellison, Heinlein, Ben Bova, and all the postwar science fiction authors fairly influential – they were all libertarian. I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and Popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms – just as we study physics now as information not forces. But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that as from the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal. So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse. The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasnt quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere. It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty of due diligence in matters of the commons. So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the Wilsonian Synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law. What I am writing is natural law. The Only Possible Epistemology, Ethics and Politics of Sovereignty.

  • Curt: Who Are Your Influences?

    —“Every philosopher can point out influences of which he may call his teachers or derive his ideas from. Nietzsche for instance read Schopenhauer, Epicurus, Plato, and Heraclitus among his other influences. So let us hear yours. How many people have you read, and who do you derive your thoughts from? (Btw, wikipedia level understanding does not count. You can’t cite someone as an influence unless you have read his works)”— Well, I answer this question a few times a year. And it might surprise you but I read science, economics and history and I think most philosophy by almost all philosophers is little more than simply semi-secular theology or empty verbalism for the purpose of middle-class criticism of the status quo. So in general, except for a few cases, I view philosophy largely as a poor investment as likely to do one harm as good just as philosophers have done as much or more harm as good. I would go so far as to say most philosophers are seeking to be creative liars.

    My reading list is pretty extensive and published on my site. And I’ve read everything on it I think. Ramsey keeps all of the works in digital form in our library. And recently he has added new works to it that are relevant but that I have only skimmed. There is something in the content of the neutral point of view we find in encyclopedias.  And aside from those works, I found  the Germanic Fairy Tales, Pinnocchio, Johnny Tremain, Ivanhoe, Harlan Ellison, Heinlein, Ben Bova, and all the postwar science fiction authors fairly influential – they were all libertarian. I came to philosophy from artificial intelligence by way of Hayek and Popper – who were the first thinkers to suggest that we must study man using information not norms – just as we study physics now as information not forces. But Aristotle created a framework for the study of knowledge, and that framework has persisted throughout the centuries: existence, epistemology/truth, ethics, politics, aesthetics. This structure provides a hierarchy that as from the universe to the self to the interpersonal to the political to the universal. So when I wanted to create a language for the unloaded analysis and comparison of competing political strategies, and in particular to allow western aristocratic conservatives to rationally argue their strategy, I chose the structure of philosophy to do it because it’s the established language for discourse. The big change for me was popper and Hayek, and when I heard Hoppe lecture I knew something wasnt quite right but that the answer was in there somewhere. It took me years to get it right. By 2009 or so I had everything but one very hard problem. And solving that problem was the watershed: how to demand warranty of due diligence in matters of the commons. So while I write what we call philosophy, Propertarianism solves the Wilsonian Synthesis and united science, philosophy, morality, and law. What I am writing is natural law. The Only Possible Epistemology, Ethics and Politics of Sovereignty.

  • Ten Thoughts on Money

    Q&A: –“Curt, have you written much on money?”– I’ve written a bit , here and there, mostly on:

    1) the fact that fiat money is equal to shares in the state/economy, not notes or money. Moreover, I’ve tried to impress upon people that colloquial money (various mediums of exchange in sufficient volume to produce market price signals) and all its forms, differ substantially from money proper. And I’ve tried to correct mises and the bitcoin community on their uses of these terms – because it’s fraudulent to compare these media as having the same properties. They don’t’. 2) it’s not clear that people have any right to the appreciation of fiat money, nor whether they have a right to its store of value for any extended period of time (longer than a business cycle). 3) We should use multiple currencies for multiple purposes so that rates of inflationary dilution are purpose-specific. 4) There is no need to continue distribution of liquidity through the banking system as we did when there was hard currency. We can directly issue liquidity to consumers and cause spending without giving profits or power to the banking and finance system. This forces business and industry to fight for consumers, rather than fight for access to credit. 5) Money is information and the more kinds of money the more kinds of information we have that is less subject to distortion. I could write a book on this subject alone. 6) In theory money is neutral, in practice it is not. Not because prices are not eventually equilibrated, but because this process of equilibration works through the economy disruptively and without uniformity. 7) Lending should be regulated to the same degree as law, and debt should not be resellable because a price (value) is subjectively constructed and non-transferrable, and non-insurable. 8 ) Law has been abused to work in the favor of hazard-creation by lenders, and this should be inverted, and bankruptcy protection increased so that lenders have an extremely difficult time collecting and instead take fewer risks and take less responsibility for distributing liquidity. 9) intergenerational redistribution must be stopped, and the singaporean model adopted so that the future is calculable. Furthermore, this money cannot be touched by creditors or the state, or anyone else for that matter. 10 ) I would prefer that the government collected fees on all financial transactions rather than income taxes. I believe fees are necessary for the production of insurance of last resort, and those discretionary commons that make us competitive. Those are the major topics.