Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Universalist State As A Religion

    [L]ets just keep in mind that Universalist Secular Democratic Socialist Humanism, is a religion too OK? There is precious little difference between the church and the university liberal arts department except the anthropomorphized ‘we’ of a god has been replaced with the corporate ‘we’ of the state. In practice there is zero difference between them. Universalism whether under the edict of a mythical god, or the edict of a corporate state is equally unscientific.

  • Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    [P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

  • Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    [P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

  • The Four Propertarian Frameworks and Their Uses

    (in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound) 1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism. 2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism. 3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism 4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism. BAGGAGE: METHODOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL [W]e all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological. One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy. [callout]Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.[/callout] In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage. METHOD VS CONTENT 1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments. 2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism. 3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments 3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members. THE GOAL OF PROPAGATION [R]atio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that. Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail. The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists. ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM: RELIGIO-MORAL NARRATIVES + RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS. [T]he problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost. Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite. The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others. Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay. [T]hat is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill. As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms. Liberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us. But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists. The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom. Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • The Four Propertarian Frameworks and Their Uses

    (in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound) 1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism. 2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism. 3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism 4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism. BAGGAGE: METHODOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL [W]e all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological. One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy. [callout]Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.[/callout] In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage. METHOD VS CONTENT 1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments. 2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism. 3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments 3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members. THE GOAL OF PROPAGATION [R]atio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that. Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail. The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists. ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM: RELIGIO-MORAL NARRATIVES + RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS. [T]he problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost. Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite. The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others. Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay. [T]hat is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill. As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms. Liberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us. But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists. The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom. Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

    Contrary to rhetoric it is, indeed, a ponzi scheme, which is defined as early entrants are paid by later entrants under the assumption that there will always be enough new entrants to pay for each person exiting. 

    It’s not insurance because Insurance works by a lot of people giving a little bit of money to an investor who invests the money at a reasonable rate of return, then pays out to some small percent of people in the event that a few of them actually need a lot of money.   That is not the case, since all of us both enter and leave.

    When social security was conceived, people didn’t live very long. It was in fact, at that time, insurance.  But as we have lived much longer, we are confronted with the problem that old people are still not very useful in the work force, and it’s hard for them to work at even small jobs as they age, and we have smaller population growth and a smaller population who must sacrifice more and more of their incomes to pay for aged people who live much longer and have very high health care costs.

    To compensate for this problem, western countries have brought in large numbers of immigrants in order to increase the number of working people, But this has in turn created cultural friction as the only people that can be brought into the country are largely the poor from the third world, who are much less productive per person than the prior generations. 

    The counter argument is that people should be forced to save, even if we redistributed money via taxation to people’s savings accounts. Then this money could be insured by the government, and people could actually plan.

    There are numerous arithmetic arguments to suggest that it is possible to perpetuate this scheme indefinitely, but they are heavily biased with assumptions. The reason is that most of our economic data starts with the postwar era, And economic data before that time, with the colonial period. And it is not certain that our country can remain competitive.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Social-Security-a-Ponzi-scheme

  • Is Social Security A Ponzi Scheme?

    Contrary to rhetoric it is, indeed, a ponzi scheme, which is defined as early entrants are paid by later entrants under the assumption that there will always be enough new entrants to pay for each person exiting. 

    It’s not insurance because Insurance works by a lot of people giving a little bit of money to an investor who invests the money at a reasonable rate of return, then pays out to some small percent of people in the event that a few of them actually need a lot of money.   That is not the case, since all of us both enter and leave.

    When social security was conceived, people didn’t live very long. It was in fact, at that time, insurance.  But as we have lived much longer, we are confronted with the problem that old people are still not very useful in the work force, and it’s hard for them to work at even small jobs as they age, and we have smaller population growth and a smaller population who must sacrifice more and more of their incomes to pay for aged people who live much longer and have very high health care costs.

    To compensate for this problem, western countries have brought in large numbers of immigrants in order to increase the number of working people, But this has in turn created cultural friction as the only people that can be brought into the country are largely the poor from the third world, who are much less productive per person than the prior generations. 

    The counter argument is that people should be forced to save, even if we redistributed money via taxation to people’s savings accounts. Then this money could be insured by the government, and people could actually plan.

    There are numerous arithmetic arguments to suggest that it is possible to perpetuate this scheme indefinitely, but they are heavily biased with assumptions. The reason is that most of our economic data starts with the postwar era, And economic data before that time, with the colonial period. And it is not certain that our country can remain competitive.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Social-Security-a-Ponzi-scheme

  • Which Situation Is More Likely To Lead To Progressive Outcomes: A Republican Party That Continues To Support Extreme Candidates & Positions, Or One That Is More Mainstream And Thus Successful, But Also Open To Compromise?

    In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

    We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

    As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

    So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

    1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

    2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

    3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

    All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

    1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

    2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

    So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

    Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

    So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

    If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

    So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise

  • Which Situation Is More Likely To Lead To Progressive Outcomes: A Republican Party That Continues To Support Extreme Candidates & Positions, Or One That Is More Mainstream And Thus Successful, But Also Open To Compromise?

    In about 1980, those of us on the conservative side, understood that progressive state would ‘win’ by de-homogenizing society into factions rather than unifying society, and then buying votes by doing it. 

    We also understood that it is economically impossible to construct the democratic socialists state – meaning control over the results of production. They Keynesian proposition is, for very complex reasons, a series of very long term ponzi schemes. (Which I can argue in extraordinary detail but this post isn’t the venue for it.)

    As such we saw the progressives (socialists of various ideologies) as succeeding in the destruction of anglo-germanic (protestant, north-sea) civilization, by driving it  into bankruptcy.

    So we understood that there were two basic strategies to follow

    1 – Since socialism is unscientific, and irrational (a secular religion) we can adopt the same means of opposition to secular religion: throughout history the most effective means of resisting the state is religion. Religions allow populations to establish the terms by which they will be governed.

    2 – Since the socialist state is an unsustainable ponzi scheme, we could attempt to bankrupt the state BEFORE it can destroy our civilization. We could bankrupt the state through expansion of the military and private sector, while the left bankrupted the state through the public service and bureaucratic structure.

    3 – Since the power of the state is fiat money, and the state requires the financial system to distribute fiat money, we could ‘hire’ the financial sector to compete with the state.

    All three of these tactics worked.  Unfortunately we didn’t count on the following:

    1 –  The rate of collapse of the family.  The protestant ethic requires the adoption of the absolute nuclear family wherein people cannot reproduce until they can afford their own home.   The feminists have succeeded in destroying the family in the black and hispanic communities, and it has now spread to the white lower classes as well.  By destroying absolute nuclear marriage you destroy the protestant moral intuitions of society.  You destroy male feeling of responsibility for society, destroy female responsibility for controlling her reproduction, and you destroy the economic efficiency of two person households that delay their reproduction until they can afford to pay for it.    At present the ANF is practiced only by white protestants and Catholics who have adopted it.  Basically, family structure determines one’s wealth or poverty, and the economic efficiency of the nation. Feminists succeeded in destroying it, and this was more useful to the socialists than their own polices. 

    2 – The rate of immigration.   Immigration of peoples who do not only fail to share the absolute nuclear family as a constraint on reproduction and incentive for economic production, but who do not adopt that family constraint and incentive upon arrival.  As such communities retain not their food and rituals, but also their family structure, moral code and resulting political preferences.  Furthermore they now retain their languages.  As such there is no ‘nation’ of people with similar interests, just a corporation – an empire – over peoples with dissimilar interests.

    So, it is no longer possible to sustain the protestant ethic, the high trust society, the rule of law, the common law, private property rights,  the absolute nuclear family, and the constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes that was unique to northern european civilization – and one of its greatest sources of prosperity. 

    Conservatives understand this, even if they say it in allegorical rather than such precise terms.

    So the purpose now is to create a faction that delegitimizes the state, and drives us to either change, secession or civil war.

    If all people have the right to culture and self determination, then so do conservatives – north sea european protestants – have the right to self determination.  As such conservatives will do whatever possible to save their civilization from further conquest and further genocide. It is one thing to say that people have moved to america to take advantage of the northern european political institutions. It is another thing to state that northern european protestants should willingly accept the extermination of their way of life.

    So from the conservative position, the options now are to bankrupt the state – delegitimize america as the world’s financial backer –  and force a compromise, or otherwise force rebellion and revolution in an effort at self preservation.

    That is probably the most honest and accurate answer you will find.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-situation-is-more-likely-to-lead-to-progressive-outcomes-a-Republican-Party-that-continues-to-support-extreme-candidates-positions-or-one-that-is-more-mainstream-and-thus-successful-but-also-open-to-compromise

  • Voting Morally, Even If Against Your Economic Interest, Is Voting Rationally

    (minor criticism of the myth of the rational voter) [P]eople do vote rationally. Its rational to vote morally even at high personal cost. I dont have time to refute the part Kaplan got wrong. But it should be obvious that he got it wrong. [callout]The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism.[/callout] The failure of economic thought is currently one of insufficient tribalism and insufficient nationalism. Any group that votes immorally will be exterminated by groups that vote morally. That is why the anglo world is dying: its immoral (reproductively destructive).