Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • BURNHAM’S MANAGERIAL ELITE –“Burnham identified the new elite as the men “able

    BURNHAM’S MANAGERIAL ELITE

    –“Burnham identified the new elite as the men “able to control contemporary mass industry, the massed labor force, and a supra-national form of political organization.” He assumed that this control could be exercised by means of a compelling political formula. So, rational behavior for the elite would be to get the masses to accept unscientific myths. If they failed to sustain beliefs in the myths, the fabric of society would crack and they would be overthrown. In short, the leaders—if they themselves were scientific—must lie.”–

    Burnham was right. Except, that the alternative was not to possess a supra-national political organization, but to prohibit them entirely. The purpose of the large state was war – a creation of Napoleon.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 17:41:00 UTC

  • “So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good se

    –“So where is it that I actually go to check my privilege? I want to be a good self-hating white American male.”–

    Justin Ptak

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 02:47:00 UTC

  • WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE. –“If genetics domin

    WHY SO LITTLE SOCIAL ROTATION? IT’S PRETTY MUCH ALL NATURE.

    –“If genetics dominates, then the persistence rate should be the same at the top and at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Moreover, endogamous social groups—groups whose members do not marry outside the group—will be completely persistent in their status, high or low. Groups that are on average high or low on the social scale will not succeed or fail socially because of any distinctive culture that they adopted. Instead their success or failure will be the result purely of their positive or negative selection from a larger population. The more distinctive they are now in social status, the smaller a share they will be of the descendants of their parent population.”–

    (INVOLUNTARY REDISTRIBUTION IS GENOCIDE)

    –“Only if genetics is the main element in determining economic success, if nature trumps nurture, is there a built-in mechanism that explains the observed regression. That mechanism is the intermarriage of the children of rich and educated lineages with successful, upwardly mobile children of poor and uneducated lineages. Even though there is strong assortative mating—because this is based on the social phenotype created in part

    by luck—those of higher-than-average innate talent tend to mate with those of lesser ability and regress to the mean. Similarly, those of lower-than-average innate talent tend to marry unlucky offspring of higher average innate talent.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 12:46:00 UTC

  • CLASS. ITS GENETIC. GET OVER IT

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Son-Also-Rises-Princeton/dp/0691162549SOCIAL CLASS. ITS GENETIC. GET OVER IT.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 15:00:00 UTC

  • THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY

    THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING

    The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.

    The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.

    But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.

    It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintain their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.

    Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.

    We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.

    Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 12:40:00 UTC

  • THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY

    THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING

    The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.

    The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.

    But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.

    It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.

    Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.

    We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.

    Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:55:00 UTC

  • “Aristocratic Egalitarianism” it is. Libertarianism is a dead end, and a discred

    “Aristocratic Egalitarianism” it is. Libertarianism is a dead end, and a discredited brand. Time to move on. Long live aristocracy. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-17 18:02:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM RETURNS? It’s been an interesting spring. We learned

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM RETURNS?

    It’s been an interesting spring.

    We learned that international law is an illusion and that only the ability to use economic and military power determines policy.

    We learned that the only means of controlling the government is if armed civilians encircle and threaten their oppressive government thugs.

    We learned that western governments do not live up to their promises to defend the desire for freedom of people who give up their arms.

    We we learned that nuclear weapons are the only guarantee of self governance.

    The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by a minority willing to die to deny military, political and economic power to the state.

    Violence is a virtue. Violence is the first and most important form of wealth.

    Invest your violence wisely.

    Use it against the state.

    A militia of every able bodied male is the only guarantee of liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-14 12:35:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY Aristocracy in a post-agrarian economy is a philosophica

    ARISTOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY

    Aristocracy in a post-agrarian economy is a philosophical choice made by individuals with a set of intellectual, moral, and emotional dispositions. It is not a property of wealth. But a property of ones choice to take ownership of the commons, and to abstain from free riding, in an alliance with others who would do the same.

    Aristocracy is a choice.

    Choose.

    THE VIRTUE OF ARISTOCRACY

    The choice is not the same as producing consistent membership in a family that propagates that philosophy.

    One can choose, but its the outcome that is the measure of the achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-12 08:00:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC NECESSITY OF NERDY WHITE BOYS (Finally some legitimacy. lol)

    http://www.vdare.com/posts/nyt-white-nerds-cant-live-with-em-cant-get-rich-without-emTHE ECONOMIC NECESSITY OF NERDY WHITE BOYS

    (Finally some legitimacy. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-08 12:07:00 UTC