Curt Doolittle

Theme: Crisis

  • The Rule of Degeneracy

    The *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical” – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.” – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicily eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.” (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)

  • The Rule of Degeneracy

    The *Rule of Degeneracy (Escapism): – “Anything that is not explicitly conservative will devolve into something progressive” – “Anything not explicitly rational, will devolve into something magical” – “Anything that is not explicitly true, will devolve into something false.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicitly masculine and constructive, will devolve into the feminine and destructive.” – “Any system of thought that does not compel action through change will devolve in an excuse to avoid change through justifying inaction.” – “Any system of thought that is not explicily eugenic, expansionary, heroic, and hierarchical, will eventually devolve into one that is dysgenic, sedentary, submissive, and equalitarian.” (Women and the weak destroy the world if we allow them.)

  • How Likely Is There To Be A Nuclear Missile Launch In The Forseeable Future?

    For at least the past fifty years, the general opinion has been, and our strategic schools teach, that nuclear weapons are political not military in nature. It is relatively impossible to use them. 1) Because if one does use them, one is open for becoming the victims of their use. 2) Politically, it would render a country isolated, and perhaps so severely that economic viability would fall into question. 3) And they are so destructive to civilians it is very hard to make use of without repercussions even from one’s allies or one’s own people.
    The world operates on a basic principle that they are a last resort.
    Iranians, Pakistan, and north Korea are the outliers. But while public rhetoric is one thing, actually pushing the button when doing so means that it is very likely that everyone in your country might die because of it, and certainly you will, makes it an unlikely thing to happen. Pakistan and India hold each other at bay. North Korea makes a lot of noise in order to obtain commercial and political bribes to balance out its horrid economy. And Iran is very cautious about building its program – and while the Iranian government is absurd by our standards, the Iranian intelligence service and its military are not. They are better off slowly gaining weapons and accumulating power through economic, political and conventional military means. We have to recall that for Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular, rattling sabers increases the price of oil. So they try to rattle them whenever it will profit them.
    So, it doesn’t APPEAR likely that anyone would use nuclear weapons. But a crystal ball that works doesn’t exist.

    https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-there-to-be-a-nuclear-missile-launch-in-the-forseeable-future

  • How Likely Is There To Be A Nuclear Missile Launch In The Forseeable Future?

    For at least the past fifty years, the general opinion has been, and our strategic schools teach, that nuclear weapons are political not military in nature. It is relatively impossible to use them. 1) Because if one does use them, one is open for becoming the victims of their use. 2) Politically, it would render a country isolated, and perhaps so severely that economic viability would fall into question. 3) And they are so destructive to civilians it is very hard to make use of without repercussions even from one’s allies or one’s own people.
    The world operates on a basic principle that they are a last resort.
    Iranians, Pakistan, and north Korea are the outliers. But while public rhetoric is one thing, actually pushing the button when doing so means that it is very likely that everyone in your country might die because of it, and certainly you will, makes it an unlikely thing to happen. Pakistan and India hold each other at bay. North Korea makes a lot of noise in order to obtain commercial and political bribes to balance out its horrid economy. And Iran is very cautious about building its program – and while the Iranian government is absurd by our standards, the Iranian intelligence service and its military are not. They are better off slowly gaining weapons and accumulating power through economic, political and conventional military means. We have to recall that for Russia, Iran and Venezuela in particular, rattling sabers increases the price of oil. So they try to rattle them whenever it will profit them.
    So, it doesn’t APPEAR likely that anyone would use nuclear weapons. But a crystal ball that works doesn’t exist.

    https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-there-to-be-a-nuclear-missile-launch-in-the-forseeable-future

  • Thoughts On  The Emerging New Right

    Aug 24, 2016 2:06pmCENTRAL ARGUMENTS 1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe. 2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits. Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations. But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense). This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society. So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm. 3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare.. That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT? It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west. We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit. We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force. The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers). And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization…. … or we will break it all to pieces. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

    NOTE: I organize these classes by argumentative technique and audience it appeals to. That says nothing about the people who lead them, and produce the argments.  That’s because it’s usually the middle class that constructs these arguments. THE CLASSES ——————– ARISTOCRATIC (JUDICIAL) RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy) Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism, (left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.) UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis) (the slowly converting anglo libertarians) Stefan Molyneux Tom Woods (left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers) MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis) (Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx) Ramsey Paul LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right) Christopher Cantwell (Left Equivalent social justice warriors) WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers) The inequalitarians The racists The Fashy Militants (left equivalent = anarchists)

  • Thoughts On  The Emerging New Right

    Aug 24, 2016 2:06pmCENTRAL ARGUMENTS 1) We can no longer hold any belief that we can integrate the postwar generations into the ‘aristocracy of everyone’ including the absolute nuclear family, individual accountability, the civic society, and rule of law. Where we were not defeated ideologically, despite the monopoly conversion of the academy, media, and state bureaucracy, we were defeated by importing millions of the underclasses that the founder sought to leave behind in Europe. 2) When the Jewish cosmopolitan left invented pseudosciences in the mid 1800-1900’s: Boazian anthropology, Marxist social science and economics, Freudian psychology, Cantorian mathematical platonism, and Frankfurtian cultural anti-Europeanism, Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism, and Straussian neo-conservatism, and combined these pseudosciences with media, propaganda, and academy – our ‘liberal’ middle-class takeover of government was divided into the feminine-caretaking-underclass-progressive, and the masculine-empirical martial-class conservative. Abandoning rule of law on the left for discretionary rule and individualism, and holding to the natural law, rule of law, and the institution of the family on the right. The left abandoning that the purpose of policy was the development of strong families, and the embrace that the purpose of policy was the development of individuals regardless of they or their family merits. Our aristocratic European empirical philosophers and scientists could not create a rational but unempirical counter argument to counter the pseudoscientific propaganda so appealing to underclasses first liberated by the industrial revolution. These underclasses could not imagine that they had not so much been kept down, but domesticated over millennia in the hope that they might one day join civil society. Nor could the intellectuals, whose aristocratic political methodology was never written down in conflated form, merging both religion and law as had other civilizations. But by the 1980’s with the failure of the great society programs world wide. The visible failure of communism, we saw emergence of a new generation of conservative think tanks, and the ambition of creating an inclusive monopolistic society. By the end of the 1990’s the combination of computers, imaging, and genetic research, and now culminating in the second decade of this century, we have found that the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific program and its puritan post-christian political correctness wing, have been completely repudiated by the scientific research, and at this point we see desperate media attempts to hold to these falsehoods out of some ‘moral’ justification (meaning revenue defense). This supplied the Right (aristocratics) with the empirical evidence that they were correct, and that the left has done nothing but lie for the purpose of destroying good families, rule of law, meritocracy, and the civic society. So we see a new generation of thinkers in every social class, from very sophisticated institutional solutions to our political problems, to educational, to critical, to simply rebellious, all emboldened and determined to either correct, reform, restore, demand restitution for, and if possible punish those who have done their families, civilization, and traditions so much harm. 3) The New Right, consists, like all previous generations of cultural movements, of classes (compare with jewish neo-con, libertine-libertarian, and socialist), And each class uses the techniques of rebellion that are appropriate to their capacity for argument: Philosophy and Institutions, Education and information, criticism and analysis, rebellion and ridicule, information and physical warfare.. That these classes reflect, loosely, the capabilities of individuals at every ten points of IQ, from 140 on down, doesn’t surprise anyone on the right – because that is how society is structured genetically, reproductively, culturally, economically, and politically. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ATTEMPTS TO FRAME THE RIGHT? It means we have a large movement underway that is currently abandoning the ‘hopeful right’ of the postwar and certainly post-Vietnam period, and adopting the ‘hopeless’ position that we cannot compromise with people who are effectively our enemies, and whose policies while well intentioned, have destroyed black families, and is in the process of destroying white – turning north America into south American favelas one urban district at a time, from the northeast coast to the west. We are the emerging new right. We make political decisions on empirical evidence, not on pseudoscience pseudorationalism, propaganda, and deceit. We fight with institutional solutions, we fight with education and information, we fight with criticism, we fight with ridicule, and if necessary we fight with force. The old right will die thankfully with America’s WORST GENERATION (the boomers). And we repair this government, this culture, and this civilization…. … or we will break it all to pieces. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

    NOTE: I organize these classes by argumentative technique and audience it appeals to. That says nothing about the people who lead them, and produce the argments.  That’s because it’s usually the middle class that constructs these arguments. THE CLASSES ——————– ARISTOCRATIC (JUDICIAL) RIGHT (institutions – law,philosophy) Curt Doolittle (and friends), Propertarianism, (left equivalent Rawls, although I suppose I could critique each of them. That would be an interesting exercise.) UPPER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (education – information – analysis) (the slowly converting anglo libertarians) Stefan Molyneux Tom Woods (left equivalent is the top 20 mainstream left-writers) MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (resistance – criticism – analysis) (Here we begin the Alt-right)(NRx) Ramsey Paul LOWER MIDDLE CLASS NEW RIGHT (rebellion – ridicule) (Right) Christopher Cantwell (Left Equivalent social justice warriors) WORKING CLASS NEW RIGHT (information warfare – aggression) (traditional hard right) (Alt-Right-foot soldiers) The inequalitarians The racists The Fashy Militants (left equivalent = anarchists)

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • The Old Right -vs- The New Right

    THE OLD RIGHT VS NEW RIGHT The Old Right was “It’s Hopeful If We Are Patient“, and the New Right is “It’s Hopeless, We Must Act“. The hopeful right was a resistance movement hopeful that the leftists would ‘learn’. The right is a hopeless movement that is resigned to the inability others to adopt the contractual order we call ‘conservatism’, but is just the traditional western aristocratic order of cooperation between classes with different abilities. MORAL VERSUS SCIENTIFIC The Old Right of American conservatism evolved from the religio-moral language set (think of Kirk), and the Jeffersonian set (constitutionalists). But the conservatives never achieved success in articulating conservatism in rational or scientific language. We’ve endured a hundred and fifty years of pseudoscience (Freud/psychology, marx/economics-sociology, Boaz/anthropology, Frankfurt school/culture) combined with propaganda made possible with new media on a scale never seen before, combined with post war economic windfall and the conversion of upper proletarians and lower middle class into property owners with disposable income. Between government seeking votes, the academy seeking to sell nonsense-diplomas, and the media selling commercials, and the consumer product companies selling household goods to newly liquid families, the environment for falsehood was fertile ground. The New Right is armed with science and evidence that Darwin and Spencer (despite Spencer’s Lamarckian error his statements remain true). The old right didn’t have this evidence and our generation does. But we face a problem: the reason for the west’s dramatic success is largely that we were the most eugenic order and used upward redistribution of calories for upward redistribution of reproduction, and we use some combination of winters, manorialism, taxation, late marriage, aggressive hanging, and for-profit warfare to eradicate the lower classes for thousands of years. We call it meritocracy, the charitable call it ‘civilizing‘, the honest call it ‘domesticating‘, and the pejorative term is ‘human husbandry‘: culling the unproductive humans from the herd, and leaving only the productive humans behind to reproduce. The underclasses of course think they were oppressed. They can’t imagine that they’re uncivilized, and that by breeding they’re decivilizing. And we aren’t honest about it, because it interferes with our narrative that we were justified in using democracy (we weren’t) to seize power from the landed nobility. THE NEW RIGHT MOVEMENTS CORRESPOND TO CLASS STRUCTURES The New Right consists of multiple frames of argument that correspond to class structures. Just like neocons, libertine libertarians, and socialists on the left, the New Right consists of multiple frames of arguments that correspond to class membership: CLASSES: NEW RIGHT (Philosophy/NaturalLaw) (Unrepentant Martial/Aristocratic Class) – Propertarianism (That’s me) – Ricardo Duchesne ( the uniqueness of Western Civilization) THE SCIENTIFIC RIGHT (Science) (Scholarly Class) – HBD-Chick (familism, groupishness, genetics) – Jayman – Genetics, Race, class – Sailer – IQ, race, class, education culture – Nassim Taleb – Finance, Economics, and Decidability. – Kevin McDonald – group competitive strategies THE INFORMATIVE RIGHT (Information) (upper middle class) – Stephan Molyneux (slow conversion on his part but he’s getting there) – Tom Woods (even slower conversion but he’s getting there) – Charles Murray ( I can’t tell with charles where he is on hopeless/hopeful) – Thomas Sowell (was a first mover really) REACTION (criticism) (middle class) – Moldbug – Ramzpaul ALT-RIGHT (ridicule) (working class) (these folk know exactly what they’re doing by the way. They have adopted leftist ridicule and are actively manufacturing desensitization as a means of combating the flasehoods and pseudoscience of political correctness) – Various alt-right podcasts and web sites – Meme-Makers and Trolls THE ALT-RIGHT “OVEN MIT” CROWD (Upper Lower working) – 88’ers, anti-everyone’s, white nationalists, etc.

  • The Cycle of Orders

    [T]he cycle of history in genes, polities, economies, and knowledge is the same: A new opportunity to exploit is discovered by those capable of exploiting it.

    The innovators profit from the cooperation of followers. The followers and those who profit expand in a hierarchy or school until one of the following occurs: 1 – the ‘market’ opportunity is exhausted, …1.1 – followers who can be incentivised are exhausted, …1.2 – or increases in profits are exhausted, …1.3 – or the resources needed to exploit the opportunity are exhausted. 2 – or the institutions of cooperation (the pricing system) is overwhelmed, resulting in hyper-consumption. 3 – or a shock is encountered sufficient that the order cannot restructure while preserving the incentives to maintain the order; 4 – or Disaster, Plague, Famine, and War create a shock that no order can survive. This is the universal rule of the evolution of orders.

  • The Cycle of Orders

    [T]he cycle of history in genes, polities, economies, and knowledge is the same: A new opportunity to exploit is discovered by those capable of exploiting it.

    The innovators profit from the cooperation of followers. The followers and those who profit expand in a hierarchy or school until one of the following occurs: 1 – the ‘market’ opportunity is exhausted, …1.1 – followers who can be incentivised are exhausted, …1.2 – or increases in profits are exhausted, …1.3 – or the resources needed to exploit the opportunity are exhausted. 2 – or the institutions of cooperation (the pricing system) is overwhelmed, resulting in hyper-consumption. 3 – or a shock is encountered sufficient that the order cannot restructure while preserving the incentives to maintain the order; 4 – or Disaster, Plague, Famine, and War create a shock that no order can survive. This is the universal rule of the evolution of orders.