Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • can I learn propertarianism? (ie:without reading 3000 posts on propertarianism.c

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/How can I learn propertarianism?

    (ie:without reading 3000 posts on propertarianism.com)

    SHORT VERSION: GO TO THIS PAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    Scroll down to “How Can I Learn Propertarianism (Natural Law)?”

    You’ll see a bulleted list of the basic things to do.

    LONG VERSION

    It depends on what background you’re coming from.

    I’d suggest talking with one of these guys;

    Bill Joslin, Moritz Bierling, William Butchman, Josh Jeppson

    They seem to give me quite a bit of feedback on it. And they each look at it differently.

    But if you can’t get what you want from one of them, there are about 20 other guys I can easily roll of the top of my head who can maybe help you bridge the gap.

    It’s not terribly easy. Gotta be honest.

    We’re going to try to make it easier.

    But for ‘early adopters’ we don’t have the documentation complete so to speak. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 22:18:00 UTC

  • ( Seriously. We are a year away. In a year the students will be the teachers. )

    ( Seriously. We are a year away.

    In a year the students will be the teachers. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 21:21:00 UTC

  • “The university system does more harm than good now”— Jordan Peterson —“The

    —“The university system does more harm than good now”— Jordan Peterson

    —“The University has moved OUTSIDE of the universities. Many universities are now ideological factories. The only thing universities have is accreditation.”—

    DO WE BUILD THE PROPERTARIAN INSTITUTE AS A TRADE SCHOOL? A school of natural law?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • “WHERE DO I START?” —“Curt, I’ve been working on your reading list, but there

    “WHERE DO I START?”

    —“Curt, I’ve been working on your reading list, but there doesn’t seem to be any specific order to the thing, it’s topic specific. Is that on purpose? Why not have some foundational readings, which then branch out towards other topics?”— Ankit Patel

    The foundational readings are in the first section. But if you want me to give you the MOST IMPORTANT that i consider you need today it would be:

    Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind

    Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow

    Francis Fukuyama: Trust

    Francis Fukuyama: The Origins of Political Order.

    Niall Ferguson:. Civilization: The West and the Rest.

    Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization

    Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.

    Hayek: The Constitution of Liberty

    I wrote this list as I went along, cataloguing those works that I’d read and not dismissed. But where i started with the study of western civilization i ended up in law.

    But the truth is, (and I now this sounds like ego-bullshit) you’re actually not going to find the synthesis of so many fields that I provide anywhere else by anyone. It’s just almost impossible to cover every field I have at the depth I have and I don’t think it was possible before the 21st century to do so.

    So at present my blog (the record of my writing) with all its repetition is actually more helpful than the reading list.

    It’s one of the reasons i’m so hard to understand. I’m pulling from all these fields at once to show that speaking the truth is possible and that we CAN complete the scientific method and turn it into LAW : Natural Law.

    I mean, in the end that’s all my work reduces to: we know the name of TRUTH now, and we can put it in law, where we could not put it into law before. And because of that we can now protect the market for information and the informational commons the same way that we protect the market for goods, the market for services, and the market for polities.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 20:20:00 UTC

  • “ADVICE TO BUDDING REACTIONARIES ….” —“If I could give advice to a budding r

    “ADVICE TO BUDDING REACTIONARIES ….”

    —“If I could give advice to a budding reactionary, it would be to master Nietzsche and Evola first, then the rest of this [NRX] stuff will look like bourgeois tripe. It would amount to a great deal of wasted effort for a man to read these two authors later rather than sooner.

    And if someone has a really hard time taking such esoteric spiritualism seriously, at least just go straight to Curt Doolittle and his Propertarianism, which is infinitely deeper than anything that is going on right now on the Right.

    I’ve scoured far and wide, and he really is the lead intellectual of the New Right. It’s amazing to me some of these NRx blogs still write the only somewhat-correct garbage they do, rather than read him and catch up with what advances have been made.”— Of Bronze and Fire (Reddit)

    (RESPONSE)

    (I’m humbled. Thank you.) And I’ve come to agree with the value of the Evola->Nietzche->Doolittle progression for those that start with the spiritual and work to the scientific it’s the right pathway. I’m too hung up on my own progression without necessarily realizing that once you get to Testimonialism, Propertarianism, and Sovereignty the Evola -> Nietzsche -> Doolittle sequence may be superior to the empirical sequences for the purpose of learning. Most people want to learn. (I needed to falsify.) Learning is better achieved through the spiritual and literary. It’s just a hard transition for me to make.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 12:56:00 UTC

  • THE CENTURY OF MADWOMEN As far as I can tell, the left’s liberalism, anti-famili

    THE CENTURY OF MADWOMEN

    As far as I can tell, the left’s liberalism, anti-familialism, school-anarchism, and ‘tolerance’ has produced a vast increase in mental illness the origin of which is simply the prohibition that we demand discipline from one another.

    When I travel the world this is the main difference between our culture and others. We are not more progressive or more tolerant, we are simply failing to educate the human animal to funciton as a member of a polity – and they’re going insane in vast numbers because of it.

    I see this as the ultimate expression of the feminine: to escape accountability for the management of her impulses. And what is the reason? Women evolved to have children in their teens where those impulses are governed by the offsetting demand to care for children.

    We have created madwomen in vast numbers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-31 13:15:00 UTC

  • I don’t have to worry about discussing social issues at all. Listen to how well

    https://soundcloud.com/butchleghorn/propertarian-podcast-008Damn. I don’t have to worry about discussing social issues at all. Listen to how well they pull this off. Amazing. Absolutely awesome technique.

    https://soundcloud.com/butchleghorn/propertarian-podcast-008

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-29 18:43:00 UTC

  • In order to preserve our excellences we must continue to practice deconflation o

    In order to preserve our excellences we must continue to practice deconflation of ideas. This means we must specialize in MULTIPLE disciplines rather than specialize in just one method of government.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:17:00 UTC

  • Giving Up On Scientific Thought For Everyone?

    (Curt Doolittle December 19 at 12:20pm) NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable. If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia. We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn. These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination). When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.

  • Giving Up On Scientific Thought For Everyone?

    (Curt Doolittle December 19 at 12:20pm) NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable. If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia. We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn. These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination). When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.