Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Conservatism And The Central Objects Of Law, Policy, And Commons.

    Conservatism is not an individualist but a Familial strategy. In other words, the strategy is building good, self-insuring families. So conservatism eugenically suppresses weak and bad family members from the gene pool, allowing those who demonstrate a willingness to transcend their familial (genetic) weaknesses through demonstrations of heroism. So if your family is too weak you provide you with wealth it’s a measure of your genes. And you are a representative of those genes. Through actions and choices, you may transcend your family limits. Through actions and choices one can descend from a family’s achievements. There are four functions that play for and against your statement. First, the lottery effect is real and necessary (you can’t win if you don’t play) but not all people can win the lottery. This creates incentives for many at very low cost. Second capitalism pays us for the number of people who are willing to contribute to the production of goods and services. It’s purely a numbers game. Making cooking-matches and making symphonies is inversely rewarding; lots of people use cooking-matches. Third – it is extremely difficult to hold wealth over more than three generations unless you are in fact genetically superior. And that is what we see. Fourth – those families that demonstrate superiority over many generations are in fact demonstrating that they are a natural aristocracy – by any measure: and there are very few of them. THEREFORE The central object of law is the individual, since the individual acts. The central object of policy is the family. The central object of commons is the competitiveness of the polity. Insurance of various forms is a luxury we can afford or not depending on the success of the central objects of law, policy, and polity. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (And my spiritual homes: London UK, Boston, and Seattle USA) 🙂

  • Conservatism And The Central Objects Of Law, Policy, And Commons.

    Conservatism is not an individualist but a Familial strategy. In other words, the strategy is building good, self-insuring families. So conservatism eugenically suppresses weak and bad family members from the gene pool, allowing those who demonstrate a willingness to transcend their familial (genetic) weaknesses through demonstrations of heroism. So if your family is too weak you provide you with wealth it’s a measure of your genes. And you are a representative of those genes. Through actions and choices, you may transcend your family limits. Through actions and choices one can descend from a family’s achievements. There are four functions that play for and against your statement. First, the lottery effect is real and necessary (you can’t win if you don’t play) but not all people can win the lottery. This creates incentives for many at very low cost. Second capitalism pays us for the number of people who are willing to contribute to the production of goods and services. It’s purely a numbers game. Making cooking-matches and making symphonies is inversely rewarding; lots of people use cooking-matches. Third – it is extremely difficult to hold wealth over more than three generations unless you are in fact genetically superior. And that is what we see. Fourth – those families that demonstrate superiority over many generations are in fact demonstrating that they are a natural aristocracy – by any measure: and there are very few of them. THEREFORE The central object of law is the individual, since the individual acts. The central object of policy is the family. The central object of commons is the competitiveness of the polity. Insurance of various forms is a luxury we can afford or not depending on the success of the central objects of law, policy, and polity. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (And my spiritual homes: London UK, Boston, and Seattle USA) 🙂

  • The Uncomfortable Political Truth We Must Adapt To In This Century

    Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual. I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law. I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs. But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence. We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people. And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>

  • The Uncomfortable Political Truth We Must Adapt To In This Century

    Nationalism, Tribalism, Familialism are all the best POLITICAL criteria for decidability in matters of commons, just as individualism is the best criteria for decidability in matters of the individual. I don’t like “anti-anyone” other than perhaps I am pretty much against religions that are incompatible with natural law, and are justified by means incompatible with physical law. I prefer limiting immigration to the ‘highly’ skilled (I don’t include IT in that category – IT will be analogous to any other trade soon enough). And I am against the importation of calculators, managers, laborers, and underclasses, in all cases. Precisely because they may increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term genetic, institutional, and normative costs. But if we retain Nationalism, Tribalism, and Familialism in Political policy (positive production of commons) and Individualism in Legal policy (negative resolution of differences), then this forces groups to pay their own way genetically, institutionally, and normatively. And by doing so raise their family, tribe, and nation to transcendence. We do not make better people so much as we eliminate those people who are a detriment to the better people. And it is this reality that we must come to terms with in this century. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>

  • How Did I End Up In This Intellectual Market Position?

    (irony) [A]s a libertarian, my prescriptions were often Friedmanite solutions to social democratic preferences. As an alt right libertarian I advocate paying the lower classes not to reproduce at replacement levels, and to limit immigration to 115 and above IQ’s in technical disciplines. The reason being that I prefer to live in a high trust society with many commons and high redistribution, including ‘dividends’ on the economy (variable and unpredictable basic income) because the labor market pricing structure is out of balance with productivity. And I have come to understand that ‘retirement’ and ‘delayed adulthood’ are catastrophes. The single reason I’m associated with the ‘hard’ right is that I’ve come out so aggressively against the great lies of the 19th and 20th century. And that those great lies are just deception constructed as a pseudoscientific version of the prior deception constructed in Judeo-Christian-Muslim mysticism. But that’s not my central argument. I also state that the enlightenment philosophies from all European cultures: Anglo(Empirical/Legal), French(Moral), and German(rationalist) philosophies were equally false and contradictory to what made Europa exceptional and ‘faster than the rest’. It’s true the anglo and german philosophical frameworks were false, but at least they were beneficial, while the french and Jewish frameworks were catastrophes for mankind. I’m happy I’ve given young men a language with which to communicate the feelings of their internal voices. And I’m proud that I succeeded in my life’s ambition: to create a language for the rational, scientific comparison of ethical, political, and group competitive strategies. So our generation is armed to the rhetorical teeth so to speak. But let’s not lose sight of the broader insight, that TRUTHFULNESS dictated that I return the philosophy of liberty to its aristocratic origins as the TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE – if not science – of the western aristocratic excellence in the application of organized violence to domesticate mankind by the incremental suppression of parasitism – thus forcing him into productive labor in order to survive and reproduce, and converting the proceeds from our efforts into Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • How Did I End Up In This Intellectual Market Position?

    (irony) [A]s a libertarian, my prescriptions were often Friedmanite solutions to social democratic preferences. As an alt right libertarian I advocate paying the lower classes not to reproduce at replacement levels, and to limit immigration to 115 and above IQ’s in technical disciplines. The reason being that I prefer to live in a high trust society with many commons and high redistribution, including ‘dividends’ on the economy (variable and unpredictable basic income) because the labor market pricing structure is out of balance with productivity. And I have come to understand that ‘retirement’ and ‘delayed adulthood’ are catastrophes. The single reason I’m associated with the ‘hard’ right is that I’ve come out so aggressively against the great lies of the 19th and 20th century. And that those great lies are just deception constructed as a pseudoscientific version of the prior deception constructed in Judeo-Christian-Muslim mysticism. But that’s not my central argument. I also state that the enlightenment philosophies from all European cultures: Anglo(Empirical/Legal), French(Moral), and German(rationalist) philosophies were equally false and contradictory to what made Europa exceptional and ‘faster than the rest’. It’s true the anglo and german philosophical frameworks were false, but at least they were beneficial, while the french and Jewish frameworks were catastrophes for mankind. I’m happy I’ve given young men a language with which to communicate the feelings of their internal voices. And I’m proud that I succeeded in my life’s ambition: to create a language for the rational, scientific comparison of ethical, political, and group competitive strategies. So our generation is armed to the rhetorical teeth so to speak. But let’s not lose sight of the broader insight, that TRUTHFULNESS dictated that I return the philosophy of liberty to its aristocratic origins as the TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE – if not science – of the western aristocratic excellence in the application of organized violence to domesticate mankind by the incremental suppression of parasitism – thus forcing him into productive labor in order to survive and reproduce, and converting the proceeds from our efforts into Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Political Models As Religions: Steady-state Fallacy

    ***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered, laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty. We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another. But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer. Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.*** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Political Models As Religions: Steady-state Fallacy

    ***Religions evolve slowly and normatively. Common, discovered, laws evolve rapidly in response to new discoveries of methods of parasitism. Between durable religion and tactical law, Political Models serve only as organizational tools that we use to advance our strategies. In our case, that strategy is liberty. We do not fear liberty. We can compete on merit. It’s those that cannot compete on merit that fear a condition of liberty. So it is rational to say you ‘are’ a member of a religion, and rational to say that to achieve liberty in the current context you suggest we employ one political model or another. But to grant political models the same constancy as religion is to de-facto cast political models as mystical religions independent of world circumstances, instead of operational tools by which we modify the world’s circumstances in pursuit of the political conditions we prefer. Steady-state political orders are as fictional a theory as an evenly rotating economy. Neither exists or can.*** Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT? No. New Right. Alt right is a resistance mov

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF ALT-RIGHT?

    No. New Right. Alt right is a resistance movement not a revolutionary one. Complaints not solutions. I do solutions.

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A WHITE NATIONALIST?

    No. I take the position that familism, tribalism, nationalism, under natural law will produce the best outcomes for each family, tribe, nation, and race. And as such all can transcend the animal we call man.

    DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A NATIONAL SOCIALIST?

    No. Although I do feel that despite its terrible economics that it was one of the greatest and most beautiful ambitions ever created by man – until they adopted propaganda, pseudoscience, and outright lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 07:57:00 UTC

  • too small. I use Switzerland as the optimum model for adaptation

    too small. I use Switzerland as the optimum model for adaptation

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 08:08:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781405383130746880

    Reply addressees: @Ava1683

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Glanceaustere

    @curtdoolittle Liecehnstein, etc., where would they be in your trust system? Would they be between medium trust Catholic familism and

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425