Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Libertarian: Aristocratic Egalitarian Nomocratic Classical Liberal

    [A]RISTOCRATIC (rule by best) EGALITARIAN (open to all)  NOMOCRACTIC (rule of law) CLASSICAL LIBERAL (divisions into houses representing classes ) AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN (an advocate for institutional liberty.. My point in writing this is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons. What does that mean?

    It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability). It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal. Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes. Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people. So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions. To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertarian: Aristocratic Egalitarian Nomocratic Classical Liberal

    [A]RISTOCRATIC (rule by best) EGALITARIAN (open to all)  NOMOCRACTIC (rule of law) CLASSICAL LIBERAL (divisions into houses representing classes ) AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN (an advocate for institutional liberty.. My point in writing this is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons. What does that mean?

    It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability). It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal. Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes. Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people. So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions. To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism for New Friends: One Bite at a Time.

    [L]ibertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.

    The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.

    Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)

    Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).

    There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.

    So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.

    And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.

    This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.

    Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

    Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.

    It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.

    It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.

    So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:
    Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
    Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
    Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
    Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
    My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
    The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com
    HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
    Any Alt-Right
    Any Neo-Reaction.
    Any Red Pill.
    Any of the top 100 econ blogs.

    EDITORS/CRITICS
    Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
    Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
    Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
    Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
    Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
    And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )

    READING LIST
    I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:
    http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/

    BLOGS ETC
    I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.

    Source: Curt Doolittle – FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A…

  • Untitled

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/06/02/wikileaks-exposes-obamas-phony-trade-billonly-5-of-29-chapters-about-trade/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-13 04:18:00 UTC

  • THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT? (from elsewhere) The Dark Enlightenment is a bit of a mi

    THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT?

    (from elsewhere)

    The Dark Enlightenment is a bit of a misnomer – neo-reaction is more accurate. It refers to a criticism of the Democratic State, Media, and Academy, complex and their use of pseudoscience, rational fallacy and propaganda; and is a rejection of the enlightenment promise of an aristocracy of everyone via democracy .

    The term counter-enlightenment already has established meaning in intellectual history. And unfortunately, the alternative title “dark enlightenment , originally conceived as a bit of humor, has stuck.

    While the original authors wrote using the form of continental philosophy (moral language), current authors (like myself) are writing in analytic (amoral), legal (amoral) and scientific (amoral) terms.

    But in practical terms the purpose of the movement is a criticism of the failure of democracy as a suicide of the west. And a series of solutions for either returning to traditional European governments, or advancing to new alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-12 12:03:00 UTC

  • WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND R

    WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND RULE OF LAW

    (worth repeating) (edited for clarity)

    The state under rule of law, is a monopoly. But any complete and internally consistent logic that is also externally correspondent, existentially possible, and objectively moral, is a monopolistic definition, by necessity. So it’s interesting that if law is scientifically constructed then it’s a monopoly by consequence of logical necessity, not choice.

    The ‘state’ under rule of law is just the body of law and the institutional process of applying it by the judiciary. It’s a tool for the resolution of disputes only. or more precisely, for the suppression of parasitism.

    The ‘government’ under Propertarianism is close to a misnomer. A Propertarian government cannot make laws, only contracts. As such functions as a market for the production of commons. In that market, we can construct contracts between peoples willing to conduct exchanges. In assenting to those contracts, you don’t have to agree with another person or group’s proposition – there is no need for your approval, so your assent can’t be ‘bought’. Instead, you can only dissent by stating how it’s an imposition of costs upon those who don’t want it, and that accusation must stand legal (Propertarian) scrutiny. Just as any other person in any other walk of life can object to the imposition of costs.

    There is no need for monopoly production of commons. And therefore no need for majority rule. All laws are produced outside of the ‘government’ (commons builders). The only monopoly necessary is that of the law, just as the only monopoly in the logic of relations is mathematics. And that monopoly is purely logical.

    So there is no need to create a parasitic monopoly bureaucracy for the production of commons.

    a) politicians are parasitic.

    b) the bureaucracy is parasitic,

    c) the industrial rent seekers are parasitic.

    d) the redistribution seekers are parasitic.

    BUT

    To civilize man (suppress his free riding,and force him to produce in the market to survive) we create central bureaucracies that suppress family and local rents, then centralize rents, and use those profits to pay to civilize man and to eliminate the local middlemen.

    To further civilize man we now eliminate the central bureaucracy and rely entirely on the common interests in suppressing the emergence of statism (monopoly) using rule of law., under the common law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, directly or indirectly, by positive expression of property rights.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-12 04:27:00 UTC

  • IS, MUST, SHOULD, CAN CAN: progressive (short) [consumption] [development of off

    IS, MUST, SHOULD, CAN

    CAN: progressive (short) [consumption] [development of offspring]

    SHOULD: libertarian (med) [production] [competition of production]

    MUST: conservative (long) [saving] [competition of the tribe]

    IS: science. (Timeless) [existence] [stock of knowledge]

    Is it that simple?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-11 06:12:00 UTC

  • IT IS EASIER THAN EVER TO REVOLT IN A FRAGILE POLITY (from elsewhere)(archival)

    IT IS EASIER THAN EVER TO REVOLT IN A FRAGILE POLITY

    (from elsewhere)(archival)

    Free Northerner,

    Our opponents attacked us with better leadership, better organization, outright lies, obscurant rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda: repeated over and over again. Most effectively by achieving by judicial activism and immigration, what could not be achieved by persuasion. And of those who could be persuaded, it was predominantly women who, like they were by Christianity in Rome, most easily fooled. And who, being fooled in large numbers, tilted votes, taught children in schools, provided income and incentives to universities as a new customer base, and staffed marketing departments and advertising agencies.

    Contrary to current opinion, it is very easy to do something about it. It is merely costly, not hard. Because contemporary civilization is fragile.

    But to succeed in any campaign, we must have a better idea, better articulated, better leaders, better organization, and a means of persecuting lying, deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda. Because gossip and deceit are cheap and easily made plentiful. That is their tactic. Women evolved to use gossip to rally against alphas.

    By contrast, violence and truth are expensive and hard to make plentiful. But that is both our tactic and our objective: truth and the threat of violence for those who gossip and deceive.

    We require: A goal. A plan. A moral justification for violence. And the will to pay the high cost of saving our civilization from the age of lies and propaganda made possible by the introduction of women into the politics of our high trust polity under open enfranchisement representative democracy, without houses of government that represent our competing class and gender interests.

    Our opponents’ strategy is purely verbal – so they need numbers. We don’t. We need a few good men willing to risk life and liberty. Because the liars have created pervasive fragility that can easily be exploited.

    Once we have actionable demands, we can raise the cost of not meeting those demands by taking advantage of that fragility. Whether it be nullification, secession, revolution, or civil war, is merely a measure of the cost that the people are willing to pay to preserve their tyranny of the masses. We need a solution to post-democratic equalitarian government, the construction of immoral laws, judicial activism in order to do something other than just rebel.

    Which is what I work on full time.

    Thankfully, success is more possible now than it has ever been.

    Liberty, truth and rule of law and natural aristocracy in our lifetime, or tyranny, deceit, propaganda, Brazil and castes in the next.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    http://freenortherner.com/2015/06/07/nihilism-and-utopianism/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 01:36:00 UTC

  • FUKUYAMA DID NOT UNDERSTAND The Chinese developed their bureaucracy precisely be

    FUKUYAMA DID NOT UNDERSTAND

    The Chinese developed their bureaucracy precisely because they FAILED to solve the problem of politics.

    The west solved it. We just didn’t know it.

    CENTRALIZED———-WEAK————NOMOCRATIC

    LIARS——————————————-TRUTH TELLERS

    DIVERSE—————————————HOMOGENOUS

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-09 02:41:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN NOMOCRACTIC CLASSICAL LIBERAL AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN NOMOCRACTIC CLASSICAL LIBERAL AND THEREFORE LIBERTARIAN. ( 🙂 )

    My point is that I’m not a ‘white nationalist’. I’m a universal nationalist. A higher-tribalist. An advocate for truth, science, and nomocracy; for the market production of commons.

    What does that mean?

    It means that we can choose a spectrum between a corporations resulting in castes, or nations (extended families) resulting in aristocracy. But we will never achieve equality. It’s impossible because we are too vastly unequal to one another in value to one another (capability).

    It is our lower classes that cannot merge. Our aristocracies are, and must be global. But bringing our lower classes – reliant on one another – to capital, and particularly to normative and institutional capital, is suicidal.

    Our differences are expressed by our lower classes. our similarities by our upper classes.

    Yet our upper classes can only obtain status (and status can only be widely manufactured by positive (non consumptive) means, if there are many nations, with many aristocrats. Aristocracy gains its status signals from raising its people from one state and one distribution to another state and another distribution. Otherwise they are just parasites on their own people.

    So I advocate universal aristocracy. Universal tribalism. Universal familialism. And as such I am an anti-corporatist in both private and public institutions.

    To no small degree, I view the emphasis on signaling via consumption and the offloading of underclasses to more developed nations, as a total abdication of aristocratic responsibility for the parental development of their civilizations.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-07 04:34:00 UTC