(very important)

The value of philosophy is to convert what we learn, into the web (network) of related concepts that we currently USE. (Note that I do not use the word ‘believe’, which is a synonym for justification.) This often requires a great deal of rearranging of our concepts. That which was before subordinate, turns out to be superordinate. That which before was moral, turns out to be immoral. Trusted truths become harmful fallacies.

Look at the scope of what I am trying to do:

1) Western philosophy is the history of attempting to speak the truth, truthfully.
2) Science and mathematics discovered the means of speaking truthfully.
3) The scientific and mathematical methods however, did not include costs.
4) By integrating costs into the scientific method, that method evolves into the universal means by which humans can endeavor to speak truthfully – regardless of discipline.
5) Thus fulfilling the 2500 year old attempt to speak truthfully – even if we are forever bidden from knowing whether or now we are speaking the ultimate, most parsimonious truth that is possible.
6) With this knowledge we can then embody in law, the principle of truth telling. And under universal standing, and rule of law, and property-en-toto, require truthful speech whenever costs are involved in one’s utterances: ethics and politics.

If you can find more noble an ambition then I would like to know it.
If you can find a better argument then I would like to know it.
But I am fairly sure that I stand on the shoulders of many who came before me and the destination of their vision is pretty obvious from this height.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine



0 – We are unequally desirable mates – this is necessary for evolutionary adaptation.
1 – We evolved a reproductive division of labor – the genders.
2 – We evolved an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor:
4 – We demonstrate short, medium, and long term preferences; 
5 – We demonstrate short, medium, and long term moral biases;
6 – We evolved, quite naturally, lower(<95), middle(<125) and upper(>125) classes;
7 – We need virtue(imitative), rule (rational), and outcome (scientific) ethics;
8 – We need sacred(religious), moral(normative), and calculative (legal) rules;
9 – We rely upon intuitive(experiential), conscious(rational), and instrumental(calculative) tools to made decisions.
10 – Our moral biases reflect our reproductive strategies.
11 – Our normative biases reflect our reproductive strategies.
12 – Our formal and informal institutions reflect our group-competitive strategies.
13 – All universalist strategy is to extend group-competitive strategies to dominate other group competitive strategies.

Short term strategy is in the interest of the lower classes (socialism – labor)
Medium term strategy is in the interest of the middle classes (classical liberty – trade)
Long term strategy is in the interests of the upper classes (aristocracy – order)

Some people are only CAPABLE of sentimental talk and argument.
Some people are only CAPABLE of rational talk and argument.
Some people are CAPABLE of scientific talk and argument.

So what does all of this tell us about persuading others? It tells us that we cannot (and should not) try. It tells us to create institutions that allow cooperation across moral codes and reproductive strategies. It tells us that the majority cannot understand these matters except experientially – once implemented.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev, Ukraine.


—“First they ignore you , then they ridicule you, then they fight you then you win.”—

Only a dishonest man would recommend people not read something, rather than attack the central argument of the author. But then, dishonesty is central to the ghetto ethic, is it not?

If you do not understand the central arguments, that is one thing, but ignorance or incompetence is not a criticism of me, it is a statement about your judgement of the mirror.

So READ this list. Read Hoppe’s Aristocracy, Monarchy, Democracy. Read Mencius – both of these works are criticisms not solutions. These answers are: Organized violence, property-en-toto, property rights by reciprocal insurance, the symmetry of morality and property rights, and the rule of organic evolutionary law, operationally stated and calculatively constrained, praxeology resurrected as operationalism, and science as the struggle to evolve the means of speaking the truth. Watch my videos. And follow me in Propertarianism, as I drag liberty back into aristocracy and out of the medieval ghetto – kicking and screaming against the objection of a generation of failed libertines using the techniques of the marxists, to create a cult of ideology, rather than an operational institutional framework for the restoration of liberty by demonstrable actions.

Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
John Keegan: A History Of Warfare
Joseph Campbell : The Hero’s Journey
Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation
William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization
Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe
Daniel Hannan: Inventing Freedom
Alan MacFarlane : Origins of English Individualism
Gregory Clark: A Farewell to Alms
Matt Ridley: The Red Queen
Dale Petersen: Demonic Males
Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature
Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow
Francis Fukuyama: Trust Sam Harris : Lying
Steven Pinker : The Blank Slate
Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind
Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism
Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed
Doolittle: Propertarianism. High Trust Ethics Necessary for Anarchy

The only person who can compete with the argument that I make is hoppe – just as he did with his new essay – by adopting my positions: the source of liberty is violence, and the only source of liberty the law, and that argumentation is a legal constraint not a functional one. And that only by operationalism – constructing decisions by incentives and available information – is human action rationally and scientifically explicable. 


Curt Doolittle 
The Philosophy of Aristocracy 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev, Ukraine.


I don’t remember who in the thread above wondered aloud whether something Curt Doolittle wrote was a joke or not. This is generally a problem with reading what Curt Doolittle writes. It is one of the reasons I recommend not trying to read him. He has been captured by a mania for categorization, and the schema of categorization which he has constructed is largely unintelligible to anyone else. It might be that by reading him with close attention, one could, over time, learn to make sense of his writings. I myself have no interest in pursuing that strategy and am happily willing to do without whatever benefits might be attendant on such a strategy.  –  Jeff Riggenbach

Or Jeff Riggenbach – is it that the categorization I rely upon is scientific rather than rationalist, externally correspondent instead of justificationary, and that it successfully discredits the impossible, objectively immoral, and now failed, rothbardian program upon which your organization’s income depends? 

I have taken on a scale of work that few have dared or tried to by reforming hoppe’s cosmopolitan and kantian rationalism into the language of contemporary science. We have sufficient science now to do it.

I have done this to save liberty from the lunatic fringe: rothbardian ghetto morality, rothbardian and misesisan pseudoscience, blockian immorality, rockewellian conspiracy theory, the pervasive adoption of marxist critique (which you demonstrate above), and hoppe’s misguided foray into habermasian justification.

I am quite confident that no living philosopher can defeat the set of arguments I have put forth – even at their current level of maturity. And that is not a threat that I make without confidence that science has taught us that it is the language by which we speak truthfully, and german and cosmopolitan rationalism, a language by which we have constructed better and more effective lies of more murderous harm than any since the invention of scriptural religion.

So, you have a choice: Abandon immoral, marxian, pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, cult nonsense that harms our pursuit of liberty on a daily basis, by casting and demonstrating libertarians and those who desire liberty as the lunatic fringe and liberty as a minority proposition of fools, libertines and outcasts.

Only the socially dysfunctional, socially marginalized and autistic spectrum public has adopted the rothbardian approach. And the era has peaked and your funding is collapsing. 

And that is a good thing. You can, like all intellectual movements, reform, or you can perish. You can either abandon the cosmopolitans and germans and join the scientific world, or remain a cult language of rebellion against modernity.

The Anglo enlightenment contained errors. The german enlightenment contained elaborate justifications by elaborate verbalisms. But the Cosmopolitan enlightenment was the most destructive force that man has faced since Abraham spun Zoroaster into monotheism as warfare.

So welcome to the revolution. 

Join it or be ended by it. I don’t, we don’t, beg for approval, we seek defeat.

Liberty in our lifetime.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev Ukraine.


In Ukraine, we have the only poor, honest, white people left on the planet. The only thing we lack is a justice system. The only difference between Ukraine and Canada is that Canada has America instead of Russia as the most influential political neighbor. We just need anglo-american jurisprudence and Ukraine will not only the biggest but one of the wealthiest countries in Europe.


Guest post by Michael Philip

Democracy is supposed to make things better, by making all voters part of the political bargaining process. The problem with that is much of the art of representative politics is using the coercive power of the state to provide benefits to folk who do notice (and care and effectively politically express that noticing and caring) while shifting the costs onto those who do not. In other words, generating visible positive externalities paid for via not-usefully-noticed negative externalities. Politicians are entrepreneurs of externality. Appealing to politicians to deal with problems of externalities in general is rather like putting arsonists in charge of the fire brigade.


I don’t care about your race. I care about your IQ, impulsivity, aggression, time preference, degree of suppression of free riding, and total integration into every possible aspect of the culture.

You are not going to find anyone, me included, caring about the immigration of smart, un-impulsive, non-aggressive, low time preference (long term thinking), individuals. Not only because they’re rare. But because they’re nice to have around.

But everything else is costly invasion for a high trust polity.

So I don’t care about race. I care that there are differences in the distribution of these properties in the races, and that people from races act as blocs in politics, economics, society, and reproduction.

Integrate entirely or leave. Absolute nuclear family. High trust ethics. Religion and myths, institutions and norms.



(I think this is very close to my position on racism. I just don’t like it. if it’s present, that’s because something else is wrong: invasion, non-integration, material difference in distribution, and an impact on norms.)




Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.