Q&A: "Curt, What Do You Think of The Alt Right Authors?"

—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—

Chris, (all)

Great Question Chris.

We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests.

The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it.

Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government.

And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me.

Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all.

The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience.

These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say).
I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution.

Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there.

But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science.

(As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. )

I hope this helps.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute


Creating a Moat Around Russia: Six Points Explaining Why Putin Is Acting Strategically


1) The fall of Ukraine was unexpected and Putin feared a spread to Moscow. Rather than call up the USA or Merkel and offer to lease Crimea for 99 years with an option to renew, and offer to exchange the Donbas (The Don Basin) for a large discount on gas for the same period, he ‘flinched’ because of the fear that he would lose his only warm water port.

2) He did expect some difficulties from the west but not the severity of impact on the economy. This was surprising to him – and everyone else for that matter. He is painfully aware that the west could shut off financial transactions with Russia and that would cause the rest of the economy to collapse. While he can threaten to turn off the oil to the west, this hurts him far more than the west – who merely has to buy more expensive oil on the world market – whereas Russia rapidly runs out of money to conduct trade (and internal bribes).

3) Putin wants to restore Russia to peer status in the world. He saw his civilization collapse and it framed him forever. He is not alone. To do this requires that he monopolize the oil revenues so that he can manage the economy through payments (dependents) the way germans manage with duty, brits with morality, and americans with law. Russia does not share our high trust traditions and so he must run the country as a mafia state until he can mature the institutions sufficiently that he does not need to use 50% of revenues to buy influence in order to keep the country running. This is a job that is very difficult that is hard for westerners to understand. Russia is and always has been run as a mafia state – for the same reason souther Italy was run as a mafia state: because no one in or out of the administration was trustworthy.

4) Putin (correctly I believe) wants to provide his people (and the world) with an alternative to the ‘suicidal decadence’ of the democratic secular hedonistic west. Prior to ‘flinching’ in Ukraine, he was the most respected politician in the world. He can quite easily enfranchise the western right and accomplish that goal if he lets go of Ukraine. He may not see that Ukraine is forever gone – the people have turned against Russia forever. (I live here in Ukraine). And that Ukraine will want membership in both the EU and NATO and if not, then the eastern european countries will form an alternative to NATO.

5) He has a muslim problem greater than that of Europe and America, and worse yet, he depends on Chechen muslims to do much of his ‘dirty work’. So he is empowering enemies. His reason for acting in Syria is three fold: (a) he wants to kill off as many muslims as possible so that they don’t expand to Russia. (b) most maps don’t show this well, but most of the oil in the world that is profitable to take out of the ground is in a narrow region between the saudi Peninsula and the Barents sea. Now,it’s one thing if radical muslims hold the southern half of that territory, but not if they terrorize Russia and get hold of the northern half. (c) Russia has not been able *yet* to produce a diverse economy so he needs no to fight a world war with muslims over the oil fields when he is in weakened position.

6) Russia’s most severe problem is that it cannot develop businesses because as soon as they are profitable some member of the upper echelon steps in, drives it to near bankruptcy and then buys it for a song. This has become the most serious issue to the economy other than the permanent problem with rule of law. The problem of ‘modernizing’ Russia is very difficult and he has actually made pretty significant progress during his tenure.

We must not misinterpret Putin’s actions in Ukraine as a strategy, rather than an act of panic at the possible loss of the manufacturing base of the Russian military (in the Donbas) and the only warm water port possessed by the Russian military (crimea).

Otherwise, Putin has a long term plan to create a traditional Russia by restoring the orthodox church, providing an impassable and state sponsored method of resisting islam,(400 new churches in Moscow alone), slowly reforming rule of law, and after the sanctions are lifted (they will be) using money to diversify the economy. (Russia cannot duplicate the Silicon Valley Model because of the low trust society and pervasive corruption, but it has the talent to do so. Russian psychology – skepticism, cunning, and pride – is very useful in the development of engineers.)

Putin is making sure that Russia is an island insulated from Islamic brutality and Western depravity. He is building a fortress of defense against threats to his people. A better example is that he is building an Ark that will survive the coming turmoils.

If you see it from this perspective, Putin is profoundly consistent, strategic and rational in the pursuit of his objectives.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


The Templars Did It Right: Room And Board


And you see ISIS doing the same.
And we see Ukrainian Volunteers dong the same.
And you saw american revolutionary soldiers doing it.
And you saw european soldiers throughout history do it.

The central problem of raising an army is not weapons, it is merely the money necessary to supply room and board for those men who prefer to fight for change rather than do whatever it is at their disposal.

If you ask men to bring a weapon, they will. But you must be able to feed, shelter, and direct them.

Once you have men and weapons, you have an army, and an army can take whatever it wants or needs. And by the act of merely taking, it disrupts the economy so significantly that little else need be done.

What the Islamists do well is (a) live on few resources, and (b) distribute money effectively through channels, and (c) make use of a vast surplus of men.

Western men are in surplus. Money, Distribution, and Communication are not complicated.

Moral authority. A set of Demands, A plan. Room and Board.

Simple men think in tactics. General think in logistics.

You see, the more advanced an economy, the more fragile it is.


I'm Not Trying To Start a Cult - But To Restore The West By Starting A War.

(from elsewhere)

I don’t understand Shaun.

I think people who have been following me for a few years know why I use FB and why I run all these “tests”. Maybe it isn’t obvious any longer. I construct theories. I test them. These theories are designed to help me understand what I don’t. So I will spend a year making some set of arguments until nothing new is coming back..Ad move on to another of the same. I worked my way through the libertarian. I worked through the nrx. i’m working through the alt-right – and I try to understand.

Along the way I need to pick up a few people who can construct arguments. That’s happening.

I am not trying to start a cult.

(i’m trying to create a plan to start a war)”


The Evolution Of Human Regulation


1) RELIGION – threat of ostracization. (culture)
2) LAW – threat of punishment, loss of property or liberty. (state)
3) CREDIT – threat of loss of consumption. (suppliers)
4) SOFTWARE – threat of loss of opportunity. (friends)

Religion records your birth, promises, and deaths.
Law produces a history of your infractions.
Credit records a history of your impulsivity
Software records a history of your non-conformity.

You are always at the mercy of your neighbors. But every time population increases and with it anonymity, we develop a new means of constructing reputations in oder to ensure conformity.

(Fuk. And, I’m working at bringing it about… I’m gonna join the Mr Robot Society. )


The Evolution of Everything That Man Uses To Do Everything

(very important concepts) (important piece)

Weber was right, in that the evolution of civilization was achieved through improvements in various kinds of ‘calculation’ – a term which will not sufficiently convey the depth of importance or meaning to the uninitiated.

CALCULATION (ability to ‘think’ and plan)

– Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory
We are somewhat aware of the vast leaps in Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory: that arose from Writing, Numbers and Arithmetic, Accounting, Mathematics, Calculus, and Statistics (which are different disciplines).

– Planning (production)
Those of us who learn economics understand the institutions of Money, Prices, Credit, Interest, Banking, Bonds, Stocks, Financial Insurance, and how they assist us in cooperating at vast scales.

– Evolution and Equilibria (discovery)
And some of us are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the concept of evolution (self organizing). This is not limited to biological evolution (information organization in equilibria), but also to economics(information organization in equilibria), but also to the evolution of scientific knowledge (information organization in equilibria) in which knowledge is that which survives from free association, to hypothesis, to theory, and to law;

– Existence (operational naming)
And I think fewer people are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the act of programming (existential necessity), and database development (existential dependency),

– Truth (removal of imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception)
and very very few of us are aware of my work in Truth (testimonial organization in equilibria) in which Truth is what survives criticism, and testimony a warranty of due diligence, not a warranty of truth itself, and ultimate truth merely the most parsimonious statement possible.

And some of us in familial organizations:
– State Enforced Individual Monetary Union (feminism)
– Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear
– Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family
– Traditional Family, Communitarian Family
– Hetaeristic Monogamy
– Pairing Family, Serial Marriage
– Punaluan Family
– Consanguine Family

And some of us are aware of the evolution in productive organizations:
– Military Hierarchical (simple production)
– Bureaucratic Hierarchical (capital production)
– Professional (talent production)

Some of us are aware of the vast difference in state organizations:
– Authoritarian Socialist Economy. ( Dysgenic – Minimize Holdings )
– Social Democratic Mixed Economy ( Dysgenic – maximize takings )
– Private Capitalistic Libertarian Economy (Eugenic – maximize holding)

– Cooperation (ordinary cooperation in the process of production) (personal reputation in memory)
– Religion (normative promise) (demonstrated behavior) ostracization
– Law (criminal reputations) (writing and record keeping) Violence
– Credit (economic reputations) (computers) deprivation of consumption
– ‘Software Reputations’ (the most detailed yet – the internet) ???? (deprivation of relations)

We already constitute the equivalent of a hive mind.
The problem for our collective consciousness is in reducing error.
And that error is the product of dysgenia.


Reframe The Debate: Conservative = Aristocratic

(reframe the debate)


We must reframe the debate, swapping the word ‘Conservative’ for ‘Aristocratic’, and ‘progressive’ for ‘Socialistic’.

Aristocratic (paternal meritocratic) Egalitarian (open to all of merit who voluntarily take the oath not to steal.)


The Secrets of the West's Success

(important piece)

We can finally piece together the west’s struggle to ‘transcend’ the human animal, and to become our gods. Truth is the common thread.

AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia, Heroism, Truth,
AXIS 2) Sovereignty. Private Property, Voluntary Exchange, Contract
AXIS 3) Jury, Common Law, Rule of law & Universal Standing, Natural Law
AXIS 4) Debate, Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Science, Medicine
AXIS 6) Near Breeding Eugenics, Manorial Eugenics, Criminal Eugenics

The People Who Fight (defense – order) Aristocratic.
The People Who Farm (capital – production) Libertarian.
The People Who Gather (labor – consumption) Socialist.

The Follies: Athenian/Spartan and Anglo/German civil wars.
The Plagues: i) Justinian / Arab ii) The Black Death
The Invasions: The demographic invasions of Greece, Of Rome, Of the Roman Empire, of Europe and Americas.
The Great Lies: i) Jewish Christianity, ii) Jewish Pseudoscience, iii) Islamism
The Great Losses: Arab and Turkish Conquests of The East , The Communist Revolution in Russia, Russian Conquest of Eastern Europe,

1) Narrative, Writing, The Story, The Dramatic Play, The Novel, The Serial.
2) Counting, Positional Numbering, Arithmetic, Accounting, Computerized Accounting,
3) Mathematics (sets), Geometry (space), Calculus (relative change), Statistics (probability),
4) (physics)
5) (evolutionary biology)
6) (economics)
7) (truth) Syllogism, ..(correspondence).. Critical Rationalism, Testimonialism,


Teoría de los costos de transacción de gobierno

Original article by Curt Doolittle : http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/12/11/the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/

Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. 

La historia dice que sólo el desarrollo de un estado – una burocracia monopolista- transfiere los altos costos locales de transacciones sin rentas centrales, a rentas estatales y bajos costos de transacciones. Los libertarios ignoran la evidencia de los costos de transacciones y el aprovechamiento injusto a un nivel local.
E ignoran aún más la demostrada necesidad de usar la violencia en forma organizada por una ente monopolio para suprimir aquellos costos de transacción y aprovechamiento injusto (“rentas locales”), y las convierten en rentas centrales de forma tal que se paga para dicha supresión.

El argumento es que los estados son, de hecho, un costo neutral y que nosotros no gastamos lo suficiente en ellos en la supresión de los costos de transacción, porque  los estados proveen múltiplos de retorno de esa supresión. Esto también es demostrable.

La pregunta no es lo que podemos hacer sin la presencia del estado (un corporación articulada como una definición monopolista de los derechos de propiedad), sino que una vez que hayamos suprimido los costos locales de transacción, y los hallamos reemplazado con rentas centralizadas para poder producir los bienes que llamamos “derechos de propiedad” – ¿cómo suprimimos las rentas centralizado toda vez que mantenemos suprimidos los costos de transacción y la habilidad de construir bienes que dicha supresión de los costos y rentas nos permita construir?

Discutir la definición de monopolio de los derechos de propiedad es de alguna forma “mala o incorrecta”, es irracional, ya que la propiedad, obtenida mediante el trabajo y el intercambio voluntario, bajo los requerimientos de productividad, garantía y simetría, es, hasta donde yo se, lógicamente consistente y las excepciones son operaciones matemáticas de números naturales. Así que la imposición de derechos de propiedad no puede ser ilógica, inmoral, no ética, sin importar la forma en la qu son impuestos ya que definen lo lógico, ético y lo moral.

No existe nada malo con la violencia – de hecho, es la violencia con la que pagamos por derechos de propiedad y libertad – es nuestro primer, y más importante recurso en la construcción de la libertad. En vez de ello, la pregunta es meramente institucional: ¿Habiendo usado la violencia para centralizar los costos de transacción en rentas, cómo usamos ahora la violencia para eliminar las rentas de la organización central?

Esto es bastante fácil: derechos universales de propiedad y derecho consuetudinario construido de forma orgánica, predicado sobre la base de que una ley de derechos de propiedad positivamente articulada sobre la prohibición y la supresión de transferencias involuntarias: la demanda de intercambios libres de exterioridad, productivos, garantizados y debidamente informados. Porque ésta es la única forma de cooperación que es racional, aquella que es debidamente informada, productiva, voluntaria y garantizada, en vez de su forma parasitaria. Y que la única cooperación racional es dejar a un lado la oportunidad que uno tiene de usar la violencia igualmente racional.
La pregunta entonces se convierte en ¿Quién prohíbe la formación de autoridad? y esto cae en la ciudadanía: -la milicia- aquellos que poseen el monopolio de la violencia.

Hasta donde yo se, éste es el análisis correcto de la evolución política, y la teoría correcta para la acción política a futuro.

Curt Doolittle.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/cdigB Tags: , ,

Objective Good vs Subjective Preference

(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.)

I think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own.
In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is.

That might take a bit but we will get there.

—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark

I Think you’re referring to this statement:

—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—

Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”

—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—

So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions.
The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality.
So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.

–“good”— Mark

Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable.
So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**

–“starting point”— Mark

So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics.

The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott.

From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost.

If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement.
ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference.