Propertarian Metaphysics

(from reddit)

We must act to acquire. Actions exist. We require an epistemology for acting. We must cooperate. We require an epistemology for cooperation. If we cannot act or testify in some context then for us it does not exist for the purpose of our existence. If we can act or testify in some context then it exists for the purposes of acting and testifying and cooperating. I need, we need, make no claim about existence – we need make claims only about man acting in existence.

The more interesting question is why anyone would suggest some thing else – other than to force dominance upon the actions of others, whereas I merely demand cooperation (non imposition) from one another if we are to divide the labor of perception, cognition, memory, labor and advocacy.

My metaphysics is then the metaphysics of acting. And the criticism of that metaphysics predicated on how some other approach would be superior for the purpose of acting together in a vast division of labor to discover the first principles of the universe. It’s an evolutionary epistemology. I don’t set out to make claims of states, I set out to make claims of the results of processes.

Just as philosophy mired man in fallacy by confusing positive moral justification in matters of cooperation with negative scientific criticism for matters of epistemology, philosophy mired man in fallacy by conflating state for the purpose of deduction, with processes for the evolution of knowledge.

Again, that this error was for the purpose of persuading others and possibly a deception for doing so, is not that obvious. I don’t look for fixed principles with which to justify claims, I look for necessary constraints for the evolution of knowledge in the furtherance of action from which we can cooperate to produce prosperity in whatever universe we actually do exist in, regardless of how we perceive it.

We carry with us the baggage of prehistory, of the era of mysticism, and the era of pseudoscience. But knowing the mind of god, and knowing how to act within the universe are two very different questions: one about something increasingly questionable, and one about something staring us in the face every day.

The universe is not static for an acting being. It is constantly evolving. Because at any given moment he must act with the resources (including knowledge) at his disposal and cannot act with those that are not.
For all intents and purposes, those of us (westerners) who practice this form of exploration do demonstrably, in our reality, increasingly obtain domain over reality, and those who rely upon other (fallacies) of existence (mostly mysticism and platonism) fail to. That is because we discover through acting (testing).

I know of no material questions extant in metaphysics that cannot be addressed by the perception of change in state between a series of moments, and our consequent imaginings of consequences in each moment. (Vision works this way for example). The purpose of operationalism is to both guarantee that what we testify to actionably exists, and that we test the limits of our concepts (length for example) rather than assume our prior concepts hold.

So it is up to someone to defeat this argument. (Which is going to be very difficult.) I can’t. I have tried and I cannot.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine


On Measured IQ vs Demonstrated Intelligence…/do-you-really-und…


Demonstrated intelligence is a subject I work quite hard on so I think I might try to change your mind a bit, by at the very least giving you a different framework and language for approaching it.


I think I understand the difference between DEMONSTRATED intelligence, and the aggregate and commensurable MEASURE of our various intelligences, as well as anyone else. The reason being that it’s not very difficult to understand: the aggregation of the verbal(experiential)-spatial(temporal) measures is so predictive of life achievement that all other measures are all but insignificant.

So for the purposes that we use these measures (the cost of training the individual increasingly abstractly-perceptible skills) they are possibly as good a measure as we we are ever to get, and likely more precise than is relevant. It may in fact be better to reduce IQ to standard deviation from the magic ‘cliff’ of 106, where we begin to be able to articulate ideas and repair machines, since at every six to seven points, individuals display perceptible differences in ability and greater resolution in that measure is just noise. At every fifteen they display substantial differences in abilities allowing them access to different occupations, and at every 30 points of difference individuals begin to have difficulty communicating with on another in similar terms.


We also understand a great deal about variations in personality and moral instinct.

The research into the evolutionary origins of our moral intuitions (versus our learned norms) has progressed rapidly thanks to the conversion of the discipline of philosophy from a subjective pseudoscience measured against an ideal norm (freud), to an operationalist (observable) science measured against the requirements of evolutionary biology.

For the same reason our understanding of personality is shifting greatly. And while the five factor analysis is highly predictive given it’s (pseudoscientific authoritarian feminist freudian) origins, the term ‘neurotic’ should probably be homogenized with the sciences as ‘impulsivity’, the Autistic-Solipsistic spectrum, verbal IQ and Spatial IQ and Gender should be added to those measures. And the remaining four should be reframed as reproductive strategies.

The current error in personality analysis is the attempt to separate out empathy as a separate form of intelligence, rather than describe the influence that the feminine/solipsistic<–empathic–>autistic/masculine spectrum imposes upon verbal and spatial intelligence.

If done, then morality and personality, gender and reproductive strategy would be rendered commensurable. (The unfortunate long term impact of Cantorian, Marxist, Misesian, Boazian and Freudian pseudoscience remains with us and prevents us from unifying what appear to be different fields of inquiry, but that are identical if we reduce them to first principles: genetic expression of our evolutionary biology – a record of our evolution of the intuitions of cooperation which perform in an uncomfortable equilibrium with our self interest: reproductive strategy.

There is a reason the socialists suppressed darwin as heavily as the fundamentalists.) As an aside, we also know what properties make an individual desirable and undesirable as a mate (symmetry, skin, height, etc). And if we were to roughly measure those every seven years we would find that reproductive desirability, personality, cognitive abilities, morality, reproductive strategy would remain in parallel except at the margins. But this borders on ‘too much information’ since few of us want to face such facts.


1) —“a person may be of high intelligence and not have a high IQ score”—

Hmmm…, a person may DEMONSTRATE more intelligent thinking and action than someone with a higher IQ. This is true. But it does not tell us why he demonstrates it. Even though the reason WHY is quite simple: Demonstrated intelligence is largely a factor of general knowledge of the subject and its application with limited error. While IQ is determined only by the rate of pattern recognition. Now it so happens that people who recognize patterns more rapidly tend to make fewer errors, and to accumulate new information with less error.

But say, if one has a high incidence of impulsivity (Neuroticism) this will not be the case. His energies (and time) will be spent in justifications of his impulses, not in acquisitions of useful information). So, for example, Dr Higgs (of the higgs-boson particle) has argued that he would not obtain a professorship today because he works slowly and is unproductive. This does not prohibit him from genius. It merely means that he is disciplined and methodical. (I am of the same temperament, I would never find a dissertation committee that would tolerate my rate of production which like Spinoza will have taken many many years on a very risky hypothesis.)

In fact, most Nobel Prize winners are not actually of exceptional intelligence (merely in the 140’s) – which seems to indicate that the value of IQ declines in utility at some point (all measurements are questionable above 140 really). If for no other reason than it is difficult to find people to work with and communicate with, but most likely because somewhere above that range, the improvement is caused by a corresponding limitation.

Demonstrated intelligence consists of the following criteria:
i) IQ (rate of pattern recognition)
ii) Short term memory (necessary for mathematicians and chess players)
iii) General knowledge (reading a lot on a lot of subjects generally makes you smarter)
iv) Method of inquiry consisting of inputs ( allegory, parable, history, measurement) and methods ( free association, mysticism, reason, rationalism(justification), science(criticism).
v) Wants: Impossible Wants, Impossible Beliefs, Metaphysical Errors, and Erroneous Assumptions
vi) Lack of impulsivity: Discipline, and Time (great ideas are achieved by focused work over very long periods – often approaching a decade or more)

The greater evolutionary problem appears to be that exceptional intelligence is genetically caused by possessing fewer negative alleles rather than any special allele. Just as evolution is a process of surviving. Just as epistemology is a process of eliminating error from free associations leaving only truth candidates.

Most of the time, and we can go through almost every thinker in history, great or small, the reason for failure is not intelligence or short term memory, or even impulsivity, but impulsivity, wants, and method. It is rarely intelligence. The failure of intelligence is one in which we observe that the individual does not identify patterns extant in the knowledge available. We do not fault Aristote for his failed innovations. We fault marx for continuing to take money from Engels once he had discovered that the marginalists and proved him wrong, and that all his work and fame was fallacy. He stopped writing. Did nothing. Continued taking his income from Engels until he died. A simple ‘capitalist’ motivation kept him from admitting his errors.


So I think that we understand demonstrated intelligence enough to say that one can demonstrate intelligence in any sphere in which one can master the subject matter, apply scientific reasoning (criticism), insulate one’s study and practice from error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit (including self deception), and spend sufficient time on the subject that others cannot.

Some of us cannot even master ourselves. Some of us can barely master simple duties. Some of us can do it only through imitation of others. Some of us can do it only with experiential subjects. Some of us can do it with abstract subjects. Some of us can do it with purely theoretical subjects. And some of us can do MANY OF THESE AT ONCE. In fact, Polymathy and theoretical polymathy are probably the best test of demonstrated intelligence because polymathy demonstrates both rate of acquisition AND limited error in acquisition, and theoretical polymathy demonstrates that the individual can add a original insight (Hayek says he had two) to human knowledge.


2) –“…on the nature of scientific thinking as it should be..” —

This paragraph is reducible to the statement: demonstrable intelligence requires the construction of a model that corresponds to the extant reality, and survives attempts to falsify it.

What you don’t mention, and which will conflict with your own mode of inquiry, is that such scientific thinking requires that the model be sufficiently complete that one need not appeal to introspection for the evaluation of results. This is where I generally see you get into trouble with your own work. Any model that requires introspection rather than correspondence by definition lacks sufficient information and means of decidability such that one can claim one’s observation or testimony to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

Now, if by some chance your intuition corresponds to reality (and in many cases yours does) then this correspondence can be used to provide comfort to your priors, but may cause you error in bias in matters wherein you rely upon introspection rather than correspondence independent of introspection (decidability).

(But I am struck with the question of why you feel the need to retain your expertise in introspection? Why do you seek to justify it? When we know that this introspection merely results in confirmation bias?)

Man: need to persist. need to acquire, need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of acquisition. need to reproduce. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of reproduction. need to defend kin. need to cooperate as a disproportionately rewarding means of defending kin. need to produce cooperate to produce common assets since cooperation on commons is disproportionately rewarding compared to individual production. To act one must engage in perception, intuition, awareness, searching, reasoning, remembering, deciding, acting. But all that complexity is reducible to we must act to acquire, and cooperation that is non-parasitic (imposes no costs on others) is disproportionately productive.


3) –“understanding is not quantitative but qualitative” —

This statement demonstrates confusion between means of measurement rather than epistemological differences.

Understanding : general rules or general principles (of arbitrary precision) one uses for categorization, properties, methods and relations for some subsequent action – even if that subsequent action is merely consequent understanding.

Qualitative relations: the ability to stack relative to one another even if we cannot articulate the reason for stacking, and even if stacking is merely a preference.


Quantitative Measurements: the ability to define relations against a constant. These two forms of measurement serve two purposes. That is all.

So when you say ‘understanding’ you mean that any rule of general utility must be constructed with arbitrary precision equal to the context of application. (That’s a mouthful, I know. So we need examples.)

For example, I understand how to bake, but I bake a cake and bread differently by using recipes. Baking is a level of precision useful only for communication with others, while a recipe is necessary for the baking of a cake or bread. But, yet, it is not necessary that I understand the chemical transitions that occur during the process of preparation and baking and cooling in order for me to bake a cake.

So while in casual conversation we may use these terms loosely: baking, baking a cake, and the chemical transformations that occur through the combination of substances and the application of heat; each of these is a level of precision, just like predicting the trajectory of a ball you throw by commons intuition, firing a projectile using newtonian physics, or explaining the evolution of the universe using quantum mechanics – if we wish to reason from them, we must use that level of precision that we need for such reasoning – else we are just making excuses and calling them reasons: justification.

So ‘understanding’ requires general rules that help us evaluate explore and hypothesize within some useful context (arbitrary precision), not recipes that allow us to construct individual instances, nor too general to allow us to decide between actions in that context.

I understand the basics of carpentry but I am not capable of deducing the construction of a modern home from that. Most economists specialize in some field of inquiry but since the rules of economic specialties are interesting for their counter-intuitiveness, economists cannot generalize – which is why large groups of economists are non-predictive: at any given point only a few people possess the specialized knowledge to understand a current model. Meaning that the Dunning Kruger Effect is always with us – maybe more so for smart people.


I follow you. Don’t comment often. I like the Christian loading. Not crazy about method of doing it. I tend to just get to the central proposition of Christianity: extension of kinship love to non-kin as a means of increasing trust, increasing the velocity of cooperation, economic velocity, rate of innovation, and prosperity. We will never have a restoration without another dark age.  So we must take from christianity the truth, and launder the error, bias, wishful thinking and (rather plentiful) deception from it.

Love, Truth, and Commons, are Enough.

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


Haidt’s Relevance to Politics and Law

( RE:…/what_is_moral_foundation_theory_goo…/ )

I‘ve written quite a bit about Haidt in my work on Propertarianism. Perhaps I can move the discussion out of the psychological and often pseudoscientific (preferential experience) and into the legal and often scientific (necessary cooperation)

1) Haidt’s Moral foundations are reducible to descriptions of those instincts necessary for the preservation of the disproportionately high rewards of cooperation through the various prohibitions on ‘cheating’ which disincentives and undermines that cooperation. He describes his work by referencing evolutionary theory. He does not take cooperation further into economics (productivity). Nor does he discuss the evolution of the family structure and property rights in parallel to our evolution of production.

2) The different weights of our biases reflect differences in reproductive strategy between the male and the female: the males operate as a collection of brothers defending a reproductive resource, and they attempt to ensure the strength of the tribe as a vehicle for their genes and are conscious of MERIT (costs/return). Females and seek to bear children at will and place the cost of their upkeep upon the tribe, and then seek to ensure the success of their offspring in competition with those of other females regardless of the child’s MERITS since her genes must persist. In large groups this difference in reproductive strategy is adopted by different classes as well as genders. (See Haidt’s Bibliography)

3) These moral biases also express themselves as biases in perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, where progressives (feminine) favor consumption in the short term, libertarians (neutral) favor production in the medium term, and conservatives (masculine) favor accumulation of all forms of capital (especially genetic and normative) in the long term. Each of us specializes in a temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and labor: progressive short consumption regardless of merit, medium production, and long term defense. And we tend to be be morally blind to the other members of the division of perception.


4) Just as prices function as an information system for the production of goods and services, voluntary cooperation functions as an information system across the reproductive division of labor. Such that cooperation between each of the specializaons provides the optimum ‘game’ outcome for all even if none is able to achieve it’s desired state of perfection. This follows monogamous reproduction which is the best for all even if not the best for some.

5) As such, the moral foundations are reducible to **statements of property rights** necessary for the construction of a state of natural law, and provide us with the scientific (necessary and parsimonious) basis for law: the preservation of cooperation.


I have become very skeptical of any ethical, moral, economic, and political philosophy that is not expressed as decidable law strictly constructed from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. Because that use of law was the anglo-law, natural-law, then jeffersonian model, and avoiding that constraint, is how the postmodernists (neo-puritans), neocons, socialists and libertines (cosmopolitan libertarians) managed to use empty verbalisms and justificationary rationalism to confuse the academic and popular discourse.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Christian Love and Propertarianism

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve bought the love thing hook line and sinker. I tell other men I love them on a daily basis. And it’s infectious. We don’t support each other enough.

Our culture tells us to be stalwart stoic warriors in the germanic tradition. But we no longer have normative means of obtaining positive reinforcement for our actions – thanks largely to feminists. So we have to take matters into our own hands. The red pill means not just that we love ourselves, but that we love other men. And tell them so, when they do works in our interest.

Technically, Propertarianism tells us only to suppress parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). But Aristocratic Egalitarianism tells us to treat with brotherly love, all who engage in abstinence of parasitism, act as sheriff to police it, militia to defend it, and warrior to demand it.

There is precious little in Propertarianism that was not in Aristocratic Christianity, Mithraism, and the initiatic brotherhood of indo European warriors that led to the construction of the Vedas.

We are man’s aristocracy.

Shall we abandon man to immorality?

Or shall we lead him to universal love and abstinence from parasitism?

Lets lead. They failed. We must take back rule. Leave them government, but take back rule.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy


The Cost of Teaching Truth


The day before yesterday, I met a very interesting fellow, who though a decade older, and part of the 60/70s generation (Hippies) instead of the 70’s/80’s generation (Yuppies); also of English extraction (of the taller kind), obviously someone in the same iq range; he, like many musicians was a bohemian, author of some successful pop songs (many years ago) and who (uncomfortably for me) was happy switching between lyrics, music and language as means of communication. We spoke for hours. We are different but still kin. Same genes, different gene expression. I had to couch no idea, fear no rejection of it. Weigh no words. I felt safe, understood. I could chain together a long sequence of reasoning and he could effortlessly see the pattern, and pose questions.

But unlike my operationalism he, better than any woman I have met, could read people, sense them, intuit them on a scale that I feel for what we call ‘the economy’ or ‘pure abstractions’. I was envious – jealous – that like two beings we were divided: specialists in the conceptual division of knowledge and labor.

That is what the future of many looks like if we do not once again descend into dysgenia. He, and me, in one, without defect, as the population in a mean. What could we achieve with just 10,000 of us?

There are too few of us. We are spread out. But our utility to one another, and the relief we feel from the ease of one another’s company is what normal people experience every day – and we rarely do.

It is not true that genius competes. We love one another. Models of analogy that we construct differ within the same field can come into conflict. My work creates a universal language that renders models commensurable and without dependence upon analogy. And a universal language elminates competiion on frames of analogies, such that we compete on explanatory power and parsimony.

But what if artist’s laments are lies, rather than truths? Thefts rather than creations? If we deprive the religious of the illusion of the deity and mystery, can we also deprive the communist, the feminist, the postmodernist, the propagandist, the snake oil salesman, and the wishful thinkers of the release and relief that their fantasies provide? Do we personalize fantasies the way we have personalized religion – eradicating both from the public commons?

I can find no reason not to. I see no reason why we should or even can, limit private mysticism, self deception, obscurantism, and fantasy, while I see every reason to prohibit mysticism, obscurantism, deception and fantasy from the public forum.

We prohibit discourse on many topics which are taboo and justifiably so (child pornography). We have all but prohibited religion (christianity) from the public form (because it competes with the religion-of-state).

It is one thing to enforce for conformity (a positive constraint) and another to enforce the prohibition on error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from the informational commons.

Although it is somewhat unfortunate that we must teach everyone the logic of truth telling the same that we teach them reading, writing, mathematics, and the scientific method.

But just as the cost of teaching people the Three-R’s was expensive, the fruits were phenomenally beneficial for all. And teaching people the reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, rhetoric (truthful speech), and history as the evolution of cooperation and production, is an additional expense.

But like reading, speaking truth will have similar beneficial consequences.

(And it will destroy the lies, pseudosciences, and false religions forever.)

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv, Ukraine)


Full Spectrum Incremental Pacification

Full Spectrum of Pacification:
1 – Reproductive limitation.
2 – Incremental Suppression.
3 – Physical Removal.
4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging).
5 – Culling (Casualties).


Eli and Curt on Methodological Individualism

Eli Harman

Methodological individualism: individuals form groups.

Curt Doolittle

Individuals cooperate in groups because cooperation is the most scarce and most valuable resource, so disproportionately rewarding that we spent millennia trying to find anything even close to it – and without it we can rarely survive.


Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?

—“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]?  What is its foundation?”—

At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

-“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”—

A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations.

Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts.

In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas.

–“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””–

Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course?

Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means?

So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?


The State of NRx and its Relation to Propertarianism

(from elsewhere)


Great post. I’ve been looking for a way to riff off of someone else’s work. This is a good opportunity. Sorry if this is a bit long. I just went through the points and captured my thoughts as I went along. But I think it gets the point across.
1) Scope?
To what are you referring when referring to NRx? Do you mean Yarvin’s Critique? Do you mean the folks that claim to defend authority over arguments in that critique? Do you mean the body of people who participate in that set of criticisms and make use of those arguments? Do you mean the entire suite of arguments that suggest that the enlightenment experiment has failed?

2) —What would a small measure of success look like for contemporary reaction? —
Success would incrementally look like: (a) a body of language for signaling and ridicule of opponents (b) an ideological research program seeking post-democratic solutions (c) Awareness (mention) of the central criticism of the Cathedral Complex among the informed advocates of each of the three political compass points, (d) expansion of the pool of talent arguing the position of the criticism, (e) popular mention of the failure or success of democracy and the enlightenment project (f) The production of a set of solutions that were possible to implement, and therefore possible to demand, (g) proposal of policy and changes, (h) enactment of policy.

3) Failure.
—“Neoreaction has failed to obtain any wealthy patrons or even well-known proponents. For every serious, mature Neoreactionary there are ten juvenile snark-emitting anime avatars who use the hashtag. For everyone who uses the hashtag, there are probably twenty people who see the failure of progressivism and democracy, but are unwilling to be part of a “crab cult”. …. NRx has now retreated into a hermetically sealed inner circle which brooks no discussion with those who are critical.”—

(a) Yarvin’s critique of the failure of the enlightenment experiments is an instance of ‘critique’ not an actionable or scientific theory. The fact that one cannot reduce it like evolution to a theory is why it remains a critique. The world no longer operates on criticism except in the mass market. The world operates by scientific argument and popularization by moral loading. NRx does the opposite.

(b) As such there is no means of obtaining political or economic power by a broad spectrum of the population which would include both those with money and those with time.

(c) But there remains a moral criticism and a morally loaded criticism for those who require self-signals of moral righteousness to justify their separatism. It is this use of NRx for self-signaling by outcasts from the mainstream that you are observing.

(I consider Propertarianism and Testimonialism post-NRx for these reasons.)

4) Successes
—” it’s worth acknowledging what NRx has gotten right. While there is no clear-cut consensus on many details, the general center-of-gravity acknowledges the irredeemable problems of Progressivism and Democracy, the unrealistic fantasy of Libertarianism, and the positive value of hierarchy and racial realism and sex/gender realism. “—-

(a) I would love to see someone other than Yarin who has added content to NRx. I am not sure who has.

(b) As I understand it, the criticisms are (i) that the enlightenment project seeking to extend the aristocratic franchise(political participation) and post-kinship-relations to all property holders, then to all men, then to all women, then to out-group members, has been a failure because the competing interests of each group cannot be satisfied by majority rule, and the result of majority rule was proletarian rule. (ii) And that the cathedral complex (state, academy, media, elites) have displaced the martial, judicial, and empirical complex, and have constructed a pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational mythology to replace the Aristocracy/Merchant/ChristianChurch+Academy and it’s division of responsibilities (jurisprudence, production, education) with a monopoly of state and academy supported by the media. Importantly: the west successfully resisted this centralization longer than all other cultures, and this is one of the many reasons for our technological, legal and military excellence.

(c) Yarvin constructed his argument using critique. (Yarvin: Jewish criticism(gossip), Hoppe: German justificationary rationalism(philosophy), Doolittle: Anglo analytic-empiricism(science).)

The criticism is largely correct. The solution (technology) is not. This is the problem with all philosophical Critique and Justifiationism. In failing to answer the why, the criticism alone provides no insight into the prior era’s success: extension of kinship trust and truth-telling to non-kin, and the extension of property rights(enfranchisement) by merit.

—“Neoreaction wants a more stable, sustainable, anti-fragile society, one that is integrated and organic, with very little political activity, since politics is disruptive to the social fabric. Reaction has those same goals. The problem is that everything else in Neoreaction attenuates that one point of strength.”—

Yes. The western tradition advocates Heroism/Truth/Honor while warning against Hubris/Vanity. And western hubris and vanity are demonstrated by our belief that our enlightenment visions have solved ancient problems rather than that we have been able to act hubristically because of the temporary wealth effect of our legal, financial, technological, and petrochemical innovations. As the world catches up to us, our advantage is no longer legal, financial, technological and petrochemical, but merely cultural: we still are the only high trust culture, and we are destroying it through that same legalistic hubris and immigration.

5) Tech Culture
—“A software system is fragile; a statesman has to be flexible. A software system is designed around a particular model of reality, and cannot “see” beyond that model.”—

This is an excellent point but fails to get to the underlying problem:discretion. Rule of law requires decidability. The debate in economics for example is between the saltwater economists who seek to find opportunities to apply discretion; the freshwater economists who seek rules so that economic governance is articulated under rule of law (without discretion), and the Austrian economists who seek to reduce the frictions of cooperation by improving institutions of cooperation.

Software requires decidable propositions. I am unclear as to whether Yarvin understands that he was trying to solve the ancient problem of rule of law. What I am clear about is that software teaches you the (low) limits of your knowledge, the requirement that you demonstrate your knowledge by creating algorithms, and that each step of which is decidable. And if you succeed then you have constructed the equivalent of well articulated law. In other words, rule of law should look very much like programming: lacking need for discretion (or in math what we call “choice” in a cases of arbitrary precision (lack of context)).

So Yarvin intuits the approximately correct problem I think, and simply fails to come up with a solution. THe solution is that when we enfrancise new groups with different interests we can no longer rely upon majority rule, but require houses for each new group, within which majority rule may be practiced, but where trades can be conducted between houses and trades invalidated if illegal, rather than requiring assent. In other words, government should consist of a market for the production of commons between classes with dissimilar interests. (Genders, Social Classes).
It is possible to develop this solution only because one does not rely on critique of failure, but reconstruction of success of the west. Criticism provides no insight. The success of the west requires we understand it.

6) Social Darwinism

I’m not going to criticize this paragraph (even though I should) but it’s not constructive or insightful. No ‘harmony’ no ‘positive assertion’ is knowable in cooperative matters, any more than it is in physical science. Western civilization has been practicing eugenics through at least three phases: (a) harsh winters (b) manorial allocation of property to capable married couples and (c) through hanging or killing .5-1% of malcontents annually. (So has China). As far as I can tell, the primary difference between the different tribal and racial groups is only in the degree of suppression of reproduction of the underclasses (how successful they were at eugenic culling), or in the case of india and south america, how successful the aristocracy was at creating a caste system. The problem is that reproductive suppression of the underclasses is least harmful, and produces superior distributions so that the pareto rule (80% of the property in the top 20% of hands) can place the means of organizing production in the hands of those most able to do it for profit rather than exploitation. (this is the problem facing india and south america.)

So whether it is appealing or not, it’s true. The question is then, given the truth, how to best go about transferring reproduction from dysgenic to eugenic ends. And as far as I know, that’s only possible by paying the underclasses not to reproduce, and paying the upper classes (or at least the middle class) to reproduce.

Right now we do precisely the opposite. Which since 1850 appears to have taken us from parity with ashkenazim to 1/2 standard deviation downward.

6) Culture of Critique
I think I’ve covered this already, but I agree wholeheartedly. This is because NRx, structured as Critique, attracts gossipers to easy criticism for the purpose of argumentative signaling, rather than serious intellectuals to the furtherance of challenging political solutions. It also explains the near absence of intellectuals in the NRx (and libertarian) movements. (Something I want to fix, by emphasis on solutions rather than criticisms.)

7) No Constituency
Correct. Gossip is used to rally, shame, and ostracize, not to organize solutions. Critique is merely advanced gossip used to rally, shame and morally outrage. Intellectuals and activists of above average ability, and those who are capable will pursue positive rather than critical ends. Leaving those who are less capable in the field. This is what has happened to libertarianism. Intellectuals have abandoned the field since the 70’s leaving only over-invested has-beens. (most of whom I know personally who I hope forgive the truth.)

8) No Sacrifice
—“There is no great spirit of sacrifice.”—

I think this criticism should be restated as that there is no heroic call to action. But again, there is no call to action there is only call to moral indignation over being *lied to* for a century at so much expense.

But your statement that individuals are seeking attention is probably not meaningful. This should be restated as the content of NRx is insufficient to advance a theory, so that individuals advance the criticism through rallying. Rallying requires leaders to rally.

 This is a natural consequence of the failure of Critique. At least the marxists proposed solutions, even if they were pseudoscientific. We lack the numbers (and women) for gossip (critique) to be distributed as is progressivism and political correctness, and we lack the incentives of the government (votes) academy (female student customers) and media (female and some male consumers) necessary to conduct rallying and shaming (although the alt-right is making some impressive progress in meme-generation that is certainly working).

9) No Dialectic
Well, I would argue that a ‘dialectic’ is an admission of failure, and a research program is evidence of success. Dialectic is an exceptional means of carrying upon deceit. Research programs are not. If you mean that an ineffective minority is trying to contain the discourse because they have no theoretical definitions to constrain it, then that is correct. But this is another example of consequence of the failure of the method, not that the criticism NRx puts forward is false.

Unfortunately, moral rallying is more emotionally rewarding and easier to grasp than rational, legal, or scientific argument that by very nature eschew the subjective value of moral outrage.

And this again presents an interesting problem since political power requires moral outrage, but in the scientific era it must be proposed as an actionable theory – we are no longer in the era of the french revolution or even the marxist and postmodern. The very reason we have the science to justify Reaction is the end of those eras and the current scientific era. Our arguments must depend upon the ratio scientific – which is why I am working to unite science, philosophy, morality and law. And I think (I am not yet certain) that I have done so.

I do not matter however. I am irrelevant. What matters is whether the theory survives. And I think it will survive for many generations: truth (in the scientific sense I put forward) is enough to prevent and reverse the second levantine lie: the combination of cosmopolitan pseudoscience and anglo puritan and neo-puritan utopianism.

10) Apocalyptic Mentality
This is an ideologically necessary technique for implementing political change. See Andrew Heywood’d Political Ideologies : An Introduction. And they’re not wrong. This problem is indeed culturally and genetically apocalyptic. There is no reason to prevent yet another dark age. There have been multiple in our history. And in both the sea peoples, the classical period, and the contemporary period, they were caused by population migration by inferiors into established cultures.

11) Metaphysical Foundations
Well, that’s certainly true but I have almost as certainly corrected that, leaving the NRx criticism as ‘true’ and Testimonialism and Propertarianism as explanations and solutions. So this merely strengthens the NRX critique. I see NRx as the ideological incentive for revolution, while my work as the solution that we must demand to either reform or replace the enlightenment.

12) Amorality
I am not sure I should try to correct this paragraph. You mean to say something but I am not quite sure what it is. I think I would restate it as people need to feel moral justification if they are to forcibly implement change, but the NRx community is not giving people that justification in actionable terms.


(a) People are already associating my work with the radical right even though my solution is certainly progressive by any measure. I see this as threatening the viability of my work just as Nietzche’s works were threatened. So I am reluctantly pleased that traditionalists see the value in my work as explaining why their civilization outpaced all others everywhere at all points in time, but equally nervous about casting me as anything other than a social scientists seeking economic prosperity and non-conflict. (I hate conflict)

(b) I tend to disassociate myself with NRx because it is as you suggest, a fairly immature movement and aside from Land (who is himself an elegant practitioner of rational meaning in the continental tradition not an analytic philosopher in the scientific and critical rational traditions) it is a very lonely place to be. I don’t want to be labeled on the down side.

So: Classical Liberal->Libertarian->Ancap->NRx->Testimonialism/Propertarianism seems to be the trajectory I follow.

We have taken the classical liberal program, criticized it for its incremental failures in each generation, and now have produced a sufficient criticism that we can REFORM the classical liberal program such that we restore the ability for houses of government to represent various classes and to conduct contractual exchanges between them (legislation) but that they cannot make law. This process of pacification first uses centralized government to suppress local parasitism and decrease transaction costs producing economic velocity, at the cost of an increasingly self-serving monopoly bureaucracy. But it is our generation’s function to now eliminate the cost of self serving monopoly bureaucracy, and to return western government to the function of producing commons within the limits of the civic society that we so uniquely developed in this world.

(c) The rate of revolutionary incentive and consensus is accelerating, but a revolution without an objective that provides everyone who agrees with our moral incentives and not is much more difficult to bring into fruition. There were generations of thinkers prior to the last revolutionary era. The world moves faster now and our generation needs to complete a political solution that can be implemented in law without the need for ‘belief’ or ‘shared values’ which are code-words for monopoly of opinion, if we are to achieve the restoration of our civilization.

I hope this was helpful as a means of giving those who are sympathetic to the NRx movement some ideas about why they’re both right but insufficient, and where they might turn next, given that they’re insufficient. I find no reason to really attack the NRx movement as I have the cosmopolitan libertine (ancap) movement. However, my preferred objective is that if we recognize these movements as failures, that we can all unite behind some variation which gives each of us most of what we desire, and our opposition much of what they desire. The reason being that in game theory while no one achieves all his wants, the best wants that all can achieve are the best wants POSSIBLE to achieve.

Truth is enough. It’s the source of western exceptionalism. We just need to put truth into law. Aristocracy is an empirical means of government. We assert no positives other than that if we prevent negatives then all of mankind is free to experiment by trial and error. And that is the very definition of ‘scientific’.

Ancap was a step. NRx was a step. One foot in front of the other, we soldier onward.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)…/a-catalog-of-unforc…/


Should We Stop ‘Dumb’ People from Voting?

The Monarchy (Hereditary self interest), The Nobility (Military Men Who Defend Territory), The Bourgeoisie/House (Business and Finance who produce Goods and Services), The Church/Proletarians (Dependents who require support).

If each of these houses exists, those with related interests can vote for the advocacy of their interests (cultural persistence, military service and security, money and property, a need for commons), but regardless of the size of any constituency, all of them must agree; or at least none of them need object, to the provision of any contract between all (legislation).

The error we made in voting was to dismantle the separation of houses in the belief we could construct an aristocracy of everyone, rather than adding a house for the proletarians upon the collapse of the church under darwin, and the consequential enfranchisement of women. We went from a system of TRADE between the classes (church, commons and lords) to a system of majoritarian tyranny.

Today, single women and minorities rule, despite the fact that if married couples only voted, we would have remained a high trust homogenous society. All left movement, the destruction of the family, political correctness, the great society failure and the opening of our borders has been accomplished by the aggressive left, media and academy as an attack on western civilizations five thousand year tradition of incrementally suppressing parasitism and free riding, and the constant pressure of eugenic reproduction.