The Great Decoupling, and The Influence of Internatioanl Firms In Creating Local Inequality

(RE: )

Information is the model for both natural and social sciences.

If wages for labor rose in the industrial era and are declining in the information era then those prices (wages) are telling us something.

If wages for problem solvers was limited in the era of concentrated capital (early industry), and is expanding in the era of distributed capital between temporary alliances of firms – then we should see increasing wages where capital is concentrated and decreasing wages where distributed.

So instead of internationally wealthy and poor countries we also have internationally wealthy and poor firms and a decoupling of the previous dependence on the local state. And we have a declining wage for anyone not in a firm able to concentrate capital.  The influence of local economy on global companies must decline.

And to make matters worse, capital today is available at zero cost. So the only marginally competitive value is in human beings marginally superior to other human beings. Meaning that human capital  – the high end of ability – is increasingly important and labor decreasingly important.

Technological man is the scarce resource(genetics).

High trust is the scarce political environment(culture).

The industrial era was an outlier.

Farming went from a good business in 1830, to a terrible business in 1930. Industrial labor is following farming. And white collar labor is close behind.

Hence Propertarianism tells me that we must pay off the unemployable to maintain the commons, and decrease their numbers


What Neo-Reaction Consists In? Three Points: The Cathedral Criticism, NeoCameralism, and “Formalism”

(RE: )

( Hoppe is a german rationalist cum cosmopolitan, yarvin/mencius is a cosmopolitan, and I am an anglo empiricist. This is not an opinion, but a statement of the method of argument employed. And the differences in our approaches demonstrate the weaknesses of the hermeneutic cosmopolitan, and german rationalist methods compared to the anglo empirical method.

In this response I try to hint at why propertarianism is very much part of the dark enlightenment, but post-NRx in the sense that it’s an empirical rather than rational or moral formation. )

Not that I mean to act as a critic, or to draw attention away from your excellent post, but you might need to add the third point in the first position.

First and foremost it is a criticism of the Cathedral Complex: Academy, State and Media, and the use of propaganda to perpetuate detrimental falsehoods.

I would argue that the criticism of the Cathedral Complex as a False Promise using deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda, is the first principle of Neo-Reaction, and the most effective content in the neo-reactionary movement.

NeoCameralism I agree with. The state is a corporation acting in the interests of its management and staff at the expense of the customers long term interest, by the constant sale of territorial, physical, cultural, and normative capital in exchange for short term consumption (r-selection). The problem is, how do we construct commons: territorial, physical, cultural, and normative while at the same time, eliminating the privatization of those commons that is the means by which the Academy, State, Media complex sustains and expands itself?

Formalism attempts but fails to capture what one intuits in its use, which is why I’ve restated it in greater depth as a complete philosophical system

It is the failure of formalism (because the author is a hermeneuticist of the cosmopolitan jewish tradition) that prevents neo-reaction from institutional actionability. Unless expressible as law (the anglo analytic and empirical tradition) it must be propagated as religion using the same propaganda mechanisms that the cathedral complex relied upon, but without possessing either the assets of distribution or equalling the incentives that the cathedral promises. This is non-logical.

In propertarianism and testimonialism I have created a formal system of thought that unifies biology, psychology, morality, sociology, philosophy, law, economics, and war into a formal logic (Formalism). Propertarianism inverts democracy to a market for commons between the classes, not dependent upon assent, but upon dissent: survival under universal standing under law. (prohibition on parasitic outcomes). A law which is made possible by the formal unification of the fields.

Small changes in the law – the constitution upon which laws are constructed – make a reactionary program possible. But in this case, it is not reactionary, but revolutionary – not restitution but reformation.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


We Ask Too Much of Men – I Am Happy With Specialization Rather Than Equality

In propertarianism I refer to three coercive technologies, and three classes that master them.

I am perfectly happy mastering my class’s technology (violence: law and war, and to a lesser degree remuneration: production distribution and trade, and to a lesser degree gossip/morality.). But if I had my ‘druthers’ I would master only law and war, and let better men master remuneration and gossip.

We ask too much of men under equality. It is hard enough to specialize in one thing. Why must we master three? If we cooperate we need not. And that would make most of us much happier. Men love to be in their role and respected for it. The common man care less about our position than success in that position.


The Fallacy Of Free Trade Absolutism

(very important piece) (this will ruffle some feathers)

The three means of coercion can be used for good or ill.

1) Violence can be used to create property rights and prosperity or it can be used to conduct parasitism predation and destruction.

2) Gossip can be used to reward contributors to the commons with opportunity for cooperation and mates, or it can be used to lie, cheat, deceive, rally, shame, and justify parasitism, or instill violence.

3) Trade can be used to increase prosperity for all by accumulating genetic, knowledge, physical and institutional capital, or to destroy the either the producer’s or the consumer’s economy by causing the depreciation of genetic, knowledge, physical, and institutional capital.

Trade is no more an INTRINSIC good, than is violence or gossip.

That is the end of it. Trade is nor more a good than violence or gossip. The only determinant of the morality or immorality of trade is whether capital is accumulated or destroyed in the process of production, distribution, trade and consumption, and whether the transfers were voluntary.

***This is what I call the requirement for “full accounting” in any truthful (moral) argument. Without full accounting someone is undoubtably lying. General rules expressed without limits are used as means of suggestion by which to deceive the altruistic mind. Free Trade is as much a folly as Autarky. Free Trade is yet another cosmopolitanism by which to rely on suggestion in order to conduct parasitism.***

This argument is finished. Cosmopolitan Libertarian absolutism is finished. Libertine libertarianism is finished. It is a dead ideology. I have killed it – forever. And I have demonstrated as thoroughly as any man can, that the only possible liberty from which we obtain our prosperity is TRUTHFUL COOPERATION: The productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property-en-toto, free of imposition of costs by externality, wherein our statements survive tests of identity (non conflation), internal, consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, parsimony, limits, full accounting, and voluntary exchange.

Children require virtue ethics, because they can but imitate. The young require rule ethics because they lack experience. The adult requires outcome ethics because otherwise he can use rules to obscure his frauds. Any ethical claim must hold to all THREE forms of ethic:
a) virtue: should every man do this, the outcome would be moral
b) rule: should every man obey this rule, the outcome would be moral.
c) outcome: should every man do this, the outcome would be moral.

It is not that one ethical method supersedes any other. It is that we can only expect the child to imitate, the young to obey rules, and the old to obey experience. As such we tolerate greater error from the child, than the young, and least from the experienced. It is not that any ethical method produces greater results. It is that each method requires making full use of the knowledge that each actor possesses, and that as long as he acts according to those principles, that we forgive him for his failures.






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


Capitalism And The Sword

Capitalism exists for the bourgeoise class only because liberty was constructed by the martial class. Period. Violence creates property. Property creates prosperity. Prosperity makes charity possible.

We either form a wall and do not break, or there is not capitalism, prosperity and charity.


It’s time to water the tree of liberty with a little blood.


The Lack Of Women CEO’s and Women Founders – The Myth of Social Justice

—“Very inspiring and encouraging for me, after reading how rarely angels and venture capitalists fund women founders. There’s hope for me, even if the suits are sexist! Fighting for social justice online: how can we use the Internet to make the world a better place? “— Charlotte A.

Statistics are Statistics. Data is Data. Fact is Fact.

Few women will pay the dear price in time, stress, health, family, friends, risk, and life demanded of high growth businesses. Few women endear the kind of loyalty required of risk taking-talent marginally superior enough to crate a marginally superior product or service. Few women choose to operate in markets that are competitive, technical, novel, with business models that are marginally different. Few women argue entirely empirically and entirely from incentives. Few women can make a man trust them with large amounts of money that he has been entrusted with by others. Women do, but few women do.

So, it is not a matter of justice but of empirical evidence. And arguing otherwise merely disqualifies you from receiving investment. People with money and responsibility that they have been entrusted with by others to make objective decisions cannot betray that trust by preferring to invest in your business idea versus the business idea of someone who does not make those same mistaken assertions.

And I say this only because whomever has given you an education has done you a tragic disservice. We do not invest in religious doctrine. Investment is a science of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from business hypotheses, leaving only survivable business models as candidates. And betting upon people who demonstrate error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception (including self-deception), is unscientific.

Investors do not bet on any form of mysticism — including the myth of social justice. (A term which both Socrates and Hayek have demonstrated, does itself not survive critical and empirical analysis.) You should be angry at the people who lied to you. Not the people who will not perpetuate the lies that were told to you. In investments, everyone has one color, creed, and gender: money. And investment is more color, creed and gender blind than Lady Justice ever dreamed of being.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Truth is Expensive, But The Returns Warrant It, and Morality Demands It

It was very expensive to create settlements by prohibiting predation by the development of armies and professional warriors. But we obtained the ability to accumulate capital, and to create a division of labor.

It was very expensive to create property rights by prohibiting parasitism through law and indoctrination. But we obtained the ability to create a market, money, and prices.

It was very expensive to create literacy by creating printing and education. But we dramatically expanded human productivity, and demonstrated intelligence.

It was very expensive to create scientific thought through a century of education. But we dramatically reduced transaction costs, increased human productivity, and increased demonstrated intelligence.

It will be equally expensive to create TRUTHFULNESS – or, perhaps, restore truthfulness to the scientific era. And the gains will will obtain from truthfulness will be equal to if not surpass the gains we obtained from literacy.

A truthful world is as hard for us to imagine as a scientific world was for religio-rationalists to imagine, as it was for the pre-literate to imagine the literate, as it was for the barbaric to imagine the urban.

That something is an expensive commons to produce is not a criticism. It is a question of returns.

Mankind must eventually make this transition. We can do it now, and free ourselves of the threats to our civilization – the civilization that invented truth. Or we can experience a peak beyond which we fail to pass, as did the Greeks and the Romans. As did the Byzantines and Persians. As did the Austrians and Spanish. As did the French and German. And let our civilization pass from this earth – disappearing, and becoming subject to peoples more barbaric than we.

I am willing to die to save my civilization, my race, my people from another dark age, and to instead transform mankind from the merely rational and scientific to the truthful stage of evolution.

This isn’t a cost I expect everyone to agree to bear. But it is a cost I know many of us are willing to bear – and to bear gladly and heroically.

We can purge all forms of lies from this earth.

And in doing so, transform man into gods.

For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit?

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


The New Right is Consistent in its Rejection of the Errors of the Enlightenment



Ethics and Morality are Proscriptive.



Q&A:What is Your Take on Von Kueneldt-Leddhin?

(thx skye stewart)

Well you know, this is one of those things that you are much better at than I: meaning. My problem is that while I can agree with that which he appreciates, (a) it is not reducible to law, and (b) it is not stated as science.
So it’s somewhat like my criticism of Nietzche: these things carry meaning for those whose sentiments desire reinforcement and confirmation.
But they do not provide decidability between that which we aristocratic and male people(K) prefer, and that which the proletarian and feminine people (r) prefer.

So again, I see history as the evolution of argument from the platonic, to the rational, to the scientific to the ‘testimonial’.

So people like Nietzsche and EVKL provide meaningful, inspirational, and confirmation of ideas, they don’t provide legal and scientific ideas that I can test or warranty as truthful.

But they are still speaking in the language of religion. Not in the langue of reason. And not in the language of science. and not in the language of testimony.

In my current thinking, the philosophy of the west is captured in natural law and common law and articulated as law – as prohibitions. and that our commons articulated in our heroism, arts, literature, material commons, and civic institutions, constitutes the positive (aesthetic) ambitions of our civilization.

So I would say that just as children require fables and fairy tales, and youth require biographies and novels, and adults require inspiration and confirmation, and the wisest require require history and science, and today I would demand truthfulness in testimony. That we require these things to inspire us to positive action, so that we can justify our intuitions.

But that tells us nothing about how to resolve differences with people who do not share those objectives. And in fact, it provides us with what are DEMONSTRABLY weak arguments with which to defend ourselves from the hyper-consumption of the socialists, feminists and postmoderns we call secular humanists.

So I see the conservatives before me, other than perhaps Hayek, who correctly identified the law as the only source of liberty, as having failed precisely because they relied on perpetuating the language of religion that was with us during our great cultural formation in the middle ages. I might agree with Nietzche, and applaud his conflation of aesthetics with every branch of philosophy. I might agree with EVKL as a poet and preacher. But that tells me nothing. It teaches many. It informs many. It helps many FEEL less alienated. But it does nothing to empower us to overthrow that which alienates us today- by providing a decidable argument against dysgenic leftist parasitism.

I see the greek truth struggling to survive amidst the babylonian, jewish and christian dogma used as a means of managing the illiterate masses, and finally succeeding with the anglo enlightenment and the printing press.

So I would like to preserve the institution of the church, the pedagogy of the church, but using our pagan nature worshipping, ancestor worshipping, family worshipping, kin worshipping, testimony worshipping and therefore scientific culture exit all remnants of that mystical past.
Including justificationary yet informative essays.

So this isn’t a criticism or a disagreement with them, it is that they merely failed, because they did not know how to preserve meaningful poetic and literary persuasion while at the same time exiting the mysticism and romanticism of the past.

We must build justification on top of SOMETHING that matters. We cannot justify THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY FAILED.

I think truth and heroism are enough to build fable, myth, poetry, play, and narrative upon.

I think that because underneath all the babylonian, jewish and Christian mysticism, that’s all that stands their waiting for us. Because that is all we used to build the west.

Thank you for the wonderful question.

-Curt Doolittle