Conservatives Cannot Be Honest Under Democracy

Why? Conservatism is a eugenic social order. And the ‘good’ families are dwarfed in number by the ‘not good’ families.

Western success is due in no small part to its adoption of eugenic institutions and policies in every walk of life. Puritan american was an attempt to create a eugenic civilization.

But America, like every other attempt at creating a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient understanding of the reasons for the west’s rise; insufficient honesty in its constitution; and insufficient violence to preserve it.

And this is why traditionalism and conservatism in all their variations have failed. Conservatism is a deterministically eugenic social, political, legal, and economic system that arose in the era of productive scarcity.

Majoritarian democracy, redistributive socialism, and feminism are deterministically dysgenic social, political, legal, and economic systems that arose in the era of productive plenty.

Western eugenics were negative: constraining the lower classes and devoting resources to the reproduction of the middle and upper classes. They were not positive in any sense: arranged breeding. This conflation of negative eugenics and positive eugenics is what brought an end to the movement. Even if medically induced positive eugenics is probably a future we can assume will expand.

Assuming that we must preserve the means of constructing commons, and assuming we want to preserve prosperity and western creativity, we have two choices: we can either remove the franchise from the non-producers and restore the family to the central object of policy, or we can construct houses for the production of commons that once again reflect that interests of the genders and classes. The first will create an oligarchy open to corruption. The second will create a market whereby genders and classes cannot impose costs upon one another without benefit in exchange.

If we fail to do the second, we will be forced to do the first. And if we fail to do the first, we will no longer exist as a civilization.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, UKraine










The Human Argument Spectrum

Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human.

And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse.

Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention.

We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.)

It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions.

But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions.

We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life.

In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack).

Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli.

Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes.

Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic).

This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response).

This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon.

But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud.

It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand.

And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results.

So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules.

And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality.

All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism.

So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science.

Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony.

Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal.

And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties.

So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars?

Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails.

So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific.

When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter.

Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions.

And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act.

And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds.

So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility.

It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence.

But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description.

I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages.

There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology.

It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud.

I hope this was helpful to you in some way.
It’s a very important set of ideas.
We do what we have the knowledge to do.
We do what we have the energy and resources to do.

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

LikeShow more reactions

Let’s Correct History A Bit

(I will get hate mail over this rather grand deflowering)


Some of us have to clean up history a bit:

(1) There is nothing strange about a popular political movement generating crackpots, and the state not shutting down the crackpots. I mean, world academia is full of them. We don’t even have to get to bloggers, and newsletters and their progenitors.

(2) Naziism was an aesthetic movement in the same way that socialism was a pseudoscientific movement, or the movements of religiosity of prior eras. All movements create nonsense mythos. Nazis were not unique.

(3) Hitler’s mistake was purely military. And had nothing to do with his attempt to ‘cleanse’ the population of cosmopolitan, bolshvik, and socialist activism. Germany’s enlightenment, thanks ot the failures of Kant and his followers, was incomplete and just reaching maturity under Wagner, Nietzsche and their contemporaries. The Ashkenazi enlightenment (Jewish enlightenment) arrived just as the German was peaking, but beause it was commercial where the german was cultural and aesthetic, was able to take advantage of new technologies and far lower cost of distribution of propaganda. The cosmopolitan (socialist) vision was not compatible with the german (hierarchical duty), and to some degree, this “Clash of Civilizations” turned out to be a war over the soul (Germany) of Europe. The two battling cultures (german heartland agrarian, and borderland diasporic Jewish) fought with their historical methods: germans with war and jews with propaganda. The bolshevik-cum-Stalinist Russians took advantage of this weakness, in hopes of not only seizing the borderlands, as they had the land east of the Urals, but possibly the german heartland as well. Had not the Americans intervened and de facto conquered and colonized Europe, that clash between agrarian hierarchy and cosmopolitan socialism would have been settled with that war. Hitler’s war was a civil war between the Jewish/Slavic borderlands previously held by Russia/Poland/Lithuania and their borderland enlightenment, and the ancient germanic martial civilization, and their heartland enlightenment and the bolshevik-stalinist fantasies of russia to escape third tier status among the great powers. The rest of us were just players until Hitler moved west – easily baited by the Russians into entrapping himself with Poland. His error was that he did not understand the stakes, any more than the Americans did. And in both world wars, Americans most likely fought ont he wrong side. It was germany that was trying to protect the west, as she had for millennia against invasion from the east.

(4) Had Hitler attacked Bolshevism, and had he not exhausted his resources so that the ‘ex-patriation’ camps did not become slave-labor and finally death camps, he would have accomplished the same ends by militarily, politically, and morally defensible means that we today would still find substantive. The British invented the idea of using camps as processing centers, the Nazi’s adopted it, and the Russians industrialized it. And the Chinese merely circumvented it by direct, outright killing opponents wherever they could find them – setting china back into destitution from which western influence by example, finally extracted them.

(5) The postwar propaganda campaign was probably appropriate, if not necessary, for the era in which so much cost was born by citizens, but has been overplayed since the early sixties – so much so that we are at risk at present (I monitor the scholarship) of reversing the historical narrative.

History will look at these events very differently in a century than we do now and the above narrative is more likely to be the one that survives and endures.

It’s my job to tell people unpleasant truths about their moral fantasies. I don’t particularly like the fact that my people have largely been wrong about everything they have done since the grand accident of the Louisianna Purchase.

But truth is merciless to all of us.

There is just as much pseudoscience if not more among Jewish intellectuals than there was ever imagined by the Nazis. And the difference is that no one took nazi propaganda seriously other than the semi literate, but the entire western intellectual and political system embraced jewish pseudoscience enthisiastically simply becuase it was better written ‘crackpot’ pseudoscience.

Boazian antropology = anti-Darwinian pseuoscience.
Freudian psychology = anti-Nietzschean pseudoscience.
Marxism / Socialism = anti-Economic pseudoscience.
Leninism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder.
Trotskyism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder
The Frankfurt School = anti-Spencerian sociological pseudoscience
Postmodernism = resorting to lying and repetition by propaganda having failed with pseudoscience.
Neo-Conservatism = Leo Strauss and his followers, attempting to use the german kantian technique of pseudo-rationalism to load, frame, and overload, and thereby decieve.

Let us assess the damage done by:
The Anglo struggle for its enlightenment: worldwide expansion. (an empirical one)
The French struggle for its enlightenment (the massacres of the French revolution, and the tyranny of napoleon), ( a romantic one) and its replacement of the existing nobility with a new bureaucratic one.
The Russian struggle for its enlightenment (a literary one)and its truncation by Bolsheviks.
The German struggle for its enlightenment (a philosophical one) and failure to transition to the empirical.
The second german struggle for its enlightenment (an aesthetic one)
The Jewish struggle for its enlightenment (a pseudoscientific one)
How many of these enlightenments were stopped dead by the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment?

How many more murders and how much more suffering was caused by the success of the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment, it’s conquest of Russia, it’s failed conquest of Germany, it’s failed conquest of China, it’s existing hinderance of Indian political development, and the saturation of the formerly great academies of the west with pseudoscience?

So let us not revel in self-compliment and congratulate ourselves on our moral standing when we are greater fools than those few who found purchase in such nonsense. You cannot compare the ineffectual propaganda of the Nazi fringe in support of anti-bolshevism and anti-cosmopolitanism in a fight over control of the borderlands with the extremely effective propaganda of the Jewish pseudosciences, and the 100m dead, and billiions idoctrinated into falsehoods because of them.

Look at the crisis the resistance to the enlightenment is causing in the Islamic world. They’ve been fighting it since they started suppressing knowledge and expanding Islam to the masses in the thirteenth century.

Civil wars, and border wars, and clashes of civilizations are bloody things. The fact that some of us fight more with armies(germans), some of us fight more with economics (anglos), some of us fight more with fabricated religions and pseudoscience (jews), some of us fight with reproduction and raiding (Islam), some of us fight with parasitism (gypsies), is just a matter of the resources and populations at our disposal.

Nothing more. We are all in competition. Cooperation is merely useful or it is not. Thankfully it is usually more useful than not.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


A Letter to a Philosophical Excuse Maker


You see, you can build whatever contraption you want for your own use. You can practice whatever hobby that you want in your own home. You can say anything you want in your own living room. You can satisfy anyone willing in your bedroom.

But you cannot sell a product without responsibility for the consequences it may cause. You cannot sell a service without responsibility for the service you provide and consequences you cause.

So why is it that you may speak without regard for the consequences of your speech? We already limit hazards. We already limit libel, slander, and the disclosure of information.

Free speech was included in our laws only because we did not know how to determine what was truthful speech in the constitutional era.

But that is because of greek folly – we did not understand the difference between exploratory public speech and critical public testimony.

Now we do. We know that truthful speech is not in fact an act of speaking the truth, but of warranty by due diligence that we do not speak falsehood, and do no harm.

Ergo, I know you do not speak the truth, and I know your words do harm. that does not mean that if you spoke in concrete recommendations that those recommendations would be immoral. It means that you do not speak in concrete recommendations, and instead that you are attempting to produce psychological rewards by expanding the number of those who speak the same fantasy story.

This is called the “social construction of reality”. a postmodern technique whereby speakers use experiential terminology of non-causal construction to obscure their intent to decieve. And that is what you are engaged in.

We cannot object to correspondent social construction of reality because truth by definition cannot produce a harm – only a correction.

But we can object to non-correspondent construction of reality because it harms others, and by consequence the commons.

Why you cannot pollute air, water, and land, is the same reason you cannot pollute information. They are commons. And your comforting lies do those commons harm

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


A Conversation With Joseph Pierce

(probably a distant relative)

A well intended, reasonably intelligent fellow, who does have a grasp of what he speaks. I didn’t quite catch his meaning the first time through or I would have addressed it sooner and more directly. And that is, that CREATIVITY(free association for the purpose of opportunity discovery) and DECIDABILITY(truth for the purpose of dispute resolution in matters of harm) represent two ends of the epistemological spectrum.

So the individual wants to identify opportunities, and the polity wants to prevent harm from the opportunities seized by individuals.

The epistemological process follows from free association (imagination), to hypothesis (untested but articulated), to theory (survives testing by the speaker), to law (survives testing by application in a multitude of circumstances, to the point where we cannot find a reason it is false.)

We can certainly engage in all the free association and hypothesizing we desire to, as long as we do not make truth claims about it, thereby testifying that our free associations have been tested and therefor warrantied to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

Now, Ive written extensively about how to perform this testing – due diligence – so I wont’ go into it here other than to list the tests. And the point being not that we must always satisfy all tests, because sometimes we lack teh information to. But if we do testify (make a truth claim) then we must in turn, state those due diligences that we have performed and those that we have not.

– categorical consistency (identity)
– internal consistency (logically consistent)
– external consistency (empirically correspndent)
– existentially possible (operationally consistent)
– morally consistent (consisting of voluntary exchanges)
– parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted. (the proposed limits of the claim.)

If one can survive those tasks, (and i know for certain that most cannot), then one can make a truth claim, stating that his testimoy does no harm.

If not, he can’t.








—-“The original post is just a rehash of empiricism. It has been pointed out consistently by myself (and I’m sure others as well) that prosecuting (via empirical observation) is yet another pernicious myth. Truth is not observable and quantifiable in the temporal, impermanent world of persistent motion.

The discursive intellect (which Curt utilizes) is nothing more than a survival heuristic conflated with the suprarational.

Amendment: Certain ‘truths’ can be observable and quantifiable. But the discursive intellect can only handle certain phenomena within human scale. Humanity cannot control much, but what he can control, he utilises for survival.”—Joseph Pierce

Please Define ‘True’ and ‘Truth’.

—“‘Define?’ “Definitions” require boundaries, and thus you’re already framing your inquiry around an a priori, objectified, categorized, tautological assumption on the nature of ‘thinking’ of truth in temporal space and time. Language is limited, and even I on this point fail to communicate the pleroma of Truth. The best I can say is that “Truth” is beyond existence (existence presupposing boundaries, definitions, measurement), and is non-relatable, yet can accommodate into temporality and causal personhood. Reminds me of the philosophy of the Tao, or the Western Via Negativa. Nothing and Everything simultaneously.”—Joseph Pierce

INTERJECTION: I should have gone directly to the difference between true(decidable and moral) and useful(preferable and amoral). What I translate this paragraph to is: “why can’t I create free associations? Why should my inquiry into life and the universe be limited to the true?” Well it shouldn’t. But if you conflate the imaginary with the true that’s causing damage to the commons. So it’s your ARGUMENT that is immoral, not your intent.

Of course, if you can’t define something you can’t make a deduction from it only a free association. And that is precisely how you achieve your nonsense argument.

It’s very different to say “I can get away with finding a relationship between A and B” and “If A, then of necessity, therefore B”. The second is a deduction, the first is an excuse.

Like I said you folk are in the excuse-making business.

There are many kinds of fraud. You are specializing in one of them.

The strange thing is you don’t even really know it.

—“By what standard do you make these claims? Why must an object be reducible to perpetual deduction? Who says this is the standard? Does Curt Doolittle, or empiricism or both?

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to authority. Empiricism is to be questioned here as a questionable authority of deductive reasoning.

Appealing to this authority, this illusory human heuristic is risible. It’s okay to use cautiously within human scale, but when you apply this model to the metaphysical real (religion) you run the risk of category error.”— Joseph Pierce

The way adults make the same statement is this:
– In a tautology, (or name) the information is identical.
– In a truth statement, the information is perfectly parsimonious without being identical.if identical it is a tautology. the absence of information yet the retention of correspondence is what separates a truth statement from a tautology or ‘name’.
– In a theory, or law, the statement is tested but is not perfectly parsimonious – and if it is we cannot not know it is.
– In a hypothesis the statement is untested, and we have no idea whether it is parsimonious or even a truth candidate. It is the result of free association only not causal dependence.

The standard by which I make this claim is three-fold:

(law)(economics)(science) I suppose I don’t need to cover this – it’s ovbvious that the common law evolved for the purpose of resolving disputes. I suppose that it’s obvious that science relies upon the scientific method: the systematic attempt to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit from words and deeds. (that’s all the scientific method does).

The reasons that we demand truthfulness are the following:
a) your personal choice in word and deed.
b) the effect upon those whom you speak and act with.
c) externalities produced by your words and deeds
d) decidability in matters of conflict over your words and deeds.

In other words, the reason we demand truthfulness from one another is the damage you cause to others, and the costs that your error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit places upon others. And the resolution of disputes caused by your words and deeds. And the restitution you must pay for the damage caused by your words and deeds.

Now in theory, just as whatever you do in your bedroom is no one’s business as long as it is voluntary. And just as whatever you do in the rest of your home is no one’s business as long as they are unaware of it. Whatever it is that goes in in your crazy little head is no one’s business, as long as it causes no harm to others.

The problem is, when you do cause harm, we need a method of conflict resolution, and we USE a method of conflict resolution, and natural law and physical law, both of which are empirical systems, is how we can and do resolve conflicts.

So the purpose of truth is to resolve conflict: provide decidability. And the reason we provide decidabily is to prevent violence in retaliation for your words and deeds, which increases the cost exported upon others by your words and deeds.

What you and your ‘kind’ refer to as “truth” consists in the conflation of that which is preferable to you, and the words and deeds that you use to attempt to obtain it. (Even though it appears that the only benefit you get from this deceit is a psychological falsehood that gives you confidence or justification for doing what you wish, or believing what you wish. In both cases denying reality.)

So it is MORALITY that is the authority we appeal to when we seek decidability.

And if you wish to speak and act immorally, in an effort to provide yourself with emotional confidence and security, then you will of course bear the consequences of doing so – one of which is to be shamed for.

In a better world we could sue you for harmful public speech, and force you to keep your self-deceits to yourself. In this world we must just argue with and shame you for the harm you do by spreading lies. But hedonistic self-expression and damage to the informational and normative and institutional commons is the fashion of our age. A luxury good we have tolerated – and perhaps tolerated too long.

So you see, we have historical empirical UNCONSTRUCTED evidece (meaning naturaly occuring evidence) of what constitutes the ethical, the moral, and the true. It’s called the common or natural law.

But at this point if I try to educate you it will burn a lot of my time and be of questionable value to me.