Dear Lurkers and Newbies


I’m really generous with my time. I don’t even care how stupid the question is as long as it’s framed as an honest question. If I don’t answer it one of the other guys will.

But you shouldn’t be afraid of asking. Every time we answer a question, we get better at answering questions. And everyone else who is lurking will learn because of your honesty and ‘bravery’. lol

Just a reminder: I am advocating a very technical solution to the advancement of law that will make it very difficult to use media and propaganda to lie to the electorate – as well as destroying the extraction of profits from our people by means of fiat money and credit.

So I am providing a legal improvement to constitutional government that every group of people around the world can make use of if they are willing to.

So that said, I do anti-underclass-ism, meaning as far as I can tell the reduction of the population in the evil 80’s (iq) and below is the one uncomfortable truth I recommend.

But I am not a racist or even a culture-ist. I care only that all men can transcend into the gods we seek to be.

And we can do that if we learn to speak the only language we know god speaks in: the physical laws of the universe, and reciprocity: the natural law of cooperation, and testimonial truth – that thing we call science.

Because if we speak nothing but those truths written by the gods, we have then ourselves ready to sit among the gods.


“Are You Acting in Good Faith?”


—“I wish I could assume that you are acting in good faith”—

Well I will tell you how I DO NOT act in good faith:

I dont have a classroom to experiment on students. I don’t have a research budget, and I dont have graduate students (indentured labor) to conduct experiments for me. What I do have is access to a very inexpensive medium for experimenting with arguments.

In my process of inquiry, I work very hard to construct conditions under which I can obtain what I consider honest or truthful information, vs reported information.

I work very had to understand how and why people hold positions, and to test my theories against those positions. So all my arguments are tests. I iterate these tests about ten times before they seem to be fairly good, and then over the next few years refine them until I can state them as aphorisms or series, or something incredibly dense – effectively as verbal proofs. I construct proofs.

This work requires that I ‘get inside the heads’ of the people who hold these positions, and then reduce those positions to a series of testable criteria (incentives) regardless of position.

And since I am a philosopher of science, and a falsificationist, I do this by attacking ideas until I see if and how they survive – or not. So I investigated sovereign monarchism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, anarcho capitalism, neoreaction, and now the ‘nazis’ with sympathy to understand them then I attack those ideas to falsify them. And what remains is a set of ‘goods and bads’ from each model.

In other words, in some ways, because I treat everyone I interact with in business and intellectual life, as a participant in an experiment, I am continually operating under conditions that you might consider disingenuous in the moment but profoundly moral in the end result.

I learned most of this technique negotiating (i have bought a lot of companies, closed a lot of deals, and done deals that were meritous and some I regret today as immoral. But I see my chief problem in negotiation, simply living in a world full of relative upper class scoundrels, educated imbeciles and underclass zombies, and a middle and working class that appears to consist of the only moral people extant in western society, and they are the ones that least benefit from the current order – because they are being exterminated by it.)

Now, there are a good number of people who follow me that know exactly what I am doing. And I think it is this form of cunning they appreciate almost as much as the output of my work. But in my world I am literally nothing more than a scientist using verbal experiments to investigate the human mind so that I can construct a body of law that will reverse the beneficiaries of the western order, and restore tehm to the middle and working classes, and save my people and our priceless civilization in doing so.

So if that ‘disenginuity’ makes me immoral somehow in your world because I am ‘using’ people, when they are voluntarily engaging in these discussions, and I have to do nothing more than stand on the top of the hill and say I’m the king in order to get them to play this very elaborate verbal game, then I think you practice a woman’s morality, rather than a man’s. I take responsibiilty for not only myself, but for my people and for mankind, and I do so by asking people to play a game with me that they wilingly play, are entertained by, and learn from.

Frankly, if I didn’t have so much respect for you I wouldn’t say this but I know you are a moral man. What actually bothers me is that in my view the cost of dealing with all these shitty selfish people in all these ridiculous niches of political masturbation tires the hell out of me. But just as we must go live among the animals to understand them, and bear the costs and risks of doing so, I must do the same with every shitty immoral, selfish, justificationary, eddy of the human political tidal pool.

That is the truth as I am most capable at the moment of speaking it.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute


Yes, We Can Restore Western Civilization, and Easily


—“It appears that a golden bullet would be to reduce the value of [false] advertising, and this ineffectiveness would lead to the media industry being starved of revenue. Any suggestions on how this could be achieved?”—- Julian le Roux


(a) require testimonial truth in all public speech.
(b) rescind copyright protection, replacing it with creative commons protection. (you may not profit from it at civic expense, and then neither may anyone else.). This reduces copyright to a trademark and therefore fraud issue rather than a license for unnecessary and perversive rents.

Honestly, it’s that simple. We would crush the entertainment, advertising, media, propaganda, public intellectual, political in 120 days. That is all the cash flow that they have to survive with. Even the threat of it would wipe out the industry.

As we have seen with book authorship, artistic authorship, and even independent cinema, the creative works would continue to be produced no matter what. There is no reason to subsidize them if by doing so we subsidize the production of critique (propaganda).

The impact on civilization – reversing the economic incentives and economic possibility of engaging in the industrialization of lying, would vanish.

If intellectuals professors, advertisers and marketers, industry and politicians, media and artists must warranty their works as truthful, then the size, scale, and composition of the information system will return to that which is possible and rewarding: truthful.

We have built a civilization funded by lying just as much as we built the internet funded by pornography.


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


Direct Economic (Empirical) Democracy


When we say democracy we could be referring to the use of votes for very different purposes. We could be using them to select representatives. We could be using them to choose preferred commons.  We could be using them to select preferred behavior. We could be using them to punish impermissible behavior.

I see no case at all for representatives in an era of cheap mass communications.  If we are to use representatives at all, they should be chosen by lot for a single year, and held accountable for their actions by rule of law like any other contract maker.

As far as I can tell, direct economic democracy either by proportion or by equal share, where one’s votes may NOT be proxied, will produce (a) the most educated and aware population, and (b) the least corrupt government, as long as (c) all statements must be ‘scientifically’ truthful by the terms i’ve defined elsewhere.

The dominance of single houses independent of classes the dominance of parties, the use of representatives, and the cheapness of lobbying representatives rather than the voters, are all malincentives.


The Reporter’s Primary Trick


Force someone to reduce a complex set of ideas to a sound bite, then develop a straw man criticism of the sound bit that will attract attention by violating the moral intuitions of as many people as possible.

Remember, the press is always lying. They are all the product of the Culture of Critique and Critical Theory, not the product of western Natural Law and truthful testimony. They are gossips for profit, not jurors.


Give moral answers, general ‘goals’, and sew uncertainty as to details, so that the other side comes to the table having prepared for a multitude of eventualities, that make it costly and time consuming to obtain agreement upon.

Feign preference for any of a set of ideas, meanwhile simply listing a priority of available terms that you are willing to accept.

Bring an ultimate decider into the room, and then leave the other side scrambling to develop consensus, as you wear them down.

Strike a deal, and when they come back to the table for more accuse them of bad faith, unethical conduct, incompetence, and disorganization.

State your position as take it or leave it because the other side is not serious. Meanwhile keep leaking to the imbecilic press and whomever else is engaged in gossip for a living, that the other side is incompetent and dishonest.

Walk away, say what you left on the table, and do what you left on the table that is in your interest.

Curt Doolittle


Yes, Fascism is an Exceptional Extension of Total War

(read this or remain stupid)

—“Curt, would you still say fascism possesses a useful albeit temporary function?”—Robert Harris Scott Hayes

Fascism has an EXCEPTIONAL short term function. It is a means of marshaling every resource in a nation for war on all fronts: military, trade, economic, financial, cultural, religious and informational.

But it’s as costly as war over the long term. It is a means of warfare. Just as an army is an authoritarian means of organizing a people for physical war, and investing in certain commercial sectors is a means of organizing people for trade and economic war, and organizing credit for financial war….. Fascism allows us even to organize INFORMATION for the purpose of warfare. And that is what the Fascist generation did.

War is war.

But we do not fight the last battle just because we understand the tactic. Today we have a different tactic. We have a very very very fragile civilization that has been at war for a century or more with the cosmopolitan financial vision of managing the world for their benefit rather than each nation using financial, legal, cultural, and informational institutions to advance each nation WITHOUT exporting capital to others – by PREVENTING the parasitism of the cosmopolitan order we live under.

Fascism isn’t necessary because fascism is DISCRETIONARY. We can do the SAME THING without putting a dictator in charge. We can simply starve out the other side by cutting off their means of funding.
1) direct redistribution of fiat liquidity to citizens.
2) demand for warranty of due diligence upon truthfulness (testimonialism) for all speech of all forms in the commons.
3) revocation of the copyright and institution of involuntary creative commons.
4) require sponsorship and full warranty of all costs for any immigrant, and rolling back the 64 immigration act, as well as the 14th and all related judgements.
5) addition of voluntary and involuntary disassociation without limit.

I can lengthen this list but it is unnecessary. The first three will end globalism, the academy, the media, the entertainment business, and vague statements from the politicians in short order.

Whether you understand these things or not, they will destroy the cosmopolitan attack on western civlization in months.

Because they may shame us and harm our status and employability. But we will prosecute, judge, and hang them.

Dead people can’t propagandize and lie.

Curt Doolittle


I Am Not A Populist. Truth and Preference are Independent from one another

I don’t place any weight in ‘popular’ anything. I am not a supporter of democracy whatsoever, unless we mean empirical (economic) democracy. Opinion without warranty (skin in the game) is just self reporting of virtue signals, not demonstrated preference – which always differs substantially.
I only care if statements are TRUE and open to juridical prosecution and defense, so that the false and parasitic can be suppressed.
This DIFFERENCE is what separates :
1) Prophets, Priests, Literature, Intellectuals, Academics, Politicians, and well intentioned fools (social ambitions) (***reported preference***) (GOSSIP)
2) Financiers, Investors, Entrepreneurs, (commercial ambitions – demonstrated preference)(REMUNERATION)
3) Physical scientists, generals, and jurists,. (truth ambitions – decidability) in matters of dispute. (FORCE)
If you want a priest go find one. If you want opportunities go find them I’m a not a priest. I don’t care what you want. you can have whatever you can obtain morally – by reciprocity that does not cause me and mine to bear the cost of deciding a conflict, performing restitution, punishment, removal, or murder.
I have a difficult job. Engineering. prophets and intellectuals have an easier job: bullshitting, coercing, lying.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Cult of Non-Submission
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Comment by Bill Joslin
—“Commonwealth democracy has a very different foundation than American Democracy.
Commonwealth democracy extends from the idea that people can have a say in WHO RULES THEM. It has nothing to do with the government actualizing the will of the people.
American democracy conflates common people’s say in who rules them with rulership itself. It was a damaging lie constructed to conceal from the polis THAT THEY ARE RULED.
All the conflations of libertarians, anacaps and protestor’s demands upon the state extend from this lie.
Democratic choice in deciding who rules you was a means to prevent revolution and rebellion – no different than law – a mechanism to prevent the regression back into violence as a means of decidability -prevention of retaliation.”—