Print this post Print this post

Propertarianism, Part 2

Curt Doolittle

3,239 words

Part 2 of 3 (Part 1 here, Part 3 here)

Whiggery vs. Abrahamism

First of all, let’s say that there’s been no systematic exposition of Propertarian philosophy, either from Curt Doolittle or John Mark. There’s no book to read and precious few online resources to peruse, and so we’re left with trying to discover the philosophy from Curt’s many Facebook updates and online interviews. This paucity of information has already been criticized by The Distributist here, an intrepid YouTuber who has few kind words to say about Doolittle or Propertarianism as expounded by Doolittle. Thus, I’ll base my critique on what I’ve learned directly through my personal interactions with Doolittle on Facebook, and what little information there is on the Propertarian Institute’s Website.

One of the first things that jumps out at us about Propertarianism is that it is decisively whiggish. It sees history as a list of wrongs being gradually rectified by science and knowledge. While it recognizes the character of European man as described by Ricardo Duchesne in The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, it splits the intellectual heritage of modernity into Western (good) and that which is external to the West, usually Semitic (bad). Doolittle is particularly fond of denouncing “Abrahamism” with the ridiculous contention that Christianity is Semitic and thus exogenous to Europe. This is manifestly false to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Christian and Jewish conceptions of the world, and specifically, man’s place in it and how it relates to natural law. Indeed, what differentiated Christianity from Judaism, got Jesus crucified, and inspired Saul of Tarsus to become St. Paul was the fact that logocentric Christian forthrightness cut through the proto-Talmudic mental gymnastics of the Pharisees, who were attempting to violate the spirit of the law by twisting its letter to mean its opposite.  Doolittle flippantly claims that Abrahamic faiths invented and industrialized lying, specifically in replacing explanatory pagan faiths with “authoritarian mystical faiths promising utopia after death. “ That pagan religions don’t promise rewards and punishment in the afterlife is news to me, as is the claim that systematic storytelling (which is nothing but eusocial deception) is somehow unique to Abrahamic faiths or exogenous to Europe.

This is leaving aside the clear fact that Christianity as it was and still is practiced in the West is a European faith. Anyone who thinks that European Christians do not still venerate Odin should look very closely at the celebration of St. Nicholas, or thinks that we’ve forgotten Hercules should consider St. George. Genetics trump memetics, always and inexorably. Christianity practiced by Africans has more in common with Islam practiced by Africans than with Christianity practiced by Europeans. Similarly, living in the Balkans, I have the privilege of interacting with Muslims whose genetics aren’t so dissimilar from my own – yet we cannot be lumped together into the same racial subgroup. They go to mosque like I go to church, and just as my pagan friends salute the Sun and my Thelemite friends do their weird “Freemasonry but with titties” thing, we all do it to signal belonging (in the Schmittean political sense) and to engage in aesthetic transcendence (psychodrama). This is not to say that there are no noticeable differences between the various faiths – especially as regards the ability to build civilizations – but all faiths practiced by Europeans take on a European character. We cannot escape the basic biological fact of our neural architecture, which is fundamentally different from that of other peoples.

I agree with Doolittle that Judaism – especially Talmudic Judaism – is not a good faith, and not one conductive to the construction of great civilizations. However, I disagree with Judaism’s purported role as the progenitor of Christianity. Christianity was in large measure a reaction to Judaic legalism; Jesus’ ministry was a swift sword cutting through the Gordian knot of pharisaic legalism. Once combined with European genetics, Christianity energized the great potential of pagan Europe, and specifically German Europe. Rome was great, but declined as it grew old; German, Faustian civilization was stratospheric, and even as it is dying before us, we can only stand in awe of the glory that it once was. It began to decline when its Christian faith was Judaized, first by Luther and then by Calvin and the English Puritans, who hated all that was pagan in European Christianity – including Christmas, maypole dancing, grand cathedrals, liturgy, salvation through deeds, the divine right of kings, and patriarchal marriage.

Propertarianism sees not only this history, but all good as coming from white Europeans, and all bad coming from Semites. This is possibly the worst position on our current troubles one could conceivably take, short of actually being a supporter of globohomo. The fact of the matter is that our troubles come from within; from the arrogance and Gnosticism of white people. If Semites are involved, they are mostly acting as opportunists, taking advantage of an already sick civilization. Jews or no Jews, we’re approaching civilizational winter, and it is due to our own sins. Liberalism, altruism, the utopian lust for heaven on Earth, and the lust for empire, greed and usury all came from white Europeans when Jews were still under the thumb of rabbis in their shtetls. To be blind to our own complicity in our demise is to repeat the mistakes of the past. Yes, Jews have acted in bad faith in our societies. Yes, they have taken advantage of our civilization’s winter, and they’ve done so more proficiently than other non-whites. But let’s not think that getting rid of the Jews, or even “Abrahamism,” will fix what’s wrong with the West – if we can indeed fix what’s wrong.

Massachusetts Bay Propertariansim

Propertarianism’s best idea by far is extending the definition of property to include intangible commons. For example, interpersonal trust is something which is painstakingly built, of self-evident value, and worth protecting. Therefore, Propertarians argue, we should protect it as we would any other form of property. Since interpersonal trust cannot be individuated the way land and cattle are, it can only be considered common property. Who will defend the commons? How do we avoid the tragedy of these intangible commons, even as we suffer through the tragedies of tangible commons? Courts of law and torts. Doolittle proposes granting universal standing to citizens to protect the intangible commons from assault. Therefore, he who threatens social cohesion, interpersonal trust, the genetic integrity of the nation, and so on will be prosecuted, and the prosecutor will be remunerated for his service to the community in rooting out this assault on the commons. Of note is the innovation in torts which Propertarianism proposes in order to make these intangible commons easier to defend, specifically making untruthful speech actionable, or rather, speech where the speaker hasn’t performed due diligence to make sure that what he is saying is truthful to the best of his ability. This will also extend to business dealings, where any sort of informational asymmetry will be grounds for nullifying a transaction. Transactions which do not satisfy criteria for productivity will also be circumscribed, as will those that have externalities pertaining to the commons of others’ property.

In effect, Propertarian law will empower the community to root out lies, informational asymmetry, memetic warfare against intangible commons, and unproductive or asymmetrical business transactions – it would create a moral busybody’s wet dream. This will ironically endanger one piece of intangible property almost everyone can agree exists and must be defended with the full force of the law: privacy. To make sure nobody is engaged in nefarious activity against the commons, an interpersonal surveillance state must be established, and people will have to self-police for speculative speech so that they won’t inadvertently speak an untruth, as per the testimonial standard of truth. Indeed, a search for privacy on the Propertarian Institute’s Website reveals no relevant articles. It is strange that a system of law concerned with protecting intangibles which soak up investment and are worth defending would ignore this glaringly obvious example, which is quite visibly under attack in the modern world. But maybe this is a feature rather than a bug. After all, Curt makes a big deal of having “completed the scientific method.” The scientific method is a very bad way of learning things under conditions of imperfect or limited information. Privacy is a gigantic impediment to the free flow of information for a society which subjects every truth claim to a scientific/testimonial validity test. I imagine that a Propertarian Facebook would quite confidently declare your personal information its own private property, to be defended even to the point of suing you for fun and profit if you attempt to protect yourself. What have you got to hide, Abrahamist? Hiding is a precursor to speaking untruth or not performing due diligence – which is to say, informing the community of all the possible and foreseeable consequences of your speech and actions (!). Not saying “the whole truth” as per a witness’ oath is an actionable offense under Propertarian law. Privacy and the right to remain silent (which is a right to keep your thoughts private) are impossible under such a system. Tellingly, Curt Doolittle is skeptical of black swans, or unforeseeable events which bring about greatchange, as befits someone who believes that the world can be completely understood by empirical means. A Propertarian system will compel you to speak all the truth and nothing but the truth, all the time.

Propertarians might counter that there’s no stipulation for compelling speech, but this is a hidden fragility in the system which will become apparent in the event of a Propertarian purity spiral. All movements eventually have purity spirals which can only be halted by the rulers taking decisive action against its perpetrators. This cannot be done if the law restricts the rulers and does not allow them to use the big stick of repressive power with some degree of arbitrariness. And that means allowing the rulers (and, under reciprocity, everyone else) to make judgment calls in situations where there is incomplete information – thus rendering such decisions incompatible with the “completion of the scientific method.” In the event of incomplete information, the scientific method stipulates taking a neutral position, but in real life, not acting because you don’t know everything is suicide.

Contrary to the predictions that “we will permanently defeat the Left,” we can expect that in a Propertarian society, the church lady-type women who are currently busy rooting out political correctness wherever it may hide (and who in Puritan New England were busy rooting out sin wherever it was hiding) would find themselves busy rooting out Abrahamism, mysticism, informational asymmetry, and inadequately performed due diligence. John Mark will try to sell you on Propertarianism by promising you the opportunity to sue Leftists for fun and profit, but human psychology doesn’t really work like that. The Rightist mind fundamentally simply wants to be left alone to live, work, and have children, tending a garden and quietly and privately praising his god. Leftism is a hack of the human social status module; it allows otherwise weak and useless people to rise in status without deserving it, by signaling holiness against a foil: a Rightist. It is the Leftist who busies himself with what others think, feel, and believe, and who uses gossip, rallying, shaming, and moralizing to undermine his social betters – something that Curt despises when he witnesses it in modern populations, but which will inevitably arise under a Propertarian system. He likes to imagine Propertarianistan as a shining Indo-European city on a hill, but it’s likelier to look like the actual, historical “shining city on a hill”: the petty totalitarian nightmare that was the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The key reason for this, of course, is Doolittle’s personal history. We can scarcely expect an old-stock Connecticut Yankee to understand that his ancestors were evil men who undermined the greatness of the West for their own personal lust for power, and that their Puritan fantasies of a city free of sin led to an entire country built entirely on that mother of all sins: pride.

Cracking heads: Propertarianism vs. fascism

Propertarianism’s biggest promise is the suppression of parasitism. The Propertarian Institute identifies several forms of parasitism, both on private producers and on common property, as well as parasitic ideologies, such as Marxism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism. The means of defeating them would be the implementation of Propertarian law, which will be accomplished through the completion of the scientific method – which is to say applying scientific, or at least testimonial, rigor to every public statement. This is a profoundly bad idea for any society which intends to survive for two simple reasons. Firstly, science is allergic to Type 1 errors (false positives) and tolerant of Type 2 errors (false negatives), given its strictly empirical basis, which makes science vulnerable to subversion through the Type 2 error, as we know from Gould, Freud, and other (((scientists))). However, in practice, Type 1 errors usually bring small costs, whereas Type 2 errors usually have gigantic costs – mistaking a rock for a bear while on a hike is a Type 1 error, while mistaking a bear for a rock is a Type 2 error. Science will claim that there’s no conclusive evidence of a bear being present (assuming a rock null hypothesis) and thus carry on with the hike, while testimonialism will claim that, to the best of one’s knowledge, there is no bear. Conversely, the paranoid would proceed with caution, justifying it by saying, “Well, shit, it weren’t no bear, cousin, but imagine if it were a bear, then you and I would get ate.” This is the proper way to behave in bear country – and it’s a world of bears out there.

Indeed, any decision-making under conditions of uncertainty is likely to be the opposite of scientific conclusions: allergic to Type 2 errors and tolerant of Type 1 errors – insofar as they are actual Type 1 errors; you don’t get to cry wolf for fun. We can see how science and testimonialism fare in the real world; there’s still a great deal of uncertainty about aspects of our world simply because there’s insufficient evidence to say anything about them. Similarly, criminals regularly escape justice because the criminal justice evidence standard (a cognate of testimonialism) is exceptionally high, chiefly due to the teleological/ethical orientation of liberal justice systems, which hold that it is better to have a hundred criminals at large than a single innocent man in prison. But to correct this abject absurdity, we don’t need a complicated new legal system with a specially-designed “grammar.” We only need to restore the teleological orientation of the justice system – to remind it that its purpose is to suppress criminals, and that a certain number of innocents jailed are an acceptable cost, given that crime is the primary internal threat to any civilized society. Moreover, suppression of crime is the one of the state’s primary raisons d’être, and thus one big reason why people are willing to tolerate living in the shadow of a state to begin with.

As a researcher of organized crime, I feel obligated to point out that Cesare Mori, the Iron Prefect of Palermo, didn’t use Propertarian testimonialism to crack down on the Sicilian Mafia. He used good, old-fashioned mass arrests, intimidation, humiliation, house-to-house searches in known Mafia strongholds, and other strongman tactics, including winning the favor of the local population – no mean feat given that Sicilians harbor a justified and deep resentment of the Italian state to this very day, after being given carte blanche by Mussolini to do whatever the Iron Prefect deemed necessary to clean up the Mafia. Indeed, so effective was the Iron Prefect’s campaign against the Mafia that it took the defeat of the Fascist state and the subsequent occupation for the Mafia to reassert its presence. The half-measures taken by Falcone, Borselino, and others who availed themselves of the liberal justice system to suppress the Mafia in the 1980s and ’90s don’t even come close to what was accomplished by the Iron Prefect. Indeed, the latter was in all likelihood only effective in suppressing the obviously evil and needlessly brutal Corleone gangsters – and the Mafia persists in Sicily to this very day, as an underground force. Falcone and Borselino were hamstrung by the need to meticulously prove every detail. Mori could arrest on slight evidence and arrest en masse; Type 1 errors abounded in his method, but the Mafia was defeated.

Information as a thing

One of the examples bandied about by Propertarians of the idea’s effectiveness is its prohibition of blackmail. This gives an opportunity to examine Propertarianism by contrasting it to two other systems in the realm of information commons and information protection, blackmail and intellectual property. Blackmail is the act of using one’s possession of a piece of private information for extortion. Propertarianism would declare such information to be property and deem it worthy of legal protection in a court of law, as opposed to classic libertarian approaches, which deem blackmail not to be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Libertarianism would also legalize insider trading, given that no coercion is involved in this supposed crime, whereas Propertarianism would keep it illegal given that it constitutes a form of parasitism on private information (which can be defended as intangible property).

However, strangely enough, the Propertarian legal system would crack down on the only form of intangible property our current system recognizes: intellectual property (IP) and copyright. The libertarian position on IP is crystal clear: it is impermissible, given that it relies on a government monopoly. Let us reiterate: libertarians would allow blackmail and insider trading, but prohibit (or rather, not enforce the law) due to the ethical prohibition of aggression. Myself, acting as a reactionary lawmaker, would prohibit blackmail and insider trading while tightly controlling, but still allowing the existence of IP as a means of outsourcing quasi-statal priestly and mercantile activities, given that the state isn’t well-suited to activities which do not involve force. However, they would still be kept under tight control by the state. I would also retain the requirement for state-issued incorporation charters for the same reason. The Propertarian position is to prohibit blackmail and insider trading, given that they involve violations of intangible property (which I agree they do), but prohibit IP rights because they are a subsidy to entertainment concerns, which encourages pandering in the media. This is a confused and inconsistent position for a system which correctly identifies that there is such a thing as intangible property. However, what’s missing is that the state is in practice the only entity which can mediate between tangible and intangible property owners to reach a solution acceptable to everyone.  It won’t always decide fairly, but at least it will decide, and not leave us in a state of indecision, wrongheadedness (there’s a difference between unfair and wrongheaded), or just plain refusal to acknowledge such property, as libertarianism would.

I suspect what’s going on here is that Curt rightfully dislikes what the various corporations are doing with IP and copyright protections, but this can be accomplished with reasserting state authority over these corporate entities, or better yet, removing their recalcitrant owners and operators and replacing them with men loyal to the state. To do this, we need to seize power – Mussolini came before Mori, but the key is to hold power and use it as power is meant to be used, not to think up analytical systems of law which attempt to fix language and immanetize the eschaton, but leave us with glaring inconsistencies.


  1. customize
    Posted July 4, 2019 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    slightly OT, but your statement is a stunning & remarkable insight:
    “Christian faith was Judaized, first by Luther and then by Calvin and the English Puritans, who hated all that was pagan in European Christianity”

    your statement adds above & beyond Brad S. Gregory’s brilliant work, “Rebel in the Ranks” (on the “reformation” & its unintended consequences). please write more about the reformation & its still ongoing consequences. thank you!

    • Posted July 5, 2019 at 12:55 am | Permalink

      This is not mine. It’s a basic tenet of neoreactionary thought, discovered by Mencius Moldbug and further developed by Jim of Jim’s Blog. You’ll have to read those guys for further data.

    • Pteronarcys californ
      Posted August 20, 2020 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

      The Christian faith was Judaized by Christ! Romanization of the Church and the subsequent Protestant Reformation served to Eurpoidize the faith.

  2. Freecocker
    Posted July 4, 2019 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    ‘weird “Freemasonry but with titties” thing’

    ok you HAVE to tell us more.

  3. Freecocker
    Posted July 4, 2019 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    ‘I agree with Doolittle that Judaism – especially Talmudic Judaism – is not a good faith, and not one conductive to the construction of great civilizations. However, I disagree with Judaism’s purported role as the progenitor of Christianity. Christianity was in large measure a reaction to Judaic legalism; Jesus’ ministry was a swift sword cutting through the Gordian knot of pharisaic legalism. Once combined with European genetics, Christianity energized the great potential of pagan Europe, and specifically German Europe. Rome was great, but declined as it grew old; German, Faustian civilization was stratospheric, and even as it is dying before us, we can only stand in awe of the glory that it once was. It began to decline when its Christian faith was Judaized, first by Luther and then by Calvin and the English Puritans, who hated all that was pagan in European Christianity – including Christmas, maypole dancing, grand cathedrals, liturgy, salvation through deeds, the divine right of kings, and patriarchal marriage.’

    Yeah but you know what iv’e read as much of Doolittle’s critique of christianity as I can get my hands on (blog posts, quora questions, facebook posts and the propertarian website) and it seems to be taken straight from Nietszche.

    With all due respect maybe you have missed the wood for the trees because Doolittle is attempting to synthesise everything in his own unique style.

  4. Freecocker
    Posted July 4, 2019 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    ‘The key reason for this, of course, is Doolittle’s personal history. We can scarcely expect an old-stock Connecticut Yankee to understand that his ancestors were evil men who undermined the greatness of the West for their own personal lust for power, and that their Puritan fantasies of a city free of sin led to an entire country built entirely on that mother of all sins: pride.’

    I am curious what was so wrong with the puritans and why is it applicable to propertarianism (Curt was raised Catholic).

  5. Posted July 5, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Um… I think of the three attempted arguments above, the two major premises are pretty far off the mark, and the third is legit but empirically very hard to argue will result in your objective.

    1. Abrahamism = the means of argument used in semitic religions: false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul (sophism), critique (gossiping, rallying, shaming, moralizing, undermining, reputation destruction, and heaping of undue praise). This is the argumentative (propaganda) technique by which the abrahamic religions in the old world, and marxism, socialism, postmodernism, neoliberalism, feminism, political correctness have been propagandized during the modern world. My work in this subject is an effort to discover how to preserve the outcome of christianity (feminine, nobility) , restore traditional militarism and militia ( masculine, aristocracy), provide a scientific method of obtaining mindfulness (stoic method, epicurean outcomes), while eliminating the use of abrahamic method of non-argument, suggestion, and deceit from education, politics, and law. I have so far succeeded in understanding what is necessary. I do not believe it is possible to implement because religions cannot adapt that quickly to change without being threatened with survival of the institutions.

    2. If you follow me enough to comment but don’t grasp my definition of science as due diligence sufficient for satisfaction of market demand given the externalities of the display word and deed one speaks, displays or acts, then you will of course (as you have) fail to grasp the inversion of the program from via-positiva (proof) to via negative (falsification, and due diligence against ignorance error, bias and deceit). Under P-Law (Science), one must only have done sufficient due diligence possible at the time, and limited his actions to the restitutable. He must not be free of error. That is impossible. In other words, you like many, have not grasped the fundamental insight ‘the completion of the scientific method’ nor perhaps understood the conclusion of the effort to establish a positiva scientific method in the 19th and 20th. You can’t. Popper was only half right. I just finished the program.

    Furthermore you cannot understand how that is possible without the Grammars, which, just as greek geometry (real/engineering) differed from babylonian algebra (ideal/Astrology),

    The way one tests these arguments is through the same methods we train artificial intelligence networks: by repeated testing of cases not by engaging in ‘argument by loose analogy from a state of relative ignorance). I see nothing in the first part 1 or part 2 that contain intellectual dishonesty – just the opposite. I see someone who is not making hasty judgements. And I see relative competence and eloquence in prose. What you haven’t done, and others have, is treat P as a system of operational thought like software programming (operations), formal logic (sets), chemistry (transformations), because the work for you to do so is difficult, and worse, it’s novel, and requires knowledge from at least math, software, economics, and law. So I can’t really criticize you for the judgements you’re issuing given your limited knowledge.

    And as you’ve said, I haven’t published the tome. I’m creating the courseware now, and have largely finished the book. But I have found that I needed to ‘dumb it down’ quite a bit. So that’s what I’m doing – editing it down. Particularly the foundations of it.

    That said it’s all up there to read if you want. There is an outline with links to the major ideas, andk keyword searches for the rest, and a constitution that is in progress although will change quite a bit.

    So people DO learn it. They generally learn some part of it (the whole is quite a bit to ask of anyone). But you can watch people use the argumentative structure and criticisms pretty effectively.

    So I can’t really blame you for taking a stab at articulating YOUR UNDERSTANDING at your relatively limited level of understanding. Especially when it’s intellectually honest.

    3. Busybodies would pay court costs and restitution when they lost. Punitively if with malfeasance. And be subject to the same criteria. Tort courts generally seek to determine who is stating a falsehood, or escaping responsibility for asymmetry of information, and therefore shift of responsibility for outcomes. There is nothing that I am proposing in the restoration of defamation of individuals, or fraud in political speech, that was not previously prosecutable one way or another. The 20th eliminated that on purpose for the news media and free speech -which is how THEY achieved their ends. Everyone wants to protect his favorite means of lying, but to limit others favorite means of lying (or forgoing due diligence to claim plausible deniability). Every incremental suppression of parasitism in history has been met by resistance of those parasites. Conservatives can be equally as parasitic and dishonest as Progressives (consumptives).

    1) Fascism. Well that’s all well and good but you need power first. And it’s notable that all the fascists failed. The reason they failed is also notable: ideology before executive ability. Had they been more diligent things would have turned out differently. That said, what is possibly more fascist than Propertarianism? I mean, its ethnocentric, monarchical, limited participation, zero tolerance, and ethnically redistributionist. I mean, I think that’s rather obvious but apparently that doesn’t come across to newbs. The difference between national socialism and propertarianism is workers (demonstrated incompetence) vs aristocracy (demonstrated competence).

    In general, my understanding, in the present, as in the past, is that one considers fascism because one is ignorant of and has never had responsibility for any organization of any substantive scale, and assumes it is possible to get done what YOU think is right under that system when at scale, what occurs is every idiot does what he thinks MAYBE you think is right, and ruins the whole edifice.

    I’m calling moralizing fascists ‘infantile’ by that statement, yes. Does that mean that we don’t need a ‘housecleaning’ by zero tolerance methods? No. Does it mean yo ucan operate a going concern by fascist means? No. You can’t. Not for any length of time. Complex organizations need ‘computable’ rules. It’s really easy to bring a backward country forward with dictators. It is almost impossible to maintain a current country’s advanced position without middle class participation. Even aristotle notices this fact. Why? The problem of distributing calculation of marginal advantages sufficient to retain marginally competitive advantage.

    2) —“This is a confused and inconsistent position…”— I don’t do ‘confused’. Ever. Sorry. It’s an empirical rather than blank (stupid) ideological position. In other words, off book research and development costs are rational. Blanket subsidy of markets IP to prohibit market entry is not. This is the value of disambiguation: to not engage in the folly of ideal types and blanket statements. IP is extremely useful means of the people (state) sharing risk-reward with the private sector when producing risky goods. My complaint is that the state doesn’t maintain a profit interest like other states do, on fundamental research. (See G Friedman on that subject) while all technological advances at present are the result of military funding programs. And our failure to keep pace with R’nD is due to contraction of defense funding that focuses investment in high returns on basic research.

    So in summary, it’s one thing to criticize precision and another to propose an equally operational solution. In other words, fascists bear the burden of creating a constitution including institutions and body or laws that can restore our people, our civilization, and maintain their competitive advantage. I’m pretty sure I’ve got the market on that answer. I haven’t’ seen anyone offer anything substantive other than moralizing, day dreaming, and wishful thinking.

    As far as I know P is about as ‘fascist and national socialist’ as is possible while avoiding the problem that destroyed fascism: silly european Literature and heroic nonsense rather than they yeoman’s labor of Institution, economy, culture, and human capital production.

    In other words, I’m the best fascist that I know of at the moment, and everyone else I can find is still reading fairy stories, romance novels, and fiction literature.

    DO the work. Learn the SCIENCE OF RULE: The law. And learn how construct the law to engineer the society you choose.

    And stop pretending that you’re other than a bullet magnet if you can’t.

    (Hugs and paternal honesty from afar.)

    • Posted July 5, 2019 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      —“Furthermore you cannot understand how that is possible without the Grammars, which, just as greek geometry (real/engineering) differed from babylonian algebra (ideal/Astrology), western reason differed from eastern theology. The grammars disambiguate language so that it is commensurable and so ‘sophism’ is no longer possible.”—

  6. Rhodok
    Posted July 5, 2019 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    I liked the first part.
    But in this second part you are really rocking!

    Though personally I would have left Curt’s personality out of the picture… this piece is strong enough and can stand on its own without snide remarks.

    • Posted July 5, 2019 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      Snide? I love Curt’s personality. I wish more people were like him.

      But seriously, personality is huge. All ideas begin in the biological facts of life, such as personality. If an idea’s progenitor has a personality type, it will show in the idea. When in the far future some young whippersnapper comes along to deconstruct my philosophy, I’d consider it a weakness if he didn’t address my piss and vinegar style.

  7. C. Francis
    Posted July 5, 2019 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    there is a lot to unpack in Jeelvy’s critique, but the idea that Christianity is a distinctly European religion and worldview, with elements from Pagan myth serving as some kind of essential foundation, is nonsense.
    Jesus announced that he came to save the lost sheep of Israel alone (Matthew 15:24), and his 12 Apostles represented the 12 tribes of Israel. The very concept of sin and atonement comes from Abrahamism, as well as the legalistic and dogmatic characteristic of the faith (primacy of text and dependence on priestly interpretation). The faith also attempts to supplant the traditions, collective wisdom, and even the philosophies of its adherents, as the Roman apologist Minucius Felix remarked that such things were “general insanity shield[ing] itself behind the multitude of the insane”. Tertullian would later condemn anything that came out of the “Porch of Athens”.
    In fact, I am tempted to even say that the idea of linear history comes from Abrahamism–obviously in the sense that there was beginning (the Word) and and end (Return of Christ, Rapture, etc). Contrast this with the cyclical histories of Spengler or Evola, which obviously pull from the pagan tradition.
    Modern irrationalism finds its genesis in the abstract gymnastics involved with explaining the nature of the Trinity to Christianity’s earliest votaries. And one needs only to read Gibbon to see what happened to the greatest empire on earth when good Romans started following such nonsense.
    Europe carries on despite the “faith”

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace