Saturate The Environment with Truthfulness and People Will Act Truthfully

(By: Curt Doolittle, Johannes Meixner and Andy Curzon)

We learn actions by doing. But we learn metaphysics by observation: our most effective learning-by-doing comes from recognizing patterns and habits of others in the environment. Things we take for granted as static, rather than open to our modification.

So I tend to see something like programming as a skill that must be learned by doing. Some people are incapable no matter how many times they try to do something. Some people must do something many, many times. Others must do things a few times. Others just once or twice. Some of us can master concepts purely by imagining doing them a few times, and some of us by imagining the art of imagining doing them instantly. (We are very RARE.)

We know that this progression roughy mirrors standard deviations of IQ around a ‘human minimum’ of around 106 (the start of Smart Fraction abilities: verbal articulation of ideas). And that makes sense when you realize that verbalizing complex ideas is in itself, the art of imagining operations in sequence.

– Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully.
– Saturate the environment with error the people will act erroneously.
– Saturate the environment with deception and the people will act deceptively.
– Saturate the environment with violence, and people will act violently.

Because that is what it means to adapt to the environment..

– Education was the first means of public broadcasting.
– Reading was the next, but it was voluntary.
– Radio was next and could be done without effort.
– Television was next and it was a serotonin-producing drug, that made saturation effortless.
– Today the curious can see confirmation and alliance in almost any alternate reality that they can imagine. In Advanced countries people live in their isolation chambers, listening to echoes.

Saturation is the best teaching. But how do we ensure people are saturated by truths rather than falsehoods?

We make untruthful speech a crime when placed into the commons. Deprive the environment of negativity, and people will not act negatively. And within one or two generations we will saturate people with truth.

And as such we:
– Saturate the environment with truth and people will act truthfully.
– Saturate the environment with trust and people will act trustworthily.
– Saturate the environment with confidence and people will act confidently.
– Saturate the environment with certainty and people will act certainly.
– Saturate the environment with assurance, and people will act assuredly.
– Saturate the environment with anything, and people will act likewise.

So you see…. “after all, we’re all alike.”

Education need not be interpersonal if it is environmental.

The Propertarian Institute
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev, Ukraine.


A Short Course on Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth

(promoted to post) (very good outline)

The Truth – as in the most parsimonious description we can possibly make, cannot know, even if we speak it. Truthfulness on the other hand, we can know.





FUKUYAMA DIDN”T UNDERSTAND…/13/fukuyama-didnt-underst…/


If scientists can warranty the truthfulness of their work, there is no reason the rest of us cannot do so.



CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH…/cultural-variants-of-trut…/







My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One

Reforming Libertarian Ethics

Curt Doolittle
Testimonialism and Propertarianism
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights. 

In writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.

Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.

But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).


Writing: Use of Proper Case

Look. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.).

Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader.

Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text, and to skip what he knows, and find what he doesn’t.

The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice.

And good type handling is just good indexing.

So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology.

Sorry. That’s how it is.


Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs.  (And a note on painful births :) )

A proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible.

Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism.

Moreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know,

Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization.

If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars.

The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy.

Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable.

I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete).

So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law.  And we can convert all commons to property.  And under universal standing, protect that property.

And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.  And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism.  We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda.

Fukuyama was wrong.

The end of history is the truthful civilization.

And we are going to birth it.

And I hope that birth is painful.  :)


Q&A: Why Do People Hold Increasingly Radical Positions?

Why do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology?

Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary.

Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly.

People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies.

You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.


Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From?

“Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog

Really great question.  And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions.  We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth.

So, it comes from:
(1) Indo-European Heroism;  (Uniqueness of the west)
(2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;
(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”. 

Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital.

We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours.

We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India.

That’s your answer.

As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.


Q&A: Does your methodology work backwards from a presumption? (Sigh. Critique is Everywhere.)

A Question From Benjamin Uraminski

Curt, your underlying methodology seems to work backward from a presupposed solution, similar to an algebra problem. In this instance, it having already been decided upon that everything is inherently sexual so that the missing variables which reinforce the preconceived notion appear obvious to one who holds those beliefs.

I notice this particular Freudian-esque and neo-Darwinist methodology, that everything is inherently sexual, a lot in the modernist thought patterns.

To draw another analogy: how is this inherently different than the methodology of a paranoid, believing that everyone is out to get him, interpreting the facts his sense-perceptions supply to him, to reinforce the preconceived notion that, everyone is, in fact, out to get him?

Well, Ben, I am going to assume that you’re asking a serious question. :) Even if you fall into psychologizing (authoritarianism, ridicule, gossip, ad hominem) rather than criticizing the argument itself.

Either the argument possess explanatory power, and survives criticism or it Doesn’t. In the case of both Testimonialism and Propertarianism that is going to be very hard. And to criticize aristocratic egalitarianism will require only that you justify deceit and favor dysgenic reproduction. Which is a preference, I admit.

As for ‘working backward’ the answer is that I started with the very real problem of cooperation (See Axelrod et al), and constructed Propertarianism from rational incentives in in the face of opportunity costs. And like a good analytic I used every available bit of scientific evidence I could find to criticize it. When I understood that Haidt had pretty much identified the causes, and that I could map them to conflicts over the allocation of property rights, then it wasn’t difficult to use the work in his bibliography to develop the rest of Propertarianism: I expressed moral statements in the AMORAL language of economics.

As for psychology, the reason it seems like psychology is that it replaces authoritarian psychologizing(pseudoscientific) with a much more sophisticated and nuanced means of describing human thoughts as incentives rather than experiences. So to some degree (by accident) I do think that Propertarianism and Testimonialism fully replace authoritarian/totalitarian/equalitarian psychology, by extending economics (observations of demonstrated preference) to include the first principles of economics: incentives to cooperate. And in doing so I explain demonstrated political preferences in voting as a division of moral perception knowledge and labor. This is pretty profound really. And one of the best tests of it, is that the explanatory power appears to unite all fields of inquiry under a very simple set of premises starting with the need to acquire.

As for your analogy to Algebra, the differences is that numbers cannot make layer upon layer of intertemporally perishable normative contracts any more than hydrogen and oxygen can choose not to bond, where people can. As such we can exchange what appear to be violations of those first principles if in the aggregate we benefit.

As for methodology, which methodology are you talking about?
Testimonial truth?
Aristocratic Egalitarianism?

I am pretty sure Testimonialism will survive as the definition of truth proper from which all others are derived. That’s probably one of the most important insights into truth in the past century. It completes Critical Rationalism / Critical Preference.

To defeat Propertarianism would require some very substantial and what appears unlikely changes to the history of man’s development. (as we say, the framework of social science is evolutionary biology).

To defeat aristocratic egalitarianism is a matter of preference, although I argue that if one built a high trust truthful polity, that they would all evolve into aristocratic egalitarian polities over time.

So these arguments are defeat-able, but they’re defeat-able on fairly sophisticated grounds.

But then again, Marx built an enormous edifice on a lie (dialectical materialism) and a falsehood (labor theory of value). So maybe I made similar mistakes.

But like Marx, those mistakes will require ratio-scientific arguments not pseudoscientific (psychological gossip and shaming).

(Sorry for throwing the tease in there but I couldn’t resist.)



Red Ice Radio (Sweden)

The Right Stuff

    1: The Daily Shoah 22: “A Propertarian Brunch”

    2: The Daily Shoah 35: “Doolittle Does It Again”

Counter-Currents Radio 6/26/15 “Interview with Curt Doolittle”

           Topics include:

    1. Curt’s background and education
    2. Why truth-telling is the secret to the success of European society
    3. How Europeans have lowered the costs of truth-telling and raised the costs of lying
    4. The emergence of rhetoric, philosophy, and science
    5. The importance of imagination in science and the necessity of criticism to winnow out pure fancies
    6. The subversion of truth-telling in science and politics
    7. Why the 20th century became the era of weaponized pseudoscience
    8. Political correctness vs. truth
    9. How we might restore truth-telling in politics and science

    Note: regrettably, I lost some audio around the 31 minute mark, but fortunately Curt’s narrative remains intelligible. We will have to fill in the gaps in future conversations.


Q: “What is Your Position on Slavery?”

Well, I suppose I have to be impolitic here and just go with the truth.  But let me prevaricate a little bit and remind all that my job is to make amoral (non moral, non-introspective) arguments.  So I am not going to satisfy your moral intuition’s needs for confirmation in this essay.

Cooperation between relative equals is so disproportionately rewarding that it is difficult not to make use of it.

Cooperation is not universally valuable, even if possible, because at some point the differences between the parties mean that there is nothing of value that they can exchange (the degree to which this is pervasive in the world is why we end up with classes and castes.) (

Cooperation is not universally possible because if there is a marginal difference in suppression of free riding (parasitism) then agreements that yield productive results are not possible. (Russia/Iran)

Cooperation is not possible if the others are not capable of cooperating (Pygmys).

Cooperation is sometimes undesirable if cooperation may lead to one’s eventual extermination. (this happens even if you will eventually be out-competed by what appears to be mutually beneficial cooperation.) (american indians)

Cooperation is not possible if the other party is intent on your displacement, conquest, conversion, out-breeding, or extermination. (Palestinians)

Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) of those who are either not valuable to cooperate with, or not possible to cooperate with, or deadly to cooperate with can possibly provide returns if you can afford to produce them.

Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) is only preferable if in the long term, you do sufficient good and insufficient harm, that the population, once evolved, will not harm you, and will persist in trading with you, and you will obtain long term rewards from that cooperation. (India)

If Paternalism (managed evolution) is not possible because the others are not capable of cooperation, or you cannot afford to evolve them, and you can ignore them, then ignoring them is the cheapest solution.

If you cannot ignore them, cannot evolve them, and cannot cooperate with them, then you can conquer or exterminate them.

If you cannot afford to conquer or exterminate them, then they will defeat you.

– We can exterminate those who threaten us.
– We can resist conquerors and superior competitors.
– We can trade with peers.
– We can evolve non-peers.
– We can protect (treat as pets) the non threatening.
– We can ignore those who are irrelevant.

The problem with slavery is that it’s very expensive to police sentient creatures whose dominance hierarchy we cannot assume leadership of.

Any potential slave is of better utility in the voluntary organization of production (the market) than he is in the involuntary organization of production.

It’s fairly expensive to take care of pets. (Pygmys, Primitives). But the alternative is to lose all future potential from them, and often, lose the value that they bring to existence. (Giraffe’s and Elephants).

It’s fine to make pets from non-sentients as long as we don’t cause them to suffer – even if they would prefer to be independent, sometimes the alternative to being a pet is extinction (tigers).

It is very hard to imagine non-threatening sentients that we cannot ignore.

So in this list I cannot see the wisdom of involuntary slavery, unless somehow we make the case the slavery is a less expensive alternative to extermination. (And that, I think, is a hard argument to make. Bullets are cheap after all.)

Now if we were to return to agrarian poverty in the next thousand years, the economics of slavery MIGHT invert. (although that is hard to imagine). We forget that serfdom emerged out of a labor shortage, and starvation may have increased further without it as a means of the involuntary organization of production.

Moreover, humans have the same problem with slavery as we do with random abuse, with domestic abuse, with animal abuse, and even with abuse of physical commons, and normative commons:

in-group people who do that are dangerous to us as well.

So I don’t want to see slavery (in the plantation model, not the greek model) because I understand that it leads to retaliation.

If you want to raise people as pets and treat them as pets, you know, I am not so sure I have a problem with that.

If you want to raise people through paternalism, I am not only ok with it, but it appears to be necessary.

If you want to exterminate people, I am perfectly OK with that, as long as it’s because they are impossible to cooperate with and survive.

But as far as I know, slavery doesn’t produce any end worth it’s cost. (Today).

So that is an AMORAL argument fully constructed from rational incentives without appeal to introspection.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.