I’ve been watching Curt Doolittle on Facebook for a couple of years now, and when I first started to sense the racial and fascistic undertones in conversations about him, I realised I had to look a bit closer. Some people call him a fascist cult-leader, and although I’ve not seen him identify with the alt-right himself, some of the hallmarks are there. But it’s not so obvious to me what either of those terms mean anymore, “fascism” and “alt-right”. They have been misused ad nauseum, until they now mean very little. When you see the existence and rising momentum of a violent street-gang who call themselves Anti-fascists, and their behaviour is synonymous with the very thing they claim to be fighting, we KNOW that their definition of fascism is a false one. When the terms alt-right and neo-Nazi gets thrown about to describe anyone right of Stalin to the normies, or anyone that Libertarians think are too aggressive or muscular, I think what is really being said is “that person is a threat, kill them with shame and slander”. It’s been an effective for strategy for a while, but we can see that it’s not working in the long run.
So I had to ask myself, is Curt Doolittle really what they say he is?
Online, he writes very esoterically, and its no wonder why; he is dealing with extremely nuanced subject matter, and attempting to do so scientifically. But this means he is, either deliberately, or by accident, creating content for only the most scrupulous and rigorous thinkers (hoping to be ignored by people who simply don’t get it enough to comment), or he’s targeting the most gullible with a highly developed sophistry. A closer look was required to approach an answer to that.
Curt is not hugely popular as far as I can see, at least not in the mainstream channels. He’s no Stefan Molyneux, and yet, he has a bloated-full Facebook friend list, with two and a half thousand followers there, plus another couple of thousand on his Propertarian Institute page. But that’s just the normie social media. That’s just what we can see. Curt is aggressive and at times extremely obnoxious in his debates on Facebook, and this certainly leads to him being seen in a particular light. There was a brief time when I thought that Curt may have been Satan incarnate, intent on tyrannical rule in some capacity, but this sentiment was purely an emotional reaction to his manner online. What his manner produces is rigorous debate, igniting the fighting spirit in men who want to take him down, and he engages with EVERYONE. He writes multiple times a day, every day, and is always active in the comments threads. This provocative and battle-ready manner seems to me a very straightforward shit-test against people who really don’t get it, or can’t.
As you’ll see in my discussion with him, there were many times I couldn’t quite keep up with his rate of thought and his choice of words. Where I understood something clearly, I did try to reflect it back to him in simple words, after all, that is my function; to try to understand the big ideas and repackage for broader consumption and consideration.
I recently asked Curt in a chat if he identifies with fascism, as he is so accused, and his answer was that he uses the term ironically, and calls himself a “markets fascist” in the sense that he believes we need to actively defend markets and not allow politicians to steal from the commons without legal recourse. That doesn’t sound like fascism to me, that sounds like Libertarianism with balls. It also sounds reasonable compared with the shit-shows that we currently have in Canberra and Washington DC and Downing Street.
After my conversation, the main thing that changed was my irrational perception of the man as a snake-oil salesman with malevolent intent. At worst, he has a philosophy riddled with internal inconsistency that he manages to cover with carefully chosen esoteric weasle-words, but as yet I’ve not seen much successful refutation of the claims he makes, and I’ve been unable to quibble with him over anything other than semantics. Speaking to him face to face, I can see that he is a decent man, he’s warm and disarming, he has a sense of humour, and he’s very passionate. He seems to be someone who is genuinely trying to share a discovery that he believes will make things better in the world. I respect the intent, though I am still skeptical of the philosophy, only because it is so elusive to me still, being new to the study. I’ve learned that Curt Doolittle in person is not the same as Curt Doolittle online, and he is transparent about this.
Among the nerdy folks who are paying attention to Doolittle, there are some who have reached the conclusion that he is a crackpot, others think he’s a cult leader, others seem to think he is a visionary truth-speaker.
I think he’s a revolutionary and that he means business. Whether or not the revolution is for the better, and exactly what kind of revolution it would be, I am still unsure. But as you’ll see he is describing ideas and modes of thinking and communication that are very tricky to grapple with, and also, once grasped, are very hard to refute. He speaks little of implementation of a governance model, and this is what most are worried about: if Propertarianism’s so-called natural law were to become the law of a land, what would the transition look like, and what would the end result look like? How much suffering and violence, if any, would be warranted and necessary to ensure that the net gains are maximal, and the destruction of capital, particularly human lives, is minimal to nought. It’s a crucial matter to me, but not one that Curt talks about openly as far as I’ve seen.
In recent months, Curt has written openly about the need, and his desire for, revolution backed by adequate violent force. He talks about numbers needed to begin and win a civil war in America. He never openly calls for it. He never declares himself a leader. He doesn’t incite violence, he only reminds us of its utility and that, as most civilised folks have been trained from birth to forget, that violence is the benchmark by which all power is measured. You only own what you can defend, and that which your society will defend on your behalf. He just presents predictions and sometimes hypothetical prescriptions based on historical trends that when examined, can’t be denied.
The reach and efficacy of Propertarianism is hard to gauge. The power he has and the political actions he advocates are also not clear. But the potential for atrocities to emerge from a naive misunderstanding, or a strong reaction against “THE NATURAL LAW” that Curt Doolittle has described in his work, is self-evident.
For this reason, I highly recommend that anyone who finds this video interview engaging, troubling, or downright terrifying ought to connect with Curt, or keep an eye on him, and try to find out what he’s about. Is he going to be a person remembered in history as a founding father of something great and wonderful, or will he be a tyrant? Or maybe he’ll be the former, but be called the latter. Or maybe he’s a nobody, and this is just more libertarian navel-gazing with added undertones of violence. I suspect its not the latter, and so I’m convinced that despite whatever conclusions you reach from this interview, or whatever concerns arise in you, one thing is certain: Curt Doolittle is someone you ignore at your peril.