Now and then when I’m browsing YouTube I make the terrible mistake of clicking on the Trending tab instead of the Subscriptions tab. Today was one such day, and I found this doozy of a new pop song from singer Billie Eilish trending at #1 with over 18 million views in the two days since its release.Continue reading
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.
With the passing of another law, the abortion debate rears its ugly head once more. Ideologues with binary minds on both side of the debate come out shouting down any questions, and in particular the regressive left arc up at any suggestion that an unborn child has rights that ought to be considered too.
The common crap we get to enjoy includes classics like:
“If you’re not a woman, you’re not entitled to an opinion.”
“Her body, her choice.”
“It’s just a clump of cells, mind your own business!”
And from the other side:
“Women who abort babies should be jailed!”
“Doctors who abort babies should be hanged!”
“Anyone who kills an innocent baby is going to hell.”
It’s complicated. It’s yucky. It’s a conversation that NEEDS to be elevated out of the ideological gutter.
Some of my thoughts, which of course are just thoughts, not claims of absolute truth, just considerations that ought to be introduced to aid a more peaceful dialogue on the topic:
Anyone who claims to know when a child becomes a person is lying. We don’t even know what personhood really is. The recent NPC meme beautifully highlights the fact that you could argue that some, if not most, grown adults don’t actually display the characteristics of personal agency: the ability to generate original thoughts, to resist social programming, to shape and mould themselves; self-mastery. If we can’t even be sure that we and the people around us are really whole human beings, and not just meat machines chasing dopamine, then we certainly don’t know what personhood is, or where it begins or ends. We should stop claiming to be sure about things we know nothing about.
Premature babies can live from 22 weeks, and of course the smaller they are, the more vulnerable they are to the innumerable ways a child can die. A wall of flesh between the world and the child is not sufficient to say that it is not a human being. Vaginas are amazing, beautiful things, but they are not God – they do not bestow personhood. A baby is a baby in the womb as much as it is a baby in the world.
It is plainly obviously that a child is ALIVE from the moment of conception. Sperm and eggs are alive before that. Of course, the parts are not the whole, and deciding when a living creature gains personhood is such a complicated and, frankly, God-like power, that no mere mortal, medical expert or not, is fit for the job. Life and consciousness are not the same thing.
I believe that aborting babies IS murder, but murder is not absolutely evil all the time, nor is it unforgivable, nor should we demonise every single person who has committed murder. I know people who have killed. People kill in war, in self defence, in acts of violent passion. People kill other people for all sorts of reasons; some malevolent or evil, some tragic or in error, some righteous. My favourite book of the Bible, Ecclesiastes (a book that every father ought to read), teaches us in timeless wisdom that: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal…” Sometimes killing is necessary. Sometimes it is not, but even the mass murderer, if truly repentant, deserves forgiveness. We should absolutely not endanger the community by trusting such a person again, but we can try to forgive them.
We should be arming women so that they can protect themselves against rape before we start promoting abortions as an appropriate solution to unwanted pregnancies. Women who get raped probably have the best reason of all to abort a child, and I have nothing but compassion for their terrible plight. I would be very careful judging a rape victim who can’t bear to birth the offspring of the man who defiled her. I would prefer it if she wasn’t raped. Universal gun rights are one possible solution to lowering the risk of rape in the west. There are less extreme options too, but we seem to be throwing them all out. Women can’t even carry pepperspray in this country anymore. Our politicians are RAPE-ENABLERS.
A woman getting pregnant to a dipshit boyfriend who she knows would be a terrible father is NOT adequate reason to kill a child, and yet we are teaching girls that it’s just clearing out some unwanted cells, and not to worry about it. The culture around sex and women in the West today is the single most destructive force to civilisation we have ever seen. Don’t believe me? Look at how many babies have been aborted in the last 50 years. It likely exceeds the murderousness of Communism, hard as that is to imagine. Also, ask yourself if gender relations are better or worse today than they were 100 years ago? Sure, women have more rights, but are men and women collaborating more peacefully, lovingly, and productively, or not? We need to teach girls to choose their boyfriends wisely, to see sex as sacred, to encourage chastity in women AND men until marriage ideally, and for both men and women to take every precaution possible to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Every abortion is a tragedy, and we should not make light of them.
I don’t think we should make abortion illegal, even though I do believe that it is murder. It’s such a tough call, but my instinct tells me that punishing people who are victims of faulty or even satanic teaching doesn’t fix the situation. I don’t think any woman takes pleasure in getting an abortion, at least not in the moment that it happens. We need to call out women like Oprah who glorify the murderous act, and we need to let women know that they can do it, yes, it’s their body and their choice, but it is also murder, and it is morally wrong. We need to change the culture to one of PREVENTION, not murderous “repair”, and that happens through nuanced conversation, through teaching of objective morality, universality, faith in God, and through highly selective sexuality.
You don’t need to be a woman to be entitled to an opinion about the fate of the unborn. See, I have opinions too, and I’m not a woman! Don’t think I should voice them? You are cordially invite to piss off, then If you’re happy to engage, you are certainly welcome to rebut any of my thoughts, and please know that because I am not a leftist/rightist ideological NPC, I am open to changing my mind. I didn’t always think this way about abortion. My mind is changeable with new information. Let’s talk about it. Maybe we’ll both learn something.
Yes, women deserve to live in a world where they won’t be raped by strangers or their husbands, and they deserve to have control over their bodies. Men deserve to not be demonised for trying to protect the babies of the world. Trust me girls, if you knew what it was like living in uncivilised times, you might be grateful that the male instinct to protect the young is so strong! Male strength and protection built civilisation, alongside female nurturing and compassion. Expecting women to take sole responsibility for the sexual freedom irrevocably granted to them by technology and modernity, is the same “passing the buck” game that Adam played in the Garden of Eden. Men taking responsibility is the answer. It always was.
Children also deserve to be safe from the murderous hands of confused or mislead mothers, and opportunistic doctors. Every subset of humankind who has ever been oppressed or enslaved has been done so by dehumanising propaganda. Blacks were considered subhuman, or at least vastly inferior, so they were slaves. Women were considered hysterical, irrational beings, and so they could be controlled. Babies are still considered clumps of cells, so they can be erased without guilt. Every one of these groups, save the last, was set free because enough brave people spoke up and changed the culture. Law and politics are downstream from culture. Let’s talk about this, and see if we can’t change the culture, and save millions of lives, and at the same time spare women the torture and torment of doing something so awful as killing their unborn.
Dr. Seuss said it best in his classic examination of human rights, Horton Hears a Who:
Don’t give up! I believe in you all. A person’s a person, no matter how small!
And you very small persons will not have to die
If you make yourselves heard! So come on, now, and TRY!”
“This”, cried the Mayor, “is your town’s darkest hour!
The time for all Whos who have blood that is red
To come to the aid of their country!”, he said.
“We’ve GOT to make noises in greater amounts!
So, open your mouth, lad! For every voice counts!
Well, the unborn have no voices, yet. They are muted by the womb that was designed to protect and nurture them. We need to speak on their behalf. So let’s do that, and try not to be assholes about it, if possible.
“There has never been a more murderous ideology than atheism.
Change my mind.”
A provocative statement to make on Facebook no doubt. But what reaction did I get? Many agreed, but as you’d expect there was plenty of pushback:
“Who has ever murdered in the name of atheism? And since when is the lack of belief in something an ideology? I get that most atheists are rabid hypocrites and full of inconsistencies, but I’m not aware of murders being done in the name of an unbelief in any god or gods.”
“I really have no desire to “change your mind” about the idea. However if you were to declare that “atheists are murderous” then I would have a bit of a bone to pick with you.”
“I don’t see any historical record of atheism causing as much destruction as monotheism other than recent communism. Unless you think we are in a dark age right now, atheism is not the greatest evil.”
“It depends what you mean by atheism, and it depends what you mean by murderous, and it depends on what you mean by ideology.”
“What does THE ideology of atheism look like? Perhaps you misspoke and meant atheistic ideologies.”
“This is just divisive as fuck…You might have had me if you’d said NIHILISM instead of atheism.”
But a conversation is a two way street, and after assessing and engaging with these and other commenters I slightly shifted my stance.
Atheism technically doesn’t qualify as an ideology, but there are several ideologies that are necessarily atheistic, and these are the ones that are doing the murdering. Of course, I don’t suspect that any of my self-declared atheist friends are secretly murderous. What I believe is probably even more offensive: that they do not embody the metaphysical belief that they espouse. They act as though they believe there is a God, while saying they don’t believe there is one. But this is a topic for another debate.
The updated thought, and the heart of what I was thrusting at, perhaps too obscurely is this:
One of the dangers of not believing in God is falling into the adoption of arrogant truth claims about the nature of being and the point at which procreative cells become a person. We do not see abortion as murder because of a convenient and arbitrary distinction between pre-person living cells, and an actual person. In history, many others have been made slaves because they were conveniently and arbitrarily deemed to be subhuman.
It seems to me that, just like in the emancipation of the African American slaves, Christians are at the vanguard of protecting these lives. I believe that this is a uniquely Christian endeavour, and history supports this. I believe that a society that has moved away from the word of God as found in the Bible, has become murderous in the MILLIONS because of a phoney distinction that Christianity does not accept. Hence my correlation (though not a causation) between murderous ideologies and atheism.
The 40-50 million abortions that we see occurring globally each year are enabled by atheistic beliefs about the nature of our existence and can therefore be laid at the feet of atheistic ideologies that place self fulfilment at the centre of meaning. In the West, the last slaves are the unborn.