Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Would I disagree with them? Or would be just be in agreement?

    Would I disagree with them? Or would be just be in agreement?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 16:24:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629327238702481408

    Reply addressees: @IT_Reactionary @ascendingtower @Nick_B_Steves @SurvivingBabel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629303093230964736

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629303093230964736

  • then we must produce a market for commons by removing the rents created in the e

    then we must produce a market for commons by removing the rents created in the effort to eliminate transaction costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 16:23:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629327061518262272

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629326937127825408

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ne0colonial It took me a long time. We produce the market by centralizing rents in order to reduce local transaction costs.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/629326937127825408

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ne0colonial It took me a long time. We produce the market by centralizing rents in order to reduce local transaction costs.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/629326937127825408

  • It took me a long time. We produce the market by centralizing rents in order to

    It took me a long time. We produce the market by centralizing rents in order to reduce local transaction costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 16:23:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629326937127825408

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629309116704423936

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629309116704423936

  • The Great Error, And The Great Lie To Compensate For It.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
    [A]merica was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot. The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men. The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law. Everyone else is a free rider. The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights. The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests. And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders. All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing. But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history. And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so. This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism. Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960. But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death. All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
    [A]t this point in time we know that the economic benefit of slavery in the states, and the desire of the throne to ban slavery were in conflict. We also know that the americans didn’t want to pay the crown for the defense in the french and indian war, yet the british felt that they had nearly bankrupted the crown to protect the colonies. We also know that the americans were desperate to remain united with the crown. We also know that the crown could not for some reason develop the solution of a separate house for the colonies, or grant them membership in the house. The problem was solvable in 1775, but no one thought about legal dissent instead of democratic assent, or new houses for newly enfranchised interests.  It’s tragic. The tragedy of my people. Makes me sad as hell. – Curt

  • The Great Error, And The Great Lie To Compensate For It.

    (important piece) (solutions) (historical context)
    [A]merica was designed to restore and preserve the Anglo Saxon rights of Englishman, for Englishman and the occasional Scot. The constitution is an English document articulating English rights, for English men and their families, justified as necessary using Natural Law thought beneficial for all men. The source of the declaration constitution and bill of rights was English, Anglo Saxon, Norman, Germanic, Indo-European traditional common law. Everyone else is a free rider. The constitution is not a living document open to interpretation but the most modern articulation in law of that ancient aristocratic egalitarian tradition, designed to require strict construction, by formal operations, and near universal assent in order to implement change. It is the most conservative document ever written, depriving the government, the court, and the people of the ability to infringe upon those ancient rights. The error in Britain and then in the states, was the failure to see government not as a constructor of law, but as a market for the contractual construction of commons between the classes, holding different abilities, knowledge and interests. And that as the franchise expanded with economic and military participation, the British and Americans failed to add new “houses” for the new states, colonies, classes and genders. All political, moral, ethical and legal philosophy since the revolutionary period has consisted entirely of a series of convenient lies, justifications, and errors by which to compensate for the failure to extend the classical liberal model to allow citizens to construct a market for contractual commons, maintain separation of law and contract creation, and to convert from ascent by majority rule to dissent via suit in court of law by universal standing. But the progressive lies are just that. Lies. The constitution is the most strictly constructed, empirically demanding, operationally articulated document in history. And progressives have sought to destroy it for the better part of two centuries while lauding the power the errors of the British and Americans granted them to do so. This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism. Perhaps I should claim Propertarianism was written in metal tablets buried in the ground or handed to me in a burning bush or visited to me in my dreams, rather than the product oaf a life-long search to the problem of political and ethical conflict that has plagued us since 1960. But no. That would be a violation of those ancient traditions: speak the truth even if it means your death. All else follows from that expensive payment in exchange for reciprocity.
    [A]t this point in time we know that the economic benefit of slavery in the states, and the desire of the throne to ban slavery were in conflict. We also know that the americans didn’t want to pay the crown for the defense in the french and indian war, yet the british felt that they had nearly bankrupted the crown to protect the colonies. We also know that the americans were desperate to remain united with the crown. We also know that the crown could not for some reason develop the solution of a separate house for the colonies, or grant them membership in the house. The problem was solvable in 1775, but no one thought about legal dissent instead of democratic assent, or new houses for newly enfranchised interests.  It’s tragic. The tragedy of my people. Makes me sad as hell. – Curt

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Is Christianity Deceitful?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”

    —“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—

    ANSWER: [H]ave you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it. If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity. So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead. My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means. The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd. Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought. If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’? What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of. So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful. What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite? What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism? What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies? What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable? So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it. We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries. A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man. But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential – just as we were in the medieval era: “the dark ages”. Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Q&A: Curt, Why Is Christianity Deceitful?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, could you expand upon this? I’ve often heard you make multiple positive references to Christianity, yet still find it to be deceitful? Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you.”

    —“This is the greatest legal deception in human history third only to the forcible introduction of Christianity, and the universal deceit of scriptural monotheism.”—

    ANSWER: [H]ave you ever been graded on a paper in English class where you get separate grades for content and form? Well, lets try to think of mythology as form(method of argument), content(the narrative or explanation), implied content (metaphysical contend), the intended consequences, and the unintended consequences produced by it. If you were to create a school, and a body of law, the first principle of which was to unify a people by promoting the extension of kinship love to non kin, training teachers (priests) and legitimizing (crowning) rulers who held to this principle, I would say that would be a truthful religion. It would also be equal in metaphysical content to christianity, and produce similar results: it increases trust and cooperation and economic velocity. So “love one another” is a pretty good message. Now if you had added that message(ethical philosophy) to stoicism(personal philosophy), and aristotelianism(political philosophy), I think you would have had the world’s best possible religion. But we didn’t. They didn’t. They lied instead. My criticism of christianity is that it’s a good idea wrapped in lies. And that those lies are in no small part responsible for a thousand years of ignorance forcibly extended by the government and the church as a means of bringing submissive mysticism to europa now that the expense of governing the territory had become impossible by military, economic, and judicial means. The bible isn’t an heroic document. It’s the story of the rise and fall of judea because of the failure of their god and their religion to convert them from immoral herders and merchants to a martial people capable of holding land and farms. If compared to the same greek works of the time it is the equivalent of comparing today’s science to islamic mysticism – even witchcraft. It’s absurd. Christianity was a mental plague that nearly destroyed us, and we were only rescued a thousand years later by the rediscovery of our greek and therefore indo-european method of thought. If truth is the secret of the west, and christianity is a lie, then how can it be ‘good’? What is ‘good’ about the west was there before the church. The church amplified what was there. but that’s all. And the price of that amplification was a devolution in to mysticism and ignorance we still struggle to climb out of. So as an institution of government as a creator of law and as an advocate of love the church was good. As a distributor and imposer of lies, it was harmful. What might have happened if instead of closing the stoic schools and imposing christianity Justinian had done the opposite? What if the Romanticists in the victorian era in Germany had succeeded in restoring paganism and naturalism? What if today we could escape the lies, the lies that are created from those lies (puritanism, neo-puritanism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism) and instead saturated our people in truth rather than lies? What if we made lying into the commons illegal? What if we made polluting the commons with lies and untruths illegal, and punishable? So I appreciate the law and order of the church as an institution but I curse it forever, and justinian in particular, and kant, marx, muhammed, jesus, abraham and zoroaster for the most evil lies that have ever been constructed by man. Confucius merely failed. Buddha tried to kill off mysticism and was corrupted by later generations. Aristotle persists thankfully, as the greatest philosopher in history, despite the near total loss of his works. But ALL the rest are just liars. Incompetents who could not find a solution to the problem of politics without lying. For expedience due to incompetence they lied. Lying works if there is enough of it. And religion creates enough of it. We are the people who invented and speak the truth, and we have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty in both the ancient and modern worlds. We were conquered by lies in the first to third centuries using the availability of writing and travel. The same people, using the same strategy are attempting to conquer us with a new series of pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational lies using modern technology and media. The second conquest of lies has been in progress for coming up on two centuries. A thing need not be all good or all bad unless you claim omniscience and authority. The church is no authority – It is neither all good nor all bad. Christianity is no authority – it is neither all good or all bad. The central proposition of Christianity is to love one another – to increase trust cooperation and prosperity by the expurgation of evil from the heart of man. But if the truth cannot be stated truthfully, then it too is only partly good and partly bad. And our future is then partly good and partly bad – and we are left without fulfilling our potential – just as we were in the medieval era: “the dark ages”. Love is enough. Truth is enough. Non-parasitism is enough. The common law is enough. Voluntary organization of production is enough. And the voluntary construction of commons by the surviving of dissent is enough.NO MORE LIES. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • I’ve just recently been able to simplify the idea – (its an application or exten

    I’ve just recently been able to simplify the idea – (its an application or extension of critical rationalism) https://twitter.com/ne0colonial/status/629259746722189312

  • The 3rd World has Weaponized Reproduction under consumer capitalism, and they’re

    The 3rd World has Weaponized Reproduction under consumer capitalism, and they’re winning the war of dysgenic conquest. #NRx #tlot #tcot

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 13:28:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629282974656278528

  • I just haven’t been able to say it succinctly before. I’ve been working on it fo

    I just haven’t been able to say it succinctly before. I’ve been working on it for a few weeks and I think it’s right now.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 12:56:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629274875383926784

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629259746722189312

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629259746722189312