Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • A Simple Prescription for A Political Solution

    Jan 31, 2020, 11:37 AM Whether libertarian, conservative, right, or hard right you should follow me even if you don’t always get what I’m on about. Traditionalists and Christians too – just grit your teeth when I go all ‘Yes, Christianity but no to Abrahamic Theology’. ‘Cause together we will win. 😉 The American Revolution for Independence from the crown had less support than the conservatives currently do – even those conservatives that are willing to fight. The only thing preventing conservatives from acting is a prescription for a solution that is possible to implement. So, end the presidency; house of representatives; restore appointment to the senate by each state legislature; convert the (blue) liberal immigrant cities to states; articulate the 10th demarcating federal and state powers; all but military, treasury, benefits revert to states. The Senate can hire a cabinet. States can be formed with 300k population; and any group anywhere can secede and re-associate at the county, district, and neighborhood level taking their debts with them. And the federal courts can mediate conflicts across borders. This restores the original intent of the constitution which is a continental military and trade organization, and treasury and insurer of last resort, with norms, policy, and laws serving the interests of polites as the british empire; a weak federal government as was the church. This restores the european pattern of history as a competing network of states producing various commons suitable to their demographics; reduces power distance in producing those commons; allows people to migrate to or prevent migration to social and political order of preference. The rest is the explicit statement that the constitution is a description of the natural law sovereignty and reciprocity; the terms by which the law is conducted; and detail of the law that enumerates the powers, and processes. This rough solution solves the problem of preserving the value of scale of both traditional european weak federal unity providing monetary, economic, and military security while allowing the separation of traditional peoples from immigrant and urban peoples. I have not addressed the most important reformation of the Monetary, Treasury, banking, financial, consumer credit, and debt sectors which will be the greatest reallocation of economic advantage in centuries – and the opposite of marxist folly. That’s for elsewhere. -cheers

  • The Enemy Will Be Powerless

    The Enemy Will Be Powerless https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/the-enemy-will-be-powerless/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 01:03:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264723822944681984

  • The Vocabulary of Partisan Division

    The Vocabulary of Partisan Division https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/the-vocabulary-of-partisan-division/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 01:00:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264723038500646912

  • The Vocabulary of Partisan Division

    May 13 at 10:06 AM · THE VOCABULARY OF PARTISAN DIVISION by Alan Post The polling data shows that the Democrats are responsible for the partisan divide. It happened due to changes in grammar. Peter Boghossian published an article last year on American Mind, Culture War 2.0, articulating the conflict as rotating around three axes: 1) the new rules of engagement, 2) the correspondence theory of truth, and 3) the role intersectionality ought to play in everyone’s worldview. Let’s examine each of these features to see how Culture War 2.0 has made allies out of former ideological enemies. Call this The Great Realignment. Truth Correspondence

    truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

    Intersectionality

    the complex, cumulative manner in which the effects of different forms of discrimination combine, overlap, or intersect — https://iwda.org.au/what-does-intersectional-feminism-actu…/ — https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf

    Rules of Engagement

    Those people who accept the correspondence theory of truth (even though they may not know it by name) agree on the traditional rules of engagement (discourse, debate, dialogue) and do not view intersectionality as a necessary model for getting to the truth. [Those people who view intersectionality as a necessary model for understanding the world] believe speech should be shut down if it’s hurtful or potentially harmful, and think intersectional, transformative approaches are necessary to refashion systems.

    (via https://americanmind.org/essays/welcome-to-culture-war-2-0/) The author, Peter Boghossian, doesn’t offer any resolution to the so-identified conflict. He closes with the term “cognitive liberty,” but I think the issue is use of language (grammar, vocabulary). What the article calls Culture War 2.0 they distinguish from Culture Wars 1.0 by the Supreme Court affirming same-sex marriage:

    That is the war that drifted to a whimpering end as recently as 2013, when the Supreme Court handed down culturally significant rulings bolstering the case for same-sex marriage — https://www.nytimes.com/…/p…/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html

    The observation that the nature of disagreement changed is broadly supported in polling data, even if the demarcation identified in the article is a contrivance. Pew did a poll in 2017 showing the “growing partisan gaps on government, race, immigration,” accelerated in 2011, largely from the Democratic party and presumptively as consequence of the 2012 elections (which eventually saw Obama elected to his second term.) from the article:

    Across 10 political values Pew Research Center has tracked since 1994, there is now an average 36-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1994, it was only 15 points. The partisan gap is much larger than the differences between the opinions of blacks and whites, men and women and other groups in society. — https://www.pewresearch.org/…/takeaways-on-americans-growi…/

    and the full survey here: https://www.people-press.org/…/the-partisan-divide-on-poli…/ With the following graphs showing a marked change in sentiment since 2011:

    “Government should do more to help the needy” (54% – 71%) “Racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” (~29%-64%) “Immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents” (~54%-84%)

    The change in 2011 was articulated, post-facto, by Thomas B. Edsall in his regular opinion column at the New York Times:

    For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. — https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/…/the-future-of-t…/… — http://www.discriminations.us/…/now-its-official-democrats…/

    The change in vocabulary following the 2012 election on can be seen in cherry-picked word frequency charts of New York Times articles from 1970 – 2018, with the following words introduced in to the lexicon on or after 2011 (terms with a recently, steeply rising tail with no prior activity): mansplaining toxic masculinity male privilege systemic racism white privilege white nationalism transphobia non binary slut shaming fat shaming implicit bias cultural appropriation micro aggressions intersectionality safe space — https://twitter.com/DavidRozado/status/1134041329292460032 — https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/ Any of these words could have begun being used only incidentally to the 2012 election, but this set serves as confirmatory of the phenomena at a vocabulary level. The conflict can be seen in the grammar and the polling data shows whose opinion was changed by it.

  • The Vocabulary of Partisan Division

    May 13 at 10:06 AM · THE VOCABULARY OF PARTISAN DIVISION by Alan Post The polling data shows that the Democrats are responsible for the partisan divide. It happened due to changes in grammar. Peter Boghossian published an article last year on American Mind, Culture War 2.0, articulating the conflict as rotating around three axes: 1) the new rules of engagement, 2) the correspondence theory of truth, and 3) the role intersectionality ought to play in everyone’s worldview. Let’s examine each of these features to see how Culture War 2.0 has made allies out of former ideological enemies. Call this The Great Realignment. Truth Correspondence

    truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

    Intersectionality

    the complex, cumulative manner in which the effects of different forms of discrimination combine, overlap, or intersect — https://iwda.org.au/what-does-intersectional-feminism-actu…/ — https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf

    Rules of Engagement

    Those people who accept the correspondence theory of truth (even though they may not know it by name) agree on the traditional rules of engagement (discourse, debate, dialogue) and do not view intersectionality as a necessary model for getting to the truth. [Those people who view intersectionality as a necessary model for understanding the world] believe speech should be shut down if it’s hurtful or potentially harmful, and think intersectional, transformative approaches are necessary to refashion systems.

    (via https://americanmind.org/essays/welcome-to-culture-war-2-0/) The author, Peter Boghossian, doesn’t offer any resolution to the so-identified conflict. He closes with the term “cognitive liberty,” but I think the issue is use of language (grammar, vocabulary). What the article calls Culture War 2.0 they distinguish from Culture Wars 1.0 by the Supreme Court affirming same-sex marriage:

    That is the war that drifted to a whimpering end as recently as 2013, when the Supreme Court handed down culturally significant rulings bolstering the case for same-sex marriage — https://www.nytimes.com/…/p…/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html

    The observation that the nature of disagreement changed is broadly supported in polling data, even if the demarcation identified in the article is a contrivance. Pew did a poll in 2017 showing the “growing partisan gaps on government, race, immigration,” accelerated in 2011, largely from the Democratic party and presumptively as consequence of the 2012 elections (which eventually saw Obama elected to his second term.) from the article:

    Across 10 political values Pew Research Center has tracked since 1994, there is now an average 36-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1994, it was only 15 points. The partisan gap is much larger than the differences between the opinions of blacks and whites, men and women and other groups in society. — https://www.pewresearch.org/…/takeaways-on-americans-growi…/

    and the full survey here: https://www.people-press.org/…/the-partisan-divide-on-poli…/ With the following graphs showing a marked change in sentiment since 2011:

    “Government should do more to help the needy” (54% – 71%) “Racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” (~29%-64%) “Immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents” (~54%-84%)

    The change in 2011 was articulated, post-facto, by Thomas B. Edsall in his regular opinion column at the New York Times:

    For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. — https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/…/the-future-of-t…/… — http://www.discriminations.us/…/now-its-official-democrats…/

    The change in vocabulary following the 2012 election on can be seen in cherry-picked word frequency charts of New York Times articles from 1970 – 2018, with the following words introduced in to the lexicon on or after 2011 (terms with a recently, steeply rising tail with no prior activity): mansplaining toxic masculinity male privilege systemic racism white privilege white nationalism transphobia non binary slut shaming fat shaming implicit bias cultural appropriation micro aggressions intersectionality safe space — https://twitter.com/DavidRozado/status/1134041329292460032 — https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/ Any of these words could have begun being used only incidentally to the 2012 election, but this set serves as confirmatory of the phenomena at a vocabulary level. The conflict can be seen in the grammar and the polling data shows whose opinion was changed by it.

  • How Did the Uk End up To Be a Multicultural Root-Less Anti White Mess

    —“In your view, how did the UK end up to be a multicultural root-less anti white mess that it is now? How did the police become increasingly militarized?”— Joshua Shalet

    1) The socialists were more effective postwar than here because the UK was destroyed by her ‘ahem’ civli war to prevent germany from taking over europe (as she traditionally had and western civlization needed her to. france has always been the enemy of europe.). 2) they failed to shrink the state in response to the loss of empire. 3) They were financially dependent on london in ways the USA is not. And they loved all the free money flowing in from europe by being ‘the other switzerland’. 4) They failed to control immigration into london and are now prisoners of it. We can shut down a NYC because any other major city can pick up the slack. But they can’t shut down london because they haven’t a backup. same for france. not the same for usa, canada, australia, germany or russia. 5) Brits don’t have ‘rights’ like Americans and the parliament can modify the constitution whereas the people have to modify the american constitution. 6) They don’t have sheriffs to compete with the police, they don’t have governors to compete with the federal government, the people don’t have rights to sue the government like we do in the states. And that’s just off the top of my head. ( The fact that the British working class is … a bunch of p—ies, addicted to milking the state… well, you know. )

  • How Did the Uk End up To Be a Multicultural Root-Less Anti White Mess

    —“In your view, how did the UK end up to be a multicultural root-less anti white mess that it is now? How did the police become increasingly militarized?”— Joshua Shalet

    1) The socialists were more effective postwar than here because the UK was destroyed by her ‘ahem’ civli war to prevent germany from taking over europe (as she traditionally had and western civlization needed her to. france has always been the enemy of europe.). 2) they failed to shrink the state in response to the loss of empire. 3) They were financially dependent on london in ways the USA is not. And they loved all the free money flowing in from europe by being ‘the other switzerland’. 4) They failed to control immigration into london and are now prisoners of it. We can shut down a NYC because any other major city can pick up the slack. But they can’t shut down london because they haven’t a backup. same for france. not the same for usa, canada, australia, germany or russia. 5) Brits don’t have ‘rights’ like Americans and the parliament can modify the constitution whereas the people have to modify the american constitution. 6) They don’t have sheriffs to compete with the police, they don’t have governors to compete with the federal government, the people don’t have rights to sue the government like we do in the states. And that’s just off the top of my head. ( The fact that the British working class is … a bunch of p—ies, addicted to milking the state… well, you know. )

  • More Closure on The Abortion Discussion

    by Shannon Constantine The closure on the debate is that there is no debate. Women aren’t sovereign, they operate within a sovereign territory with permission (from men) to have certain rights and liberties, including the right to do things that are generally seen as repugnant to the majority. That permission can be revoked at any time. CD: Ouch. It’s a good thing a woman said that. Not sure I’m brave enough. 😉

    P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • More Closure on The Abortion Discussion

    by Shannon Constantine The closure on the debate is that there is no debate. Women aren’t sovereign, they operate within a sovereign territory with permission (from men) to have certain rights and liberties, including the right to do things that are generally seen as repugnant to the majority. That permission can be revoked at any time. CD: Ouch. It’s a good thing a woman said that. Not sure I’m brave enough. 😉

    P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • Post “Joy Day”: A Rant Against Our British Kin’s Decline Into Continental Marxist Serfs

    Feb 1, 2020, 5:06 PM (doh!) (ouch!)

    —“How would P be applied to the current monarch of the UK and her father in not keeping their subjects safe? ei well everything that has happened to the British and or ethnic English man in the last 80years.”—Joseph Williams

    First, P-constitution improves the american written constitution into a formal logic of our ancestral natural law, which is an improvement on the unwritten British constitution. Second, This constitution is entirely applicable to the UK as well as the US (or Canada, or Australia, or NZ). The only hard sell is getting Americans back on the monarchy train – although they’re getting closer at the moment. Washington turned it down unfortunately so we built an anti monarchical public mythos thats false. otherwise we would have just duplicated the British system. Third, if the monarch abandoned his or her duties to protect the people there is only one solution to that problem and only one solution we want – and that is the militia. Third, you British folks really piss me off with what I consider pretty stupid questions on this Monarchy. Why? You take the power away from the monarchy and then ask why it doesn’t protect you? You took away its power to protect you! (a) The British were wrong to contain Germany in both wars, (a Germany that stated repeatedly that Europe needed the British empire to survive) and paid the price for it with the loss of pretty much everything – including the status of reserve currency which made financing the empire possible. The people, beaten, turned (whimpering like pussies) to socialism like the germans rather than ‘manning up’ and keeping the empire as have the French and as did the Russians. (b) The monarchy was in the position because of this ‘socialism’ of being eradicated so has held on for dear life to survive the postwar period. (c) the english constitution(unwritten) is unlike the american (written), and the parliament has the ability (unlike the american) to alter the constitution. The parliament removed the ability of the monarchy to function as a judge of last resort and placed too much power in parliament – ending the long history of rule of law by traditional anglo saxon, germanic, proto germanic, western indo european law. (d) It’s not the monarchy’s fault, it’s the people’s fault – for not having the man-balls to protect the monarchy, and being too stupidly susceptible to marxist and french and jewish bullsh-t (false promise of freedom from physical and natural law) and full of their own arrogance that a parliament of the people without the constraint of rule of law, supreme court, and monarchy, could resist the attempt of the french to colonize Britain and drag her down with the rest of Europe. (e) so man up, saddle up, rally up, and … 1) get your constitution in written form … 2) limit the parliament to the constitutional constraints … 3) get your monarchy back in place as judge of last resort able to veto legislation, and dismiss parliaments that ever again act against the intersets of the people – people easily sold false promises – and to preserve the sovereignty that they have inherited from thousands of years of better men, and the prohibition on alienating themselves, the parliament, and the monarchy from those rights as a hierarchy of sovereigns. Man up. Show up. Fight to make your people great again. Otherwise the few of us Anglos on this side of the pond will have to come over there and teach you what the fuck a man is again. 😉 We can reverse the catastrophe of the world wars and restore the benefits of the empire to our entire civilization, and all it’s defenses and values for all of us even if it’s only under the commonwealth. But we gotta man up like our ancestors to do it.