Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • 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.

  • To Violate Our Sovereignty Is to Invite Us to War

    To Violate Our Sovereignty Is to Invite Us to War https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/to-violate-our-sovereignty-is-to-invite-us-to-war/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 23:04:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264693769871466496

  • The Only Political Argument

    The Only Political Argument https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-only-political-argument/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 23:02:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264693252357226497

  • The Only Political Argument

    Feb 2, 2020, 7:45 AM

    —“Leftists care more about an assertion being offensive than it being true.”— Χρόνος @HliosX

    Yes.

    —“Hi! I am a leftist, yet I don’t think this assertion applies to me. Would you like to discuss/debate?”—Flancia @flancian

    Sure. 😉 Assertion: all differences are reducible to right evidentiary capitalizing, inter-temporal, reciprocal, falsificationary eugenic vs left experiential, consumptive, temporal, proportional, justificationary, dysgenic – and as such, decidable. As such all left propositions will be reducible to approval/disapproval, and right truth/falsehood. Cognitively left dysgenic female herd vs cognitively right eugenic male pack. We have no agency. We we are gene machines pursuing our reproductive strategies adapting them only to our class (status). And all speech and most importantly, all political speech is either truthful, reciprocal, meritocratic (hierarchical male right) or untruthful, irreciprocal, proportional (equalitarian female left). Right trade and truth and Left Seduction disapproval. The only solution is exchange. The condensation of the three classes of monarchy(judge of last resort), nobility(lords, senate), and family-business(house of commons), into a single parliamentary council, instead of adding a house of labor and a house for women eliminated the traditional european market between the classes, thereby creating a race to the majoritarian bottom, political conflict, and the incentive to immigrate vast underclasses to circumvent the western civilizational strategy of sovereignty. If we had added houses women (who are the only defectors driving leftward movement) would have learned how to use their access to political power in exchange, rather than using the traditional female method of undermining.

  • The Only Political Argument

    Feb 2, 2020, 7:45 AM

    —“Leftists care more about an assertion being offensive than it being true.”— Χρόνος @HliosX

    Yes.

    —“Hi! I am a leftist, yet I don’t think this assertion applies to me. Would you like to discuss/debate?”—Flancia @flancian

    Sure. 😉 Assertion: all differences are reducible to right evidentiary capitalizing, inter-temporal, reciprocal, falsificationary eugenic vs left experiential, consumptive, temporal, proportional, justificationary, dysgenic – and as such, decidable. As such all left propositions will be reducible to approval/disapproval, and right truth/falsehood. Cognitively left dysgenic female herd vs cognitively right eugenic male pack. We have no agency. We we are gene machines pursuing our reproductive strategies adapting them only to our class (status). And all speech and most importantly, all political speech is either truthful, reciprocal, meritocratic (hierarchical male right) or untruthful, irreciprocal, proportional (equalitarian female left). Right trade and truth and Left Seduction disapproval. The only solution is exchange. The condensation of the three classes of monarchy(judge of last resort), nobility(lords, senate), and family-business(house of commons), into a single parliamentary council, instead of adding a house of labor and a house for women eliminated the traditional european market between the classes, thereby creating a race to the majoritarian bottom, political conflict, and the incentive to immigrate vast underclasses to circumvent the western civilizational strategy of sovereignty. If we had added houses women (who are the only defectors driving leftward movement) would have learned how to use their access to political power in exchange, rather than using the traditional female method of undermining.

  • An Articulate Progressive so An Opportunity for Articulate Comparisons

    An Articulate Progressive so An Opportunity for Articulate Comparisons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/an-articulate-progressive-so-an-opportunity-for-articulate-comparisons/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 23:01:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264692914002821120

  • An Articulate Progressive so An Opportunity for Articulate Comparisons

    Feb 2, 2020, 8:24 AM

    —“Progresiveness errs on the side of openness in face of the uncertainty. Conservativeness errs on the side of “known good or reasonable” arrangements. … None are in principle superior in all cases. … We must use a third axis, rationality, to bridge our differences constructively.”—@flancian

    Progressives (consumptives) err on the side of consumption in the face of uncertainty. Conservatives(capitalizers) err on the side of saving in the face of uncertainty. The female consumptive herd (her children) the male capitalizing pack (their tribe). We must use TRADE to bridge our differences. (Are you starting to see yet?) I’m using male concrete (scientific) terms. You’re using female seductive (deceptive) terms. Once you see it you can’t un-see it. The question is adaptation possible? No. Hence institutions of trade.

  • An Articulate Progressive so An Opportunity for Articulate Comparisons

    Feb 2, 2020, 8:24 AM

    —“Progresiveness errs on the side of openness in face of the uncertainty. Conservativeness errs on the side of “known good or reasonable” arrangements. … None are in principle superior in all cases. … We must use a third axis, rationality, to bridge our differences constructively.”—@flancian

    Progressives (consumptives) err on the side of consumption in the face of uncertainty. Conservatives(capitalizers) err on the side of saving in the face of uncertainty. The female consumptive herd (her children) the male capitalizing pack (their tribe). We must use TRADE to bridge our differences. (Are you starting to see yet?) I’m using male concrete (scientific) terms. You’re using female seductive (deceptive) terms. Once you see it you can’t un-see it. The question is adaptation possible? No. Hence institutions of trade.

  • Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism

    Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/q-where-do-you-stand-on-imperialism/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 20:39:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264657221654323201

  • Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism

    Feb 2, 2020, 10:49 AM

    —-“Where do you stand on imperialism?”—

    I stand as always on empirical evidence and operational possibility. Depends on what we define as imperial. The holy roman empire or the han chinese empire, or the roman empire or the middle eastern empires? DIMENSION ONE – HOMOGENEITY VS HETEROGENEITY The holy roman (german continental) was homogenous; the chinese made theirs homogenous through slow forcible integration; the roman empire failed when insufficiently homogenous; the greek empire never could consilidate becasue it was heterogeneous; and the middle eastern empires were pretty totalitarian and continuously in termoil because they existed to resist heterogeneity. Now what about an empire of rule of law over teh english speaking or germanic speaking peoples? Well that is just a federation with a judge of last resort between that resolves differences between the princes (monarchs) of different poliites. What about an empire of rule by degree over a forcibly integrated and relatively homogenous empire of limited mobility like china? Well, that is just a way to manage primitive people by bureaucratic corporatism and corporate accountability(via positiva) rather than european sovereignty and rule of law (via negativa). What about the roman empire under roman law? Well, that is a way of suppressing parasitism and facilitating trade so that the upper classes can profit and the lower classes live better than they would otherwise. What about the middle eastern empires? Well that is little more than preventing any of the other tribes from rising up and profiting at the expense of the suppressed tribes. DIMENSION TWO – RULE VS REPLACEMENT Now, let’s ask about conquest and rule (europe); vs conquest, colonization and rule (africa); vs conquest, colonization, and integration; vs conquest, colonization and replacement? (Americas). DIMENSION THREE – INCENTIVES And whether you’re doing so in defense or for assets or for taxation and plunder. ANSWER We can make a table of what works and does’t work. 

    .................Homogenous <-----------Limited-----> Heterogeneous
Rule
|................Yes.......................No....................No
|................Yes.......................Yes...................No
|................N/A.......................Yes...................Yes
v
Replacement

    And we can make a simple statement out of incentives.

    Defense : Yes regardless Markets : Yes and integrate Assets:….Yes and only if you Rule Plunder:…No … only to raid to conquer. malincentives build. So that is my answer on Imperialism.

    Homogeneous populations only. Rule only in exchange for returns. Exploit only to further replacement. Conquest and Genocide are the most consequential and successful entrepreneurial ventures in human history.