Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • “What Is Your Ideology?”

    Feb 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“So, what is your political ideology? I mean I know you’re right wing. But, what are you? A Nationalist-Socialist or Libertarian Civic Nationalist?”— Amit Patel

    I am none of those things – all of which i consider excuses for obtaining power under democracy to circumvent markets. I am ‘right wing’ only in the sense that I am intolerant of violations of the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity. I am an Aryan(european branch of indo-europeans): transcendence of man into gods through competitive heroism, demonstrated excellence, speaking truth, and creating beauty. I am a European Sovereigntarian: Markets in everything: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom. I am an Aristotelian: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, I am a Jeffersonian libertarian: a written constitution of natural law, with transactional procedural modifications. I am a Constitutional Monarchist favoring multi-house governments as markets for the classes. I am a Manorialist: natural eugenics – home before children, family as the central unit of society, bring capital to people not people to capital. I am a Conservative: Bear your own costs, externalize no cost, purely empirical government, change by evidence not by hypothesis. I am a National(kinship) Socialist: direct the maximum proceeds to the production of capitalizing (not consumptive) commons. I am a Kinship Christian: humility in ones never ending pursuit of virtue, exhaust all opportunities for forgiveness before abandoning it, and demonstrate personal acts of charity at personal cost. I am a Kinship Pagan: we owe a debt to nature, our ancestors known and named, and known as heroes, and known only as archetypes (gods), and are responsible to them for preserving their investments in making us, just as those that follow us are responsible for preserving our investments in them. I am a universalist: any people that wishes european civilization’s benefits can adopt them if they try – or not if they choose not to. The Laws of Nature The Natural Law Self Determination Our Transcendence into gods Sovereignty to do so A Universal Militia The Oath of Reciprocal Insurance A constitution of the natural law Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities. A Judicial Priesthood A monarchy as a judge of last resort A Cabinet Houses for the classes (three or four) … Territory … Industry … Family … (Dependents) Local Priority in Legislation, regulation, norm. Professionalized (Privatized) Education

  • “What Is Your Ideology?”

    Feb 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“So, what is your political ideology? I mean I know you’re right wing. But, what are you? A Nationalist-Socialist or Libertarian Civic Nationalist?”— Amit Patel

    I am none of those things – all of which i consider excuses for obtaining power under democracy to circumvent markets. I am ‘right wing’ only in the sense that I am intolerant of violations of the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity. I am an Aryan(european branch of indo-europeans): transcendence of man into gods through competitive heroism, demonstrated excellence, speaking truth, and creating beauty. I am a European Sovereigntarian: Markets in everything: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom. I am an Aristotelian: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, I am a Jeffersonian libertarian: a written constitution of natural law, with transactional procedural modifications. I am a Constitutional Monarchist favoring multi-house governments as markets for the classes. I am a Manorialist: natural eugenics – home before children, family as the central unit of society, bring capital to people not people to capital. I am a Conservative: Bear your own costs, externalize no cost, purely empirical government, change by evidence not by hypothesis. I am a National(kinship) Socialist: direct the maximum proceeds to the production of capitalizing (not consumptive) commons. I am a Kinship Christian: humility in ones never ending pursuit of virtue, exhaust all opportunities for forgiveness before abandoning it, and demonstrate personal acts of charity at personal cost. I am a Kinship Pagan: we owe a debt to nature, our ancestors known and named, and known as heroes, and known only as archetypes (gods), and are responsible to them for preserving their investments in making us, just as those that follow us are responsible for preserving our investments in them. I am a universalist: any people that wishes european civilization’s benefits can adopt them if they try – or not if they choose not to. The Laws of Nature The Natural Law Self Determination Our Transcendence into gods Sovereignty to do so A Universal Militia The Oath of Reciprocal Insurance A constitution of the natural law Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities. A Judicial Priesthood A monarchy as a judge of last resort A Cabinet Houses for the classes (three or four) … Territory … Industry … Family … (Dependents) Local Priority in Legislation, regulation, norm. Professionalized (Privatized) Education

  • The Right to Self Determination

    Feb 11, 2020, 5:34 PM We either have the right to self determination – or we have the right to extermination. So choose. (I’m happy either way.) Genomes, genetic distributions, institutions, culture, traditions, norms, manners, ethics, morals, laws, history, myth, legend, monuments, territory, are all assets. Some assets are valuable. Some are not. Some are harmful. If we choose to preserve an asset, we do so. 1) We know that moral intuition is genetic, sex biased, and that only trauma can change it – even then only slightly. We know that all traits are somewhere between 70-80% heritable and the rest is idiosyncratic accumulation rather than patterns of environment. 2) We know that class is genetic, with lower classes accumulating more loads (defects), upper middle the fewest, and aside from noble families, the upper classes random lottery results from the middle – but otherwise there is little to no class rotation. 3) We know that moral biases reflect female (herd, infant-equality, devotion, consumption) strategy and the male (pack, mature-hierarchy, loyalty, capitalization) instinct and that females use social superpredation by undermining, and males political superpredation by violence. 4) We know that each of us is born with a bias in female (lateral breadth) vs male(longitudinal velocity) brain structures, and that the stereotype of male analytic and female empathic is physical construction, and that given freedom to do so we pursue interests fitting our bias. 5) We know that at present we are wealthy enough to want to diverge by the female, empathic, equalitarian, consumptive, infantilized, and underdeveloped strategy and some by the male, analytic, hierarchical, capitalizing, and mature strategy. And so we must separate or civil war. 6) Because while you are of the opinion that you reason, you have very little agency. And if you did, and you had knowledge, you would know that the female strategy is dysgenic, the left’s strategy is dysgenic, and standard of living is dependent on the center of the distribution. 7) So if you want to feel harmony in suicide and bring about another dark age of ignorance, this time with social construction of the myth of possible equality, the only result of which will be dysgenia and decline – we are fine with it. But you can’t take the rest of us with you. 8) Some of us are more than semi domesticated animals sensing, perceiving, feeling, experiencing intuiting, and responding to incentives to hyper consume. And some of us are willing to let you turn your cities into dysgenic favelas. Which is what we plan to let you do.

  • The Right to Self Determination

    Feb 11, 2020, 5:34 PM We either have the right to self determination – or we have the right to extermination. So choose. (I’m happy either way.) Genomes, genetic distributions, institutions, culture, traditions, norms, manners, ethics, morals, laws, history, myth, legend, monuments, territory, are all assets. Some assets are valuable. Some are not. Some are harmful. If we choose to preserve an asset, we do so. 1) We know that moral intuition is genetic, sex biased, and that only trauma can change it – even then only slightly. We know that all traits are somewhere between 70-80% heritable and the rest is idiosyncratic accumulation rather than patterns of environment. 2) We know that class is genetic, with lower classes accumulating more loads (defects), upper middle the fewest, and aside from noble families, the upper classes random lottery results from the middle – but otherwise there is little to no class rotation. 3) We know that moral biases reflect female (herd, infant-equality, devotion, consumption) strategy and the male (pack, mature-hierarchy, loyalty, capitalization) instinct and that females use social superpredation by undermining, and males political superpredation by violence. 4) We know that each of us is born with a bias in female (lateral breadth) vs male(longitudinal velocity) brain structures, and that the stereotype of male analytic and female empathic is physical construction, and that given freedom to do so we pursue interests fitting our bias. 5) We know that at present we are wealthy enough to want to diverge by the female, empathic, equalitarian, consumptive, infantilized, and underdeveloped strategy and some by the male, analytic, hierarchical, capitalizing, and mature strategy. And so we must separate or civil war. 6) Because while you are of the opinion that you reason, you have very little agency. And if you did, and you had knowledge, you would know that the female strategy is dysgenic, the left’s strategy is dysgenic, and standard of living is dependent on the center of the distribution. 7) So if you want to feel harmony in suicide and bring about another dark age of ignorance, this time with social construction of the myth of possible equality, the only result of which will be dysgenia and decline – we are fine with it. But you can’t take the rest of us with you. 8) Some of us are more than semi domesticated animals sensing, perceiving, feeling, experiencing intuiting, and responding to incentives to hyper consume. And some of us are willing to let you turn your cities into dysgenic favelas. Which is what we plan to let you do.

  • Voting

    Feb 12, 2020, 9:50 AM

    —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it would have a great cost, but did it anyway because it’s “right”…the cost was exactly what they predicted it would be: the quality of civilization itself.”—Mike Harvey

    From Alexander Hamilton:

    —“It is also, undeniably, certain, that no Englishman, who can be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws, to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his representative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a freehold, to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to a share in the legislature, which he exercises, by giving his vote in the election of some person, he approves of, as his representative. “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue influence, or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections, than is consistent with general liberty. If it were probable, that every man would give his vote, freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of Liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote, in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty and life. But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order, to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.” Hence it appears, that such “of the people as have no vote in the choice of representatives, and therefore, are govern’d, by laws, to which they have not consented, either by themselves or by their representatives, are only those persons, who are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.” Every free agent, every free man, possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British constitution, intitled to a vote, in the election of those who are invested with the disposal of his life, his liberty and property.”—

    Source: Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, or A more impartial and comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies. . . . (New York, 1775), in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-1979), 1:81-165.

  • Voting

    Feb 12, 2020, 9:50 AM

    —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it would have a great cost, but did it anyway because it’s “right”…the cost was exactly what they predicted it would be: the quality of civilization itself.”—Mike Harvey

    From Alexander Hamilton:

    —“It is also, undeniably, certain, that no Englishman, who can be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws, to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his representative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a freehold, to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to a share in the legislature, which he exercises, by giving his vote in the election of some person, he approves of, as his representative. “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue influence, or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections, than is consistent with general liberty. If it were probable, that every man would give his vote, freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of Liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote, in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty and life. But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order, to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.” Hence it appears, that such “of the people as have no vote in the choice of representatives, and therefore, are govern’d, by laws, to which they have not consented, either by themselves or by their representatives, are only those persons, who are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.” Every free agent, every free man, possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British constitution, intitled to a vote, in the election of those who are invested with the disposal of his life, his liberty and property.”—

    Source: Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, or A more impartial and comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies. . . . (New York, 1775), in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-1979), 1:81-165.

  • We Need a New Order

    Feb 24, 2020, 7:38 PM

    —“So by the end of this century, as little as 1/5 of the population of the presently-industrialized world could be responsible for perhaps (my number) 85% of productivity, living in physical comfort but shunted into an ever-tighter technical labor market requiring career dedication to stay ahead in (hence out of the underclass), while also keeping its boot on the neck of the other Westerners that (literally) couldn’t learn to code, and an eye on the roiling Third World population at the same time?”—Stan De Santis

    Correct. The consumption led capitalist order cannot persist. The redistributive socialist order cannot persist. We need a new order. That’s what I’m suggesting. Shifting from single to multiple economies.

  • We Need a New Order

    Feb 24, 2020, 7:38 PM

    —“So by the end of this century, as little as 1/5 of the population of the presently-industrialized world could be responsible for perhaps (my number) 85% of productivity, living in physical comfort but shunted into an ever-tighter technical labor market requiring career dedication to stay ahead in (hence out of the underclass), while also keeping its boot on the neck of the other Westerners that (literally) couldn’t learn to code, and an eye on the roiling Third World population at the same time?”—Stan De Santis

    Correct. The consumption led capitalist order cannot persist. The redistributive socialist order cannot persist. We need a new order. That’s what I’m suggesting. Shifting from single to multiple economies.

  • Libertarianism Is Evolving Into Propertarianism (Sovereigntarianism)

    Mar 26, 2020, 12:30 PM “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”

    —“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse

    The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational). The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures. The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means. What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political. I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat. That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands. They do it TOGETHER. There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law. Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.

  • Libertarianism Is Evolving Into Propertarianism (Sovereigntarianism)

    Mar 26, 2020, 12:30 PM “Freedom and Liberty are had by permission, sovereignty is a fact.”

    —“Libertarianism ain’t gonna survive this crisis. It will be seen as, not just foolish, but shockingly immoral when this is over.”—Spencer —“It’s going to evolve into Propertarianism. You two should debate about this, I’m serious.”—Dark Horse

    The structure and development of the human brain forces three classes of people, demanding different means of understanding and incentive: empathic (religious, secular religious – demand), balanced (pragmatic – follow ), and intellectual (executive – operational). The faithful use the feminine theological demand, Richard uses the masculine secular-theological demand, Greg uses the pragmatic intuitive, the civnats the pragmatic, and the executive use the empirical military and law. These are rough class diffs reflecting power structures. The failure of the theological and secular theological programs are obvious. We are in the process of seeing the failure of the civnat belief system. So that leaves the provision of material incentives and an operational means of achieving them by non-majoritarian means. What’s necessary for action is for the theological, secular theological, and pragmatic leaderships to recognize that they can only act on the ACTIONABLE rather than the intuitive and inspirational – and those incentives are material, familial, social, and political. I cannot, have no interest in, and no time to, inspire the theological, or secular theological (meaning emotional) with sophistry. There is only one way out of our condition and only three choices: conquest, separatism, or defeat. That choice is determined by numbers leaders recruit. In the last revolution I was ‘involved’ in, the feminine religious mass in the face of the government, the civnats supply them, and fight. And the hard liners take on the strong points. The executive make demands. They do it TOGETHER. There is only one operational solution to our condition because the world runs on the military, economy to fund it, bureaucracy to operate it, and laws to manage it. There is only one permanent way of ending the strategy of the enemy both within our people and without: the law. Libertarianism was always a cowardly pacifism. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty created by men who fight to construct it – and to construct it with rules: Law. The rest is just toggling between distributive, market, martial government as needed in circumstance Libertarians are beggars – boys begging men to fight for them.