Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Predators and Parasites

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:57 PM

    We’re apex predators. The problem is they’re apex parasites. Parasites are the most effective weapon against apex predators.

    That’s the narrative.

    How does one obtain restitution from the parasite?

    😉

  • Predators and Parasites

    Apr 1, 2020, 2:57 PM

    We’re apex predators. The problem is they’re apex parasites. Parasites are the most effective weapon against apex predators.

    That’s the narrative.

    How does one obtain restitution from the parasite?

    😉

  • The Purpose of The Legitimate State

    Apr 3, 2020, 8:51 PM

    —“Third, safeguard the principles of the liberal world order. The founding legend of modern government is a walled city protected by powerful rulers, sometimes despotic, other times benevolent, yet always strong enough to protect the people from an external enemy. Enlightenment thinkers reframed this concept, arguing that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people: security, order, economic well-being, and justice. Individuals cannot secure these things on their own. The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.”—Kissinger

    NO. The purpose of the legitimate state is (a) to defend the people against the barbarian hordes, (b) defend the future generations against the fashions of the people. (c) increase the intergenerational human cultural civilizational capital. (d) adapt to crisis, peace, and windfalls. (((Cosmopolitianism))) is just barbarism.

  • The Purpose of The Legitimate State

    Apr 3, 2020, 8:51 PM

    —“Third, safeguard the principles of the liberal world order. The founding legend of modern government is a walled city protected by powerful rulers, sometimes despotic, other times benevolent, yet always strong enough to protect the people from an external enemy. Enlightenment thinkers reframed this concept, arguing that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people: security, order, economic well-being, and justice. Individuals cannot secure these things on their own. The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.”—Kissinger

    NO. The purpose of the legitimate state is (a) to defend the people against the barbarian hordes, (b) defend the future generations against the fashions of the people. (c) increase the intergenerational human cultural civilizational capital. (d) adapt to crisis, peace, and windfalls. (((Cosmopolitianism))) is just barbarism.

  • China’s Vision for A New World Order – the National Bureau of Asian Research (nbr)

    Apr 12, 2020, 7:17 PM by Nadège Rolland In my latest report, I dissect the strands of thought underpinning China’s vision for a new world order and study its emerging features China’s leadership is determined to alter the norms that underpin existing institutions and put in place the building blocks of a new international system. A “vision” is by definition abstract, not fully formed and subject to change. In China’s case, this vision is also buried under layers of propaganda. But if we pay close attention, some key elements are discernible. 1/ The Chinese leadership believes that the existing order is “unfair” (it should allow China to have a greater role, commensurate with its growing power) and is incapable of offering “reasonable” solutions to the global needs. 2/ Instead of considering liberal democratic values as essential conditions for achieving global peace and prosperity, the CCP sees the global promotion of “so-called universal values” as the main cause for conflict and chaos – an obvious reflection of its own survival anxieties. 3/The CCP does not have any appealing substitutes to the existing set of international norms. Even at home, it is trying to bolster its legitimacy with artifices rather than a positive, clearly defined set of beliefs for the country’s overall direction. 4/The Chinese leadership’s vision for what the world should look like is based in the first instance on a negative agenda – the refutation of liberal democracy as the path to peace and prosperity – rather than a positive view of a desired future. 5/China does not need to prove that its own system can be applied universally. Demonstrating that no system is truly universal fundamentally undermines the existing international order’s core principles and undercuts any system based on universal values. 6/Once China has eroded a truly international order, it can hope to carve out a sphere of influence including large portions of the non-Western and mostly non-democratic world where its preferred worldview, rules and norms will be endorsed, followed and respected. 7/China wants to dominate this parallel system. But the 21st Century Chinese version of hegemony does not seek to replicate the old “Rule Britannia” or “Pax Americana” precedents. Chinese elites reject any form of Western influence, even when they think about models of empire. 8/Chinese elites are trying to develop modern, softened versions of the traditional sinocentric order, usually by insisting on its benevolent nature (“humane authority,” “great harmony”…). But imperialistic undertones and intimations of domination are not easy to work around. 9/The various components of Xi’s diplomacy (community of shared future, Belt and Road, global network of partnerships) point to a vision in which China’s leadership is exercised over substantial portions of the emerging and developing world,… 10/…a space free from Western influence and largely purged of the core liberal democratic beliefs supported by the West. 11/In this hierarchical system, China would be akin to a massive, dazzling star pulling smaller planets into its orbit without necessarily exerting direct control over them. 12/Its contours would not be defined along precise geographic or ideological lines, but rather by the degree of deference and respect that those within China’s sphere are willing to offer Beijing.

  • Warm Body Democracy and “Sitting Ducks”

    Apr 16, 2020, 9:29 AM

    —“The distortions to adjust for population counts are just that – distortions, made to make those areas look bigger than they actually are. (They also require you to accept the legitimacy of warm-body democracy.) They are not big, they are not powerful. They are sitting ducks.”—Michael Andrade

  • Warm Body Democracy and “Sitting Ducks”

    Apr 16, 2020, 9:29 AM

    —“The distortions to adjust for population counts are just that – distortions, made to make those areas look bigger than they actually are. (They also require you to accept the legitimacy of warm-body democracy.) They are not big, they are not powerful. They are sitting ducks.”—Michael Andrade

  • LOYALTY

    Apr 16, 2020, 9:15 PM (from elsewhere) Very smart fellow and intellectually honest. Pleasure discussing this with you.

    —“When I brought up the religiosity of the US founders I was referring only to a very basic common principle: that morality, and its subgenre of political law, must be grounded in God by a logical necessity (hence the ‘God-given’ ‘inalienable rights’). This is a philosophical truth that Catholicism specifically built into European civ. and consequently handed down to our Protestant and Deist founders”–

    Well, it’s in our law which predates christianity by over two thousand years. Christian: God has given us his son jesus as his prophet, and first among his laws is to live in imitation of jesus and according to his teachings – teachings we call christian morality: to love thy neighbor as thyself, Deist: God has given us the evidence of his hand: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of christian love (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). Scientist: Whether a god exists or not these are the laws evident in the universe: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of seduction into reciprocity (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). The human brain evolved to distribute between feminine and empathic to raise children in small numbers and masculine and systematizing to govern polities in large numbers. Each of us regardless of sex, has a mix of feminine and masculine intuitions. For those of you with more feminine cognition, the empathic is necessary – you must feel the spirituality. For those of us who are in the middle – practical – we must only undrestand that the norm works and imitate it. For those of us who are entirely masculine, we feel nothing, find faith childish, find norms arbitrary, and seek the science in faith and norm – because we cannot feel, we cannot just imitate, we can only calculate. Throughout our history we have practiced Trifunctionalism: The martial aristocracy, the Religion of the Faithful, and the Judicial law to resolve our differences. We have always had three leadership groups: violence, law, and faith. Women and the faithful cannot think as men. Men and the empirical cannot think as women and the faithful. But by obeying the judicial law we can still cooperate despite our thinking. There is no place for truth in faith or it would not be faith. There is no place for faith in truth or it would not be truth. There is no place for violence in either. As such we are left with the law to judge our differences. Men and women can be loyal to one another. Men and women of feminine mind can marry. Men and women of practical mind can marry. Men and women of systematizing mind can marry. And under our law any combination in between – because loyalty is enough. Likewise the faithful, judicial, and martial can be loyal to one another. As we always have been. And both succeed. Or we cannot and both fail. And my name is Caesar so to speak. And my job is the law.

  • LOYALTY

    Apr 16, 2020, 9:15 PM (from elsewhere) Very smart fellow and intellectually honest. Pleasure discussing this with you.

    —“When I brought up the religiosity of the US founders I was referring only to a very basic common principle: that morality, and its subgenre of political law, must be grounded in God by a logical necessity (hence the ‘God-given’ ‘inalienable rights’). This is a philosophical truth that Catholicism specifically built into European civ. and consequently handed down to our Protestant and Deist founders”–

    Well, it’s in our law which predates christianity by over two thousand years. Christian: God has given us his son jesus as his prophet, and first among his laws is to live in imitation of jesus and according to his teachings – teachings we call christian morality: to love thy neighbor as thyself, Deist: God has given us the evidence of his hand: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of christian love (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). Scientist: Whether a god exists or not these are the laws evident in the universe: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of seduction into reciprocity (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). The human brain evolved to distribute between feminine and empathic to raise children in small numbers and masculine and systematizing to govern polities in large numbers. Each of us regardless of sex, has a mix of feminine and masculine intuitions. For those of you with more feminine cognition, the empathic is necessary – you must feel the spirituality. For those of us who are in the middle – practical – we must only undrestand that the norm works and imitate it. For those of us who are entirely masculine, we feel nothing, find faith childish, find norms arbitrary, and seek the science in faith and norm – because we cannot feel, we cannot just imitate, we can only calculate. Throughout our history we have practiced Trifunctionalism: The martial aristocracy, the Religion of the Faithful, and the Judicial law to resolve our differences. We have always had three leadership groups: violence, law, and faith. Women and the faithful cannot think as men. Men and the empirical cannot think as women and the faithful. But by obeying the judicial law we can still cooperate despite our thinking. There is no place for truth in faith or it would not be faith. There is no place for faith in truth or it would not be truth. There is no place for violence in either. As such we are left with the law to judge our differences. Men and women can be loyal to one another. Men and women of feminine mind can marry. Men and women of practical mind can marry. Men and women of systematizing mind can marry. And under our law any combination in between – because loyalty is enough. Likewise the faithful, judicial, and martial can be loyal to one another. As we always have been. And both succeed. Or we cannot and both fail. And my name is Caesar so to speak. And my job is the law.

  • THE DIFFERENCE

    Apr 18, 2020, 1:08 PM by Scott De Warren

    Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity (demand for capitalization). (Male)

    Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty. (demand for redistribution). (Female)