Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • The Constitution of Political Conspiracies

    THE CONSTITUTION OF POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES

    —“The purpose of policy is to destroy the family?”— A Twitter Critic

    [I] think you, like most victims of 20th C pseudoscience attribute greater agency to our intentions, and stated intent over external consequence. Conspiracies of common cognitive bias, common interest are endemic even if common intent isn’t – outside of those with such agency. Learn the technique of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul (via positiva), critique (via negativa), and its common thread in the three monotheistic religions, marxism, pomo, feminism, and political correctness – but insightfully, the female strategy of undermining. To say its a conspiracy of intent would require intentionality of female anti-social expression (psychosis, promiscuity, undermining, reputation destruction). Instead, social super-predation (undermining) is instinctual for most; a political strategy some & deliberate for others. Useful idiots constitute the vast majority of the population (I know, I have iffy followers too.) For whom the portfolio of sentiments need be satisfied, not the central object of stated policy. Humans account for calories(consumption), and status(opportunity) almost exclusively. Just as economic policy consists of pulling a small number of levers to produce externalities by design, social and political policy consists of many more levers which produce direct objective and external objectives. Rarely if ever is the stated policy the central objective. This is why the declaration, constitution, and bill of rights are an adequate attempt to restate norman,anglo-saxon, germanic traditional law as natural law, expressed in specific rights. But lacking strict construction from the foundations of that law, the constitution was weak. The anglo constitutions from which our prosperity originates were written for people of shared moral and ethical intuition, with a shared history of means of dispute resolution,with limited power distance,and limited difference in means of production of family, goods, & services. The industrialization of lying by sophism and pseudoscience, denialism, and deceit using new media in the 19th 20th, and the capture of ‘preaching’ in school, academy, and media by profiting from use of this technique has left the 20th a repeat of the first-second century. Hayek and Poincare were right: the 20th will be remembered as a repeat of christianization and islamization of the ancient world – this time with sophism, pseudoscience and denial,instead of sophism, supernaturalism and denial:false promise of reversing the consequences of genes. I don’t err. It’s my job not to. -Cheers.

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”— https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/what-is-your-opinion-of-monarchy/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:28:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179855702338277377

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • Is The Right To Apathetic To Fight?

    Is The Right To Apathetic To Fight? https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/is-the-right-to-apathetic-to-fight/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:27:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179855475459985414

  • Is The Right Too Apathetic To Fight?

    by John MarkSeptember 25 at 1:58 PMSome Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”(false – Changing Circumstances Change the Risk/reward Equation) [T]he grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged right-wingers can bring America to its knees easily.

  • Is The Right Too Apathetic To Fight?

    by John MarkSeptember 25 at 1:58 PMSome Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”(false – Changing Circumstances Change the Risk/reward Equation) [T]he grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged right-wingers can bring America to its knees easily.

  • Engaging with Civnats

    STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTSby John MarkSeptember 26 at 3:49 PM [C]ivic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.

  • Engaging with Civnats

    STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTSby John MarkSeptember 26 at 3:49 PM [C]ivic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.

  • “Modern Day Founding Fathers”

    “Modern Day Founding Fathers” https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/modern-day-founding-fathers/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:15:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179852440767737857