Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549572883 Timestamp) POSITIONING I am a conservative libertarian, in the anglo western tradition of sovereignty. I have spent a very long time on truthful speech, and its embodiment in the law, and the use of the law to reform our people, by defending them from abrahamism in ancient monotheistic (judaism, christianity, islam), and present totalitarian forms (marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism). My understanding of perfect government for my people is rule of law, monarchy for the spiritual, aesthetic and cultural, the middle class for economic, and caretaking of the less able – Of Our Kin and Kin Alone. My understanding of the optimum means of deciding the distribution of resources is dependent upon the state of development of the people. But that in general, democracy has been harmful if not deadly to western civilization, because it has no use other than to decide the spoils of war and conquest. Otherwise, the monarchy has the optimum long term incentives, the middle class the knowledge and optimal incentives for the commons, for the private sector, and the church and academy are not to be trusted with the education of our people without even greater suspicion than the ordinary common and financial and bureaucratic criminals. Now, I have ‘engineered’ a set of solutions and a means of implementing them that when common people hear them, they will have a hard time resisting them, other than the restoration of voluntary disassociation, self segregation, secession, and self rule. And I have ‘engineered’ a candidate means of insurrection that will force the government to capitulate to these constitutional changes, or to lose all political, comercial, and military influence both domestic and foreign. Now, of course, I could be wrong about the veracity of the solution or the likelihood of success of the plan. But that requires informed criticism not uninformed opinion. There is no competing solution offered by any other person l living other than surrender to the onslaught, and the resulting south-americanizing of the states, and the resulting south africanizing of our people by violence. What you hear is ‘if we just try to inspire people’ (as if every generation before hasn’t done so), or maybe we will have some prophet or hero save us like a Stalin, a Hitler, or Saul of Tarsus, or maybe people will ‘awaken’. But … those are ideas one cannot criticize because they are not plans. They are what we call vacuous statements. So here is the thing. There are people on the right who are cancer, because they have nothing to sell or offer other than pleading words and demands for attention. You’ve already seen how Richard is a second hander jumping on the CVIlle rally and ruining what was a good idea. You’ve seen Josh and company as second handers moving from me to richard. You see how many other second handers coming out of the woodwork to try to capture the attention John Mark is creating. And you can probably very easily tell the difference in IQ points between the nazboi fanboys, the churchybois, and those of us who are arguing for an actionable plan. So the truth is that if y’all wanna get involved with the trailer park crowd I’m happy if that works for you. Please do. But I’d rather motivate the frustrated majority over moral, economic, and political reasons than try to continue our march forward with honorable people rather than people who are second handers who repeatedly fail, and who do nothing but poison the well by being a magnet for clownworld criticism. I’m a conservative libertarian. I agree with the continental position on ingroup ‘national socialism’ as the french and germans meant the term, not as how the jews, marxists, russians, and anglos use the term, as meaning heavy investment in kin and commons, and the prohibition on parasitism, rents, and privatization of commons and socialization of losses. But I disagree with the continental reaction against aristocracy, and monarchy, and the continuous production of intergenerational noble, middle class, and working class families. Backward people can use authoritarianism to catch up with more advanced people. Superior people can use markets to stay ahead of all other people. However, we must run our markets free of commercial, financial, economic, political, academic, and informational parasitism and harm. Zero tolerance. Every man a sheriff. The eternal persistence of our people. Militant and aggressive prosecution and punishment of the slightest imposition on our people. But any ass clown advocating authoritarianism assumes that the authoritarian wouldn’t be even worse than the markets – is by definition too stupid to listen to. Germanics want another savior. I have no idea why. Anglos don’t need a savior. We have been working in kin-corporations for over fifteen hundred years.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549558615 Timestamp) Ok. Basics? Here are the basics. THERE ARE ONLY THREE METHODS OF INFLUENCE. 1 – Via Negativa: Law. (Force) Here is what you may not do, and we will punish those who do otherwise. By: Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs. 2 – Via Positiva: Propaganda (Persuade). Here is what we should and should not do – and we will undermine those who do otherwise. BY: Academics, Priests, Public Intellectuals, Media. 3 – Via Permutatio: Reciprocity (Exchange). Here is what we offer in exchange, and what you will miss out on otherwise. By: commerce, entrepreneurs, merchants, craftsmen, laborers That’s it. I”m the first (the law) and the third (policy). this means you are your own sovereign person. Leftists are second and third. Nazboi’s and Traditionalists are the second. You notice that you don’t hear a PLAN from anyone else other than ‘faith’. Or a means of administering and operating a society. All you get is words.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549548961 Timestamp) —“…now u seem to be cucking for [insert group here]?…”— I don’t hate on anyone. Nationalism for everyone. Let a thousand nations bloom. An independent judiciary, Rule of Law by Agency, sovereignty, reciprocity truth duty and markets in everything for everyone, with authoritarian, monarchical, professional, or direct governance as suits the population. 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549528203 Timestamp) —“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”— —by Lee Kuan Yew, Former Prime Minister of Singapore (via Sean Ring)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549527916 Timestamp) —“DIVORCE THE LEFT”— Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549518603 Timestamp) —“…around the world, state-armed forces are not doing well against non-state enemies. Second Generation militaries fight by putting firepower on targets, and Fourth Generation fighters are very good at making themselves untargetable. Virtually all Fourth Generation forces are free of the First Generation culture of order; they focus outward, they prize initiative and, because they are highly decentralized, they rely on self-discipline. Second Generation state forces are largely helpless against them.””—

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549572883 Timestamp) POSITIONING I am a conservative libertarian, in the anglo western tradition of sovereignty. I have spent a very long time on truthful speech, and its embodiment in the law, and the use of the law to reform our people, by defending them from abrahamism in ancient monotheistic (judaism, christianity, islam), and present totalitarian forms (marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism). My understanding of perfect government for my people is rule of law, monarchy for the spiritual, aesthetic and cultural, the middle class for economic, and caretaking of the less able – Of Our Kin and Kin Alone. My understanding of the optimum means of deciding the distribution of resources is dependent upon the state of development of the people. But that in general, democracy has been harmful if not deadly to western civilization, because it has no use other than to decide the spoils of war and conquest. Otherwise, the monarchy has the optimum long term incentives, the middle class the knowledge and optimal incentives for the commons, for the private sector, and the church and academy are not to be trusted with the education of our people without even greater suspicion than the ordinary common and financial and bureaucratic criminals. Now, I have ‘engineered’ a set of solutions and a means of implementing them that when common people hear them, they will have a hard time resisting them, other than the restoration of voluntary disassociation, self segregation, secession, and self rule. And I have ‘engineered’ a candidate means of insurrection that will force the government to capitulate to these constitutional changes, or to lose all political, comercial, and military influence both domestic and foreign. Now, of course, I could be wrong about the veracity of the solution or the likelihood of success of the plan. But that requires informed criticism not uninformed opinion. There is no competing solution offered by any other person l living other than surrender to the onslaught, and the resulting south-americanizing of the states, and the resulting south africanizing of our people by violence. What you hear is ‘if we just try to inspire people’ (as if every generation before hasn’t done so), or maybe we will have some prophet or hero save us like a Stalin, a Hitler, or Saul of Tarsus, or maybe people will ‘awaken’. But … those are ideas one cannot criticize because they are not plans. They are what we call vacuous statements. So here is the thing. There are people on the right who are cancer, because they have nothing to sell or offer other than pleading words and demands for attention. You’ve already seen how Richard is a second hander jumping on the CVIlle rally and ruining what was a good idea. You’ve seen Josh and company as second handers moving from me to richard. You see how many other second handers coming out of the woodwork to try to capture the attention John Mark is creating. And you can probably very easily tell the difference in IQ points between the nazboi fanboys, the churchybois, and those of us who are arguing for an actionable plan. So the truth is that if y’all wanna get involved with the trailer park crowd I’m happy if that works for you. Please do. But I’d rather motivate the frustrated majority over moral, economic, and political reasons than try to continue our march forward with honorable people rather than people who are second handers who repeatedly fail, and who do nothing but poison the well by being a magnet for clownworld criticism. I’m a conservative libertarian. I agree with the continental position on ingroup ‘national socialism’ as the french and germans meant the term, not as how the jews, marxists, russians, and anglos use the term, as meaning heavy investment in kin and commons, and the prohibition on parasitism, rents, and privatization of commons and socialization of losses. But I disagree with the continental reaction against aristocracy, and monarchy, and the continuous production of intergenerational noble, middle class, and working class families. Backward people can use authoritarianism to catch up with more advanced people. Superior people can use markets to stay ahead of all other people. However, we must run our markets free of commercial, financial, economic, political, academic, and informational parasitism and harm. Zero tolerance. Every man a sheriff. The eternal persistence of our people. Militant and aggressive prosecution and punishment of the slightest imposition on our people. But any ass clown advocating authoritarianism assumes that the authoritarian wouldn’t be even worse than the markets – is by definition too stupid to listen to. Germanics want another savior. I have no idea why. Anglos don’t need a savior. We have been working in kin-corporations for over fifteen hundred years.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549687771 Timestamp) By: Bill Joslin (via Brandon Hayes ) There are missing distinctions in the criticisms of democracy. 1) democracy in the anglo-sphere but not America, was a last resort offered to the polis before rebellion – a.proxy for violence. This decision being made during the restoration after the glorious rebellion etc (I’m sure you know this). It’s not, nor has it ever has been “the will of the people”. Data on voting intentions (the wishes of voter when voting) and the resulting legislation has never had an impact more than about 30% and only in the negative (about 30% of the time a legislation the voters do not want will be blocked, but in terms of policies they do want – the vote has no impact) – this compared to lobbying groups where up to 70% of the time they get what they seek in negative and about 30% in the positive. This means the social changes we are concerned about are not a result of the wishes of the voting public. 2) there are many means in the American and British system from primaries to electoral vote which address the criticisms launched today at democracy – the “dumb voters trope” is false and based on strawmans. The failure of our systems isn’t due to democracy it’s due to the conflation not legislation with weight of law which creates a product which politicians sell to special interests – a market for parasitism. Democracy acts as the currency for those transactions. If we weren’t under democracy, this dynamic would persist with a different currency (this issue is law making not democracy). 3) Daniel Roland Anderson has some good screen shots of how the original documents of America where explicitly ethnocentric. These legal documents didn’t prevent the dissolution of a homogeneous because, again, legislature can not be “under the rule of law” as.long as it makes law. This too isn’t a result of democracy but rather legislation being conflated with rule of law. We’ve corrected for this via testimonialism, but also by having a separation of judicial and legislative branches which the judiciary holding supremacy, and one law, natural law of reciprocity. We can correct the current problems via an alloy of kritocracy, stratocracy, aristocracy and democracy where aristocracy is constrained to via positiva commons creation, democracy to commons management, both of which are subservient and beholden to kritocracy, and stratocracy acts as the teeth for kritarchs (and can boycott if the kritarchs step out of line). So – nobles for development of commonly shared property and community services (via positiva commons), management teams to manage the commons via contract – both inferior too and with out the power of the judges and both under the rule of the judges, with a.militia to back the judges. If strict barriers exist within these four areas (judges can’t be generals, aristocrat can’t be judged etc) it prevents competition for power between these areas – it explicitly prevents a “product” that rules can “sell” without consequence. Modernity had way more correct than not and wasn’t so much wrong as incomplete. I find most fascist and aesthetics arguments against modernity to be strawmans. Monarchy alone, aristocracy alone did not pull humanity out of the Malthusian trap and away from discretionary rule – modernity did.

  • (FB 1549595254 Timestamp) USA VS AFGHANISTAN

    (FB 1549595254 Timestamp) USA VS AFGHANISTAN

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549687771 Timestamp) By: Bill Joslin (via Brandon Hayes ) There are missing distinctions in the criticisms of democracy. 1) democracy in the anglo-sphere but not America, was a last resort offered to the polis before rebellion – a.proxy for violence. This decision being made during the restoration after the glorious rebellion etc (I’m sure you know this). It’s not, nor has it ever has been “the will of the people”. Data on voting intentions (the wishes of voter when voting) and the resulting legislation has never had an impact more than about 30% and only in the negative (about 30% of the time a legislation the voters do not want will be blocked, but in terms of policies they do want – the vote has no impact) – this compared to lobbying groups where up to 70% of the time they get what they seek in negative and about 30% in the positive. This means the social changes we are concerned about are not a result of the wishes of the voting public. 2) there are many means in the American and British system from primaries to electoral vote which address the criticisms launched today at democracy – the “dumb voters trope” is false and based on strawmans. The failure of our systems isn’t due to democracy it’s due to the conflation not legislation with weight of law which creates a product which politicians sell to special interests – a market for parasitism. Democracy acts as the currency for those transactions. If we weren’t under democracy, this dynamic would persist with a different currency (this issue is law making not democracy). 3) Daniel Roland Anderson has some good screen shots of how the original documents of America where explicitly ethnocentric. These legal documents didn’t prevent the dissolution of a homogeneous because, again, legislature can not be “under the rule of law” as.long as it makes law. This too isn’t a result of democracy but rather legislation being conflated with rule of law. We’ve corrected for this via testimonialism, but also by having a separation of judicial and legislative branches which the judiciary holding supremacy, and one law, natural law of reciprocity. We can correct the current problems via an alloy of kritocracy, stratocracy, aristocracy and democracy where aristocracy is constrained to via positiva commons creation, democracy to commons management, both of which are subservient and beholden to kritocracy, and stratocracy acts as the teeth for kritarchs (and can boycott if the kritarchs step out of line). So – nobles for development of commonly shared property and community services (via positiva commons), management teams to manage the commons via contract – both inferior too and with out the power of the judges and both under the rule of the judges, with a.militia to back the judges. If strict barriers exist within these four areas (judges can’t be generals, aristocrat can’t be judged etc) it prevents competition for power between these areas – it explicitly prevents a “product” that rules can “sell” without consequence. Modernity had way more correct than not and wasn’t so much wrong as incomplete. I find most fascist and aesthetics arguments against modernity to be strawmans. Monarchy alone, aristocracy alone did not pull humanity out of the Malthusian trap and away from discretionary rule – modernity did.