(FB 1550448812 Timestamp) CLARITY (a) only individuals act (b) only groups conspire (c) whether individuals or groups act against the interests of the commons, it is still a collection of individuals, since even groups consist of individuals. (d) organizations demonstrate preference not stated belief or thought. (e) if some organization or affiliation or identity can be identified as problematic it is certainly possible to exit the organization and all people within it as conspirators regardless of stated opinion or belief. CONVERSELY (f) it is very difficult to imagine extracting someone by genome. HOWEVER (g) war is war, so if it escalates from tort (court) to combat (war) then the law no longer applies. THEREFORE I have said repeatedly, fix the law the good will stay the bad will leave, and organizations that are hostile will be shuttered.
Category: Politics, Power, and Governance
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550433458 Timestamp) GENERATIONS OF WARFARE The concept of four “generations” in the history of modern warfare was created by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, for the purpose of an argument for “the changing face of war” entering into a “fourth generation”.
- First-generation warfare refers to Ancient and Post-classical battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.
Second-generation warfare is the Early modern tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.
Third-generation warfare focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage.
Fourth-generation warfare as presented by Lind et al. is characterized by “Post-modern” a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.
(wiki)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550448812 Timestamp) CLARITY (a) only individuals act (b) only groups conspire (c) whether individuals or groups act against the interests of the commons, it is still a collection of individuals, since even groups consist of individuals. (d) organizations demonstrate preference not stated belief or thought. (e) if some organization or affiliation or identity can be identified as problematic it is certainly possible to exit the organization and all people within it as conspirators regardless of stated opinion or belief. CONVERSELY (f) it is very difficult to imagine extracting someone by genome. HOWEVER (g) war is war, so if it escalates from tort (court) to combat (war) then the law no longer applies. THEREFORE I have said repeatedly, fix the law the good will stay the bad will leave, and organizations that are hostile will be shuttered.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550433458 Timestamp) GENERATIONS OF WARFARE The concept of four “generations” in the history of modern warfare was created by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, for the purpose of an argument for “the changing face of war” entering into a “fourth generation”.
- First-generation warfare refers to Ancient and Post-classical battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.
Second-generation warfare is the Early modern tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.
Third-generation warfare focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage.
Fourth-generation warfare as presented by Lind et al. is characterized by “Post-modern” a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.
(wiki)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550504269 Timestamp) INDIVIDUALISM RATHER THAN FAMILIALISM AND NATIONALISM ARE A WAR ON OUR PEOPLE Individualism atomizes a large group of people sufficiently for the network advantage of a smaller group to defeat them.–@[11804727:2048:Steve Pender]
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550504611 Timestamp) THE DEVIL SWIMS LEFT – ERGO MY INTOLERANCE —“Religion breeds multiculturalism amongst a people that need cultural pluralism.”—Brad Umbaugh Yep. The Devil Swims Left. Any system of thought that is not explicitly right will eventually migrate left. Ergo my intolerance. (via butch leghorn: “cthulhu swims left”)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550504269 Timestamp) INDIVIDUALISM RATHER THAN FAMILIALISM AND NATIONALISM ARE A WAR ON OUR PEOPLE Individualism atomizes a large group of people sufficiently for the network advantage of a smaller group to defeat them.–@[11804727:2048:Steve Pender]
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550669145 Timestamp) THE REASON THEY ARE REBELLING IS BECAUSE WE ARE SUCCEEDING – AND THEY HAVE FAILED. Keep fighting the good fight.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550628653 Timestamp) —“But given his style of functioning, and his excessive dependence upon a few members within his team who lack intellectual depth and political acumen, this was but expected.”— But that is his strategy. And this is why it succeeds. He is forcing responsibility away from the USA and reducing our management of world affairs. He is demonstrating the political and military weakness of parties, eliminating the political cover previously provided by the USA. He is disempowering the ‘deep state’ (particularly the state department) not only in the USA but in europe, and forcing the weak parties to take responsibility, work together, and produce results, or be exposed as illegitimate, purely symbolic, and useless to their polities. His mission is to end USA’s need to carry other’s water in a world where we no longer hold 3/4 of the world economy to pay for it. And it is against the allies interests to take that responsibility and be exposed as illegitimate. The states are now nearly fully autarkic. Time for the world to grow up into adults and take responsibility for reciprocal protection of world patterns of transport, law, finance, and trade. We are still withdrawing the american wing of the british empire, and we will and must continue to. It has no value any longer. It’s a dead weight cost. Iran has chosen to build an empire rather than a state and no one in the region is going to tolerate it. And the only reason it still exists is the ‘hope’ that the regional powers will mature enough to contain it so that we don’t pay the same price to domesticate the middle east in the next decades as we have in the past, or eurasia in those previous, or the colonial world before that.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550587990 Timestamp) RESULTS OF TESTING THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT’S ABILITY TO CONDUCT A TRADE WITH THE GROWING UNAFFILIATED. Nothing. changed. at. all. HABITUATED REDUCTIONISM 0. It’s not possible for ordinary people to distinguish between (a) the law proper, and (b) the constitutional implementation of that law as federating contract, and (c) the regional or local law as adaptive to tradition and norm, where local constitutions that differ according to local preference (demand). So no matter how we preface it, we have a body politic indoctrinated into ideal thought and we are in a position where we must appeal to lowest common denominator in order to have the numbers to obtain power to demand constitutional reform (restoration of natural rights under natural law.) Disappointing but expected. Means we should continue to selectively include the ‘smart folk’ and work on the solution and disassociate from and ignore the non-intellectual class as the ‘voice of reason’ between left and right “in the interests of the center”. SPECIFY THE FRAME OF THE ANSWER (Despite frustrating the audience.) 1. I have to be very clear and preface every answer with whether they want the answer according to “the law”, a federal constitution(insurer of last resort limited to real property (private and public), a state constitution or a local constitution not limited to real property (including norms and commons). People think I’m waffling because they want a religion, philosophy, or ideology that isn’t a division of labor and purvey. But no matter what I do I end up with ‘in a propertarian world…?” (which is meaningless), rather than ‘with propertarianism can we construct….?” We can construct anything. There are at least three possible means of running a government given our current condition. EXPLAIN FROM THE TOP DOWN 2. In explanations I need to start at the top down (vision) rather than bottom up (science) and say that P, at least for european peoples, would recommend, because of our genetics and cultures, that we restore the many states if not city states of europe. And that MOST of the time when I am talking I am recommending that solution. HOWEVER, we can (a) do so and secede, we can (b) simply devolve the federal government and sort without seceding, or (c)we can attempt to take over the federal government and enforce the devolution of the federal scope of responsibilities and devolve non-real-property (everything but insurer of last resort) to the states. In other words, P IS TOOLKIT. With the P TOOLKIT I am proposing one of a nearly infinite number of constitutions for different peoples. IMPOSSIBILITY OF STANDARDIZATION – Trade Impossible. 3. Religiosity/Rationality/Science and class/intelligence, religious heritage/tradition, training into different sects, There exists no immediate solution to the problem of our religions other than prohibiting alien religions, providing incentives, and letting time continue to run its course. Why? Just as animals imprint we behave similarly thru training that is continuously reinforced and justified. And only significant adaptive opportunity or pressure alters this training. Those of us who are more naturally scandinavian will migrate one way, those more continental another, and those more mediterranean or slavic another, and that will simply mean the preservation of our cults. The problem is not there, but in eliminating further jewish and muslim damage to the civilization. NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE, ABANDON ATTEMPT AT RESTORING THE CHURCH 4. For my part it is better to truncate the constitutional section on religion, not try to save or reform the religion, expand education, expand festivals and holidays, and let natural evolution take its course in the production of educational differences that are expressible as religious differences. In other words it is not possible to restore the centrality of the church to the polity. Without the compromise of truth, there is no means by which the faithful and the rational can be institutionally unified. PIVOT MAINSTREAM 5. I think P is better for normies ‘that want to get along’ than for the right wing and left wing fringe. And pivoting away from the fringe to the mainstream is something we should have done a bit earlier, but are now only able to. Even though I think we are not ready. Underlying biological imperatives. … (F) – Religious fringe (Feminine/Submission), … (aM) – Anarchic fringe(Exchange). … (eM) – Authoritarian Fringe(Masculine/Dominance), All of these fringes look for rules by which they can avoid negotiation and compromise with people (monopolies). Each express their bias in method of argument (paradigm and vocabulary) as well as masculine libertarian or feminine application of (eM) Established-Masculine-Threat, (aM)Ascendent-Masculine-Exchange-Boycott, or (F)Feminine-Undermining. In other words genetics rule and the fringes cannot compromise leaving the mainstream and mainstream incentives as the optimum and letting the fringes drive demand for a viable solution to coming conflict. This disassociates us further from the fringe and lowers resistance to the spread of the movement. However, this occurs at the expense of an increase in the cost and time of distribution. And alters the pitch somewhat to appeal to the mainstream leaving only the far left as an opponent. -Curt (PS: And y’all thought I was just trolling christians…..)