Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • THE CHURCH AS A MEANS OF DEFENSE AGINST THE TOTALITARIAN STATE. —“For those on

    THE CHURCH AS A MEANS OF DEFENSE AGINST THE TOTALITARIAN STATE.

    —“For those on the Right defending the church, it seems to boil down to defending family, and the necessary semblance of tradition, against the barren NPC cultural landscape.”—Aidan Waring

    —“They are not defending THE church. They are defending THEIR church. Not the abstract theology, but the specific function of the church within their community that organizes them to resist against the encroaching NPC culture.”—Luke Weinhagen

    That is the purpose of the church (intertemporal) – to limit the state (temporal), which in turn limits commerce (present).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 12:12:00 UTC

  • ELECTIONS – WELL, TIME TO END THEM. 1) A rotating system of individual elections

    ELECTIONS – WELL, TIME TO END THEM.

    1) A rotating system of individual elections is far easier to manipulate since forces (coercion) can be concentrated on one election at a time, where under simultaneous voting, it is extremely difficult to coerce every race without nearly infinite funds.

    2) With the advent of communication there is no reason for representatives any longer, whatsoever, nor for the houses of congress. There is every reason for either devolution of all power to the states, or direct democracy (equidistribution) or direct proportional democracy (by contribution). [There isn’t any reason for one single currency for all purposes any longer either. Nor is there any reason for distribution of liquidity through the financial sector and the credit system. In fact, that’s the source of the economic problem we face today.]

    3) Because it it is far too easy to influence politicians whether they are elected incrementally, through rotation en mass (as now), or all at once (in the athenian method).

    4) The purpose of scale whether at the jury, state representative, or federal representative level, is to increase the cost of bribery.

    Ergo it is time, given our wealth, to increase scale from representatives to the entire populace, since that bribery is impossible for OTHER than the state.

    (As for ‘comparison of legislatures to juries, the evolution of the legislature being Thang 12, 20, 100, or more, depending on the severity of the matter) > The Jury > Senate > Multiple Houses > Direct Democracy, is … well you’d have to be relatively ignorant of the origin of the western tradition and its roots in the sovereignty of individual men, leaving the Thang (Jury) as the ONLY POSSIBLE means of choice, and the Headman, Chieftain, King, Monarch, as a Judge of Last Resort.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 07:49:00 UTC

  • THE SCRIPT IS PLAYING OUT. ONE DAY AT A TIME. Democrats will take House, double

    THE SCRIPT IS PLAYING OUT. ONE DAY AT A TIME.

    Democrats will take House, double down on Trump, Trump will stick with his promises, the overton window will shift, and we will have our revolution. And that revolution will make the Civil War and the French Revolution look like minor disputes at the dinner table. It’s elegant in its predictability.

    Demography is Destiny.

    Revolution Comes.

    Revel in our time!

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 07:33:00 UTC

  • There is nothing in the search for liberty that doesn’t demand for self sufficie

    There is nothing in the search for liberty that doesn’t demand for self sufficiency — or maybe you missed that part of ‘meritocracy’. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 00:22:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058152234020671488

    Reply addressees: @zimlor1 @jeffhauser

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058125436901883904

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058125436901883904

  • ^ And so, what they will do, is push youth back and the old into simple jobs at

    ^ And so, what they will do, is push youth back and the old into simple jobs at the bottom and top, rather than bring in immigrants and destroy their social cohesion as we have here in the west. And as the labor pool continues to expand but the work Contract, they will win.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 22:05:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058117956704653313

    Reply addressees: @zimlor1 @jeffhauser

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058115003671293952

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058115003671293952

  • Propertarian Government?

    (FB Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT LIBERTY, RULE OF LAW, AND THE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE: PRODUCTION OF COMMONS [L]iberty as far as I know refers to the condition produced by rule of law rather than rule by man. The principal problem with rule of law has been the means of decidability as to the scope of the law. This is why libertarianism failed – it does not define the scope of the law objectively and empirically rather than subjectively and preferentially. In the west this refers to reciprocity both between members, between members and the government, and between governments(international). However, commons must be produced since it is by commons the west outpaced (rapidly) the rest, in the bronze, iron and finally steel ages. We invented the corporation precisely because we have been practicing it for thousands of years – particularly since 700ad under bipartite manorialism (the agrarian corporation). Once the question of the limit of law is defined as reciprocity, the only question then refers to who and how the polity decides to choose which commons to produce that is in the interest of everyone in the hierarchy. A judge of last resort can choose the commons (monarchy). The monarch can choose the commons and then have another ‘house’ approve or not the appropriation of funds. Or a house can choose the commons and the people approve the appropriations, and the monarch (judge of last resort) hold veto. Or the people can choose the commons and then approve the appropriations for those commons, with a house, monarch, or judiciary veto those commons and appropriations. History appears to suggest that monarchs that must obtain permission from industry and the public in order to appropriate the necessary funds, produces the superior set of outcomes. And this is the lesson of the 20th century, and the reason for the systemic failure of democracy – even in the west. Not that we needed to repeat the lesson since it has been known since the ancient era, that democracy was the worst of all possible options. But because democracy coincided with the returns on the second industrial revolution (germany), from which our 20th century wealth arose, the state, academy, media complex has claimed this was due to democracy rather than democracy has brought that wealth to an end through redistribution of reproduction, destroying what that industrial revolution depended upon: the ‘white’ laboring, working, and middle classes – which are the only high trust such classes in the world outside of japan and korea. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Propertarian Government?

    (FB Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT LIBERTY, RULE OF LAW, AND THE OPTIONS FOR GOVERNANCE: PRODUCTION OF COMMONS [L]iberty as far as I know refers to the condition produced by rule of law rather than rule by man. The principal problem with rule of law has been the means of decidability as to the scope of the law. This is why libertarianism failed – it does not define the scope of the law objectively and empirically rather than subjectively and preferentially. In the west this refers to reciprocity both between members, between members and the government, and between governments(international). However, commons must be produced since it is by commons the west outpaced (rapidly) the rest, in the bronze, iron and finally steel ages. We invented the corporation precisely because we have been practicing it for thousands of years – particularly since 700ad under bipartite manorialism (the agrarian corporation). Once the question of the limit of law is defined as reciprocity, the only question then refers to who and how the polity decides to choose which commons to produce that is in the interest of everyone in the hierarchy. A judge of last resort can choose the commons (monarchy). The monarch can choose the commons and then have another ‘house’ approve or not the appropriation of funds. Or a house can choose the commons and the people approve the appropriations, and the monarch (judge of last resort) hold veto. Or the people can choose the commons and then approve the appropriations for those commons, with a house, monarch, or judiciary veto those commons and appropriations. History appears to suggest that monarchs that must obtain permission from industry and the public in order to appropriate the necessary funds, produces the superior set of outcomes. And this is the lesson of the 20th century, and the reason for the systemic failure of democracy – even in the west. Not that we needed to repeat the lesson since it has been known since the ancient era, that democracy was the worst of all possible options. But because democracy coincided with the returns on the second industrial revolution (germany), from which our 20th century wealth arose, the state, academy, media complex has claimed this was due to democracy rather than democracy has brought that wealth to an end through redistribution of reproduction, destroying what that industrial revolution depended upon: the ‘white’ laboring, working, and middle classes – which are the only high trust such classes in the world outside of japan and korea. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • EMBRACE THE THE LEFT’S HATE…. all they do is insure that we will evolve into T

    EMBRACE THE THE LEFT’S HATE…. all they do is insure that we will evolve into THE DE-FACTO Platform for political dicourse.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-01 17:59:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1058055992821334016

    Reply addressees: @getongab

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057795861793501184

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057795861793501184

  • Ok. We Are Here. Npr Is Talking About Revolution

    October 31st, 2018 5:56 PM [T]his is worth a video, but in short, when I said in 06, the correction would happen in 08, recover by 14, tinker along till 17, and that we would have a revolution by 2020 to 2025 at the latest, I was correct. Why? Because DEMOGRAPHICS IS DESTINY: Demographic outcomes are deterministic. While it’s true that the left are NPC’s, it’s also true that the right is empirical. But without a THEORETICAL basis of social science to PREDICT, alter, and adapt to outcomes, one lacks agency. So when I started out and said: 1) we are going to have a revolution 2) nothing can stop it. 3) all we can do is control it. 4) the optimum means of controlling it is to provide a plan 5) that plan needs to provide sufficient incentives that the majority of the population will not RESIST. 6) because they won’t resist if the obtain material, emotional, and intellectual, rewards. 7) And because we have removed the ‘doubt’ (uncertainty) as to the function of a polity after that revolution. 8) And to provide greater fear of uncertainty due to revolutionary chaos if they DO resist. I wasn’t wrong before, I haven’t been wrong so far, and I won’t be wrong in the future. Cheers

  • Under nationalism we love one another

    October 31st, 2018 9:47 AM [U]nder nationalism we love one another despite our differences because costs of kinship domestication, rule, management, and evolution are under each of our controls – and as such we are all equal. Under globalism we merey restore the barbarism, tribalism of the middle east, and export those costs upon one another, and in doing so make us universal enemies rather than universal allies. We are all equal only in conflict and poverty.