Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • If In The Near Future India, China, And Russia Unites Together, How Long Would It Take Them To Defeat The U.s. And U.k. Together?

    Russia can defeat any army in the world on land as long as they can do it quickly. But russia is a very poor country with a fairly small population, and vast territories.

    China is and will always be easy to starve to death with nothing more than normal submarines. They know this. Which is why they have ‘stolen’ the south china sea: strategic necessity. China’s only options are economic and nuclear. She may eventually win dominance by economic means, since her market is a monopoly, while the western civilization’s market is fragmented into many pieces. However, if the western civilization’s market united into a monopoly china would return to practical weakness. Remember china remains, and will remain, for a very long time, a poor country per person. It is kind of hard to imagine india and america going to war, we have no reason to. It is more likely that india and china will go to war and india will depend on america.

    The threat to america is the unification of germany, eastern europe, and russia, against the united states.

    Frankly, as an american, I would prefer that outcome, and that we could have our own national government instead of running an empire at the expense of our peoples.

    https://www.quora.com/If-in-the-near-future-India-China-and-Russia-unites-together-how-long-would-it-take-them-to-defeat-the-U-S-and-U-K-together

  • “Successful partnerships whether military, marital, business, or political, requ

    —“Successful partnerships whether military, marital, business, or political, require an intersection of core values, and submission of individual wants to the collective good/goal.”— Lee Tucker

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 17:14:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Cooper, Forest win primaries for North Carolina governor

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 15:04:00 UTC

  • The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), a

    The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), and peasantry(socialism), is that each starts with a very different value attached to the different choices of cooperation: predation by violence, production by cooperative exchange, flight, boycott and resistance by inclusion or exclusion from the group. Aristocracy begins with the preference for ‘taking it all now’ by violence, and profiting from the domestication of animal man; Burghers (bourgeois) assume the continuous value of trade. And dependents, serfs,slaves, and enemies, seek to circumvent the competition and conflict by demand for redistribution (insurance, and sharing) because for all intents and purposes they are otherwise powerless.

    I start from the premise that continuous evolution of man through continuous suppression of inferiorities, and continuous reward for excellences, is the only long term good, and that the strong and productive must have incentive to tolerate the weak and the unproductive.

    There is no shortage of humans, but an oversupply.

    People are not intrinsically valuable to one another, to mankind, or to the universe. They can only strive to be, and demonstrate that they are, by the evidence of their actions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 12:57:00 UTC

  • The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), a

    The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), and peasantry(socialism), is that each starts with a very different value attached to the different choices of cooperation: predation by violence, production by cooperative exchange, flight, boycott and resistance by inclusion or exclusion from the group. Aristocracy begins with the preference for ‘taking it all now’ by violence, and profiting from the domestication of animal man; Burghers (bourgeois) assume the continuous value of trade. And dependents, serfs,slaves, and enemies, seek to circumvent the competition and conflict by demand for redistribution (insurance, and sharing) because for all intents and purposes they are otherwise powerless. I start from the premise that continuous evolution of man through continuous suppression of inferiorities, and continuous reward for excellences, is the only long term good, and that the strong and productive must have incentive to tolerate the weak and the unproductive. There is no shortage of humans, but an oversupply. People are not intrinsically valuable to one another, to mankind, or to the universe. They can only strive to be, and demonstrate that they are, by the evidence of their actions.

  • The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), a

    The difference between aristocracy (propertarianism), burgherism (liberalism), and peasantry(socialism), is that each starts with a very different value attached to the different choices of cooperation: predation by violence, production by cooperative exchange, flight, boycott and resistance by inclusion or exclusion from the group. Aristocracy begins with the preference for ‘taking it all now’ by violence, and profiting from the domestication of animal man; Burghers (bourgeois) assume the continuous value of trade. And dependents, serfs,slaves, and enemies, seek to circumvent the competition and conflict by demand for redistribution (insurance, and sharing) because for all intents and purposes they are otherwise powerless. I start from the premise that continuous evolution of man through continuous suppression of inferiorities, and continuous reward for excellences, is the only long term good, and that the strong and productive must have incentive to tolerate the weak and the unproductive. There is no shortage of humans, but an oversupply. People are not intrinsically valuable to one another, to mankind, or to the universe. They can only strive to be, and demonstrate that they are, by the evidence of their actions.

  • TRANSCENDING THE LIBERAL ORDER (bit of brilliance here that few will ever reach)

    TRANSCENDING THE LIBERAL ORDER

    (bit of brilliance here that few will ever reach)

    by Joel Davis

    It’s funny how once I fully realised that you have completed the Enlightenment and taken Liberalism to its’ logical end, I simultaneously realised that you have stripped Liberalism of all its’ (faux-)sacredness around which we have all been culturally conditioned.

    You would undoubtedly take that as a compliment, yet ironically, that is precisely what alienated me from your ideology.

    Once I was fully deprogrammed and transcended the Liberal axia upon which our culture is built, I stopped measuring in the units of individualism and instead became focused on socio-cultural systems as entities themselves.

    We all experience identification with socio-cultural systems which transcend our individuality, and as individuals are culturally disciplined, they progressively lose their individuality into shared identity.

    You could explain this merely with evolutionary psychology if you want, but we can also map out the structure of how this functions on the experiential level, and as that is the level at we directly experience this phenomena, it seems far more interesting to me.

    So yes, we can measure it at the marginalist-Darwinian level, but we can also measure it at the psycholinguistic-aesthetic level.

    Just because the psycholinguistic-aesthetic level is harder to falsify, it doesn’t make it any less real, it just makes it a more challenging domain.

    (Curt: You see, I don’t have to produce the next generation of thought, I just have to END THE PRISON of this generation of thought. If I could help bring about 1000 people like Joel, can you imagine what would come of it?????)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 00:45:00 UTC

  • Transcending The Liberal Order

    (bit of brilliance here that few will ever reach) by Joel Davis It’s funny how once I fully realised that you have completed the Enlightenment and taken Liberalism to its’ logical end, I simultaneously realised that you have stripped Liberalism of all its’ (faux-)sacredness around which we have all been culturally conditioned. You would undoubtedly take that as a compliment, yet ironically, that is precisely what alienated me from your ideology. Once I was fully deprogrammed and transcended the Liberal axia upon which our culture is built, I stopped measuring in the units of individualism and instead became focused on socio-cultural systems as entities themselves. We all experience identification with socio-cultural systems which transcend our individuality, and as individuals are culturally disciplined, they progressively lose their individuality into shared identity. You could explain this merely with evolutionary psychology if you want, but we can also map out the structure of how this functions on the experiential level, and as that is the level at we directly experience this phenomena, it seems far more interesting to me. So yes, we can measure it at the marginalist-Darwinian level, but we can also measure it at the psycholinguistic-aesthetic level. Just because the psycholinguistic-aesthetic level is harder to falsify, it doesn’t make it any less real, it just makes it a more challenging domain. (Curt: You see, I don’t have to produce the next generation of thought, I just have to END THE PRISON of this generation of thought. If I could help bring about 1000 people like Joel, can you imagine what would come of it?????)

  • Transcending The Liberal Order

    (bit of brilliance here that few will ever reach) by Joel Davis It’s funny how once I fully realised that you have completed the Enlightenment and taken Liberalism to its’ logical end, I simultaneously realised that you have stripped Liberalism of all its’ (faux-)sacredness around which we have all been culturally conditioned. You would undoubtedly take that as a compliment, yet ironically, that is precisely what alienated me from your ideology. Once I was fully deprogrammed and transcended the Liberal axia upon which our culture is built, I stopped measuring in the units of individualism and instead became focused on socio-cultural systems as entities themselves. We all experience identification with socio-cultural systems which transcend our individuality, and as individuals are culturally disciplined, they progressively lose their individuality into shared identity. You could explain this merely with evolutionary psychology if you want, but we can also map out the structure of how this functions on the experiential level, and as that is the level at we directly experience this phenomena, it seems far more interesting to me. So yes, we can measure it at the marginalist-Darwinian level, but we can also measure it at the psycholinguistic-aesthetic level. Just because the psycholinguistic-aesthetic level is harder to falsify, it doesn’t make it any less real, it just makes it a more challenging domain. (Curt: You see, I don’t have to produce the next generation of thought, I just have to END THE PRISON of this generation of thought. If I could help bring about 1000 people like Joel, can you imagine what would come of it?????)

  • The Erik Prince – Oliver North network is the smartest idea in decades. Market c

    The Erik Prince – Oliver North network is the smartest idea in decades. Market competition to contain the deep state and counter the fake news. @realDonaldTrump #Trump #NewRight #Libertarian #Conservative

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-05 21:21:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/938156480422907904