Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO? To protect your family? To protect your tribe? To

    HOW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO?

    To protect your family?

    To protect your tribe?

    To protect your civilization?

    To protect mankind?

    What are you willing to do?

    Talk is cheap. Gossip is ineffective.

    The only solution is to raise the cost of the status quo until it is intolerable.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-16 07:20:00 UTC

  • ON GAYS, GAY MARRIAGE, AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF BREAKING THE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE (

    ON GAYS, GAY MARRIAGE, AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF BREAKING THE LIMITS OF TOLERANCE

    (interesting) (some novel ideas)

    Two over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travellers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.)

    I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilisation. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really.

    But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives.

    But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism.

    And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant.

    I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratically regulate reproduction through property rights.

    Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either.

    The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment.

    I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange.

    Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject.

    So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now.

    If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law.

    And that’s my plan.

    And it’s working.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-16 05:32:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ARISTOCRACY VS REPUBLIC —“I’m a bit ignorant on this. What makes an arist

    Q&A: ARISTOCRACY VS REPUBLIC

    —“I’m a bit ignorant on this. What makes an aristocracy different from a republic. With leaders or rulers representing a population.”—

    Great question. Thanks for asking it. Because you gave me the nudge I needed to write a first draft of aristocratic government that circumvents problems in libertarian thought.

    I have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, propertyright/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.

    OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.

    REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (London, July 16, 2015)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-15 11:03:00 UTC

  • Sorry Bibi. But ya know, you thought the lobby was gonna help you. But you didn’

    Sorry Bibi. But ya know, you thought the lobby was gonna help you. But you didn’t count on getting an anti-white Muslim in the white house, now did you? So now, despite your empty rhetoric, there is going to be another holocaust. Another diaspora. And why? Because you thought you could control the white man. Instead, you destroyed him. And with him the only people who will ever grant you shelter. I’m a nationalist. For everyone. Including a Jewish nationalist. But nations require land holding. Land holding requires land holding ethics and morals. And apparently you don’t understand the lesson of the rise and fall of Judea: jews lacked the moral and ethical basis for land holding. And you still do.

    Fight or die. There is no alternative. Words only work against christians. We are the only people who feel guilt. The rest of the world is merciless.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-15 04:53:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSALISM: LOVE OF MAN Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I al

    UNIVERSALISM: LOVE OF MAN

    Sorry all, but while I argue to advance my tribe, I also seek to advance all tribes through aristocratic egalitarianism (meritocracy), testimonial truth, and propertarianism. My political solution is very simple: non-parasitism, voluntary exchange, rule of law, common law, jury and truth telling. Truth is enough to restore our civilization to greatness by a radical innovation in the construction of commons. And to do the same for any other civilization if they are able to learn truth telling.

    I’ve been very consistent in my position: the only material differences between the races of man are caused by (a) differences in distributions of reproductive desirability and (b) differences in distributions of intelligence, aggressiveness, and impulsivity. And that these differences are caused by different rates of reproduction of the different classes.

    There are exceptional people in all races and tribes. There are more exceptional people in the white tribe because we invented truth, because we suppressed the reproduction of the lower classes, and because we are less aggressive and impulsive – we have a lower time preference.

    A population’s abilities determine the quality of it’s informal and formal institutions, and that those institutions are tragically imprisoning when combined with a population whose median is below 106. So the problem facing EVERY tribe is how to get its population above a median of 106. And in the future, that number might be even higher.

    ANTI-PARASITISM, PREFERENCE FOR KIN-SELECTION, and SEPARATISM are not the same thing as NON-COOPERATION.

    Our meritocratic aristocracies are marginally indifferent, and easily can cooperate, because they are not reliant on kin for information, signals, production, reproduction, and cooperation. It is not our similarities that cause conflict. It is the dissimilarities between our lower classes that cause us conflict.

    I will sacrifice for my kin. I refuse parasitism by non-kin. I refuse to shift reproductive velocity from the upper to the lower classes no matter how profitable it is. I refuse to take the one truth telling civilization on earth and reduce it to yet another group of parasitic liars. I refuse to limit humanity’s future by surrendering our people to dysgenia.

    But I also refuse to blame others for our failures. I refuse to abandon cooperation with other tribes. And I refuse to abandon the rest of humanity to the predation of parasitic elites.

    Aristocracy cannot include everyone but it can serve everyone.

    Aristocracy for everyone, if not of everyone.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 07:11:00 UTC

  • And that was my only point. Slavery was insufficient. It was just helpful for re

    And that was my only point. Slavery was insufficient. It was just helpful for retaining power.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:13:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619464341327364097

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619059766950817792


    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/619059766950817792

  • So why choose a more expensive solution: war, unless it was over something of ev

    So why choose a more expensive solution: war, unless it was over something of even greater value?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:11:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619463927727017985

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619059766950817792


    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/619059766950817792

  • And moral issues then, just as in russia today, are mere propaganda to whip up s

    And moral issues then, just as in russia today, are mere propaganda to whip up sentiments for power.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:07:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619462824583147520

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619462339121807360


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom As such the war was not over slavery but over control of the western territory, and the continent.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619462339121807360


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom As such the war was not over slavery but over control of the western territory, and the continent.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/619462339121807360

  • Slavery was an instrument. The objective was power

    Slavery was an instrument. The objective was power.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-08 20:09:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618874580296409088

    Reply addressees: @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618660498268012544


    IN REPLY TO:

    @randiego2

    @curtdoolittle @voxdotcom Wow, that’s some laughably twisted historical revisionism.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618660498268012544

  • Because the south would have controlled the new territory politically, and not t

    Because the south would have controlled the new territory politically, and not the north.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-08 20:09:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618874513783169024

    Reply addressees: @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618660498268012544


    IN REPLY TO:

    @randiego2

    @curtdoolittle @voxdotcom Wow, that’s some laughably twisted historical revisionism.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/618660498268012544