Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • MODERN WARFARE The military threat to states, and to societies, is no longer mec

    MODERN WARFARE

    The military threat to states, and to societies, is no longer mechanized weaponry invasion, but population invasion, insurrection invasion, and ideological invasion.

    Once we have nuclear weapons, military invasion is too costly.

    I’ve been studying this problem for quite a few years, and the muslims have demonstrated that they are applying the most advanced military strategy possible: population, insurrection, and ideology as ‘combined arms’.

    Its cheaper, more effective and economically difficult to resist.

    Russia has not conquered Ukraine with tanks, but with insurrection, propaganda, and population.

    This is the superior strategy for conquest in the post-nuclear era.

    The only solution is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:06:00 UTC

  • PUTIN IS CRITICIZING THE CATHEDRAL – HOW DO WE LEVERAGE THAT? I wonder if there

    PUTIN IS CRITICIZING THE CATHEDRAL – HOW DO WE LEVERAGE THAT?

    I wonder if there is any value in getting Putin to just use the term ‘The Cathedral’ as ridicule a few times – demonstrating the dominance of the ideological-and-failed-academic-church’s influence on the state rather than the pragmatic state’s influence on the academy’ such that it produces people who can succeed in the economy. The church has its place, but that is not the academy. And the academy has taken upon itself to replace the church.

    And it’s an evil religion that the academy teaches.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 04:01:00 UTC

  • PUTIN CHANGES TACK – BACK ON TRACK AGAINST THE CATHEDRAL Now, as I said, he play

    PUTIN CHANGES TACK – BACK ON TRACK AGAINST THE CATHEDRAL

    Now, as I said, he played it poorly. He could have easily acquired the east and not put Russian economy in a tailspin.

    But as of yesterday he is back on the ‘western ideas have failed’ and the european ‘new world order’ is a failure. All that happens is that the USA creates worse circumstances again and again.

    This message has been selling to most of the world.

    If he had purchased eastern Ukraine with oil and gas (as I recommended), the locals would have loved the idea, and he would have had an IDEAL client-state, as is Germany: wealthy but dependent. Instead, he restarted the cold war. And he clearly doesn’t understand American Morality of altruistic punishment: WE WILL NEVER, EVER, STOP – EVER, against a moral violation by our own (white people). So the american strategy will be to cause enough pain that Putin becomes internally weak.

    Because in a corrupt mafia state, held together by money and power, not morality and rule of law, there is easily another sitting behind you waiting to take it from you.

    I turned on Putin entirely because of his abuse of Ukraine. But in no small part because I AGREE WITH HIS CRITICISMS OF THE WEST. I disagree that Russia provides the world with any value, and that the world can learn anything from Russia. But I do not disagree with his criticism of the Cathedral.

    Because I am also a critic of the Cathedral.

    The difference is that I would use rule of law and truth telling and he would use bribery and violence and corruption as an alternative to the Cathedral’s New World Order (of cosmopolitan construction)

    AND I AM RIGHT AND HE IS WRONG. PERIOD.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 05:32:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WE SEE POLAR OPPOSITION TODAY? APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE I’m sorry to intrude

    WHY DO WE SEE POLAR OPPOSITION TODAY?

    APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE

    I’m sorry to intrude on your poetic speech with my painful, oft turgid, analytic, alternative, but I thought this might provide you and others with another way of looking at the issue as if there are two sides.

    EXPLANATION

    In all multi polar systems, just as in all majority democracies, we see a major party (dominant alliance of interests) and a contesting party (resistance to the dominant alliance of interests) and all other parties(alliances) are statistically irrelevant.

    There is nowhere in life that this is not true. (I think there is a term for this effect, but it escapes me at the moment.)

    In most of history the military (aristocracy) as been the primary influence, and various religious organizations constitute the opposing force.

    But once we developed industry the economic power of business, industry and finance produced greater influence than the church and state could muster.

    Once the church was eliminated by Darwin, Science, The Academy, long subservient to the church, took over the church’s role as myth-maker. (Unfortunately just as the cosmopolitans and women were freed from cultural constraints under universal suffrage, ).

    The craftsmen (labor) attempted to ally with the Academy and State but Industry rebelled taking jobs away. But for some time the academy controlled the state via labor.

    The socialists and feminists were successful in forming an alliance with the academy to take over the government and push the military aristocracy from power. They were able to do this mostly because of the combination of media and postwar consumption, combined with the geographic expansion of the united states western territories as nearly free land. Plus the cost of fighting communism gave the academy and their desire as a vehicle for expansion of their power.

    In all these organizations oligarchies do form. But there always will exist four organizations: craft (without power), priesthood/academy(gossip as a moral weapon of power – especially in the west where altruism is the high chivalric virtue), the organization of production (remunerative incentives), and the martial aristocracy.

    What we see is a conflict between the four powers to control institutions.

    We live in a malevolent theocracy of academy and state reliant mostly on numerological pseudoscience to justify selling off consumption of the commons, in exchange for dysgenic expansion that increases their supporters.

    Theocracies, like corporations do not care about families, they are about power.

    Aristocracy is a family business.

    Families matter.

    SO WHAT?

    So there are always four dominant forces (alliances) reflecting the four possible means of coercion (none, gossip, trade, and force), and these forces battle over whatever institutions exist in any civilization in order to expand their power. But as always, because each follows the best use of power, the end result is always a dominant and resistance group, with the reset nearly invisible because they are immaterial.

    I think what I try to bring to the table is the fact that these four strategies (if the first ‘none’ can be considered a strategy), reflect reproductive strategies, and that the masculine (tribal) feminine (universal) and the commercial (selfish or neutral), battle for control of institutions that give preference to their methods and biases, and therefore their genetic preferences.

    So Red has evolved into the aristocratic meritocratic, slowly reproducing, high investment, nuclear and absolute nuclear family of the northern europeans that reflects the male reproductive strategy where insurance is denied in order to force productivity: a eugenic tribe. And Blue has evolved into the equalitarian, rapid reproduction, low investment, traditional and single parent family, where insurance is provided by the state, in order to ensure as many offspring survive as possible. And each has collected the allies available to pursue it’s ends. This is why women dtermine elections: they are the only gruop that is not balanced. women and minorities vote for dysgenia, and men and married women vote for eugenia (keeping their own production.) And really there isn’t more to it than that.

    Democracy failed the moment it changed from one FAMILY ONE VOTE to one INDIVIDUAL one vote. Because the familiy – particular the nuclar family – is by virtue of mate selection under monogamy, a compromise of reproductive strategies within which the majorty of us are relatively equal. But by converting to an individualist society rather than familial, we removed our compromise between competing reproductive strategies from the family, and elevated it into the state, where it is just a competition between the male eugenic and the female dysgenic and nothing else. There is no reason to be had since the only possible compromise can be constructed outside of government.

    I could write volumes more on this but it’s enough to get the point across:L

    1) Judicial Law must apply to individuals because individuals act.

    2) Governmental “Law” (contracts for the production of commons) must represent families or insufficient common interests exists for any such institution to choose solutions that satisfy a common interest.

    For these reasons universal democracy must always end in socialist tyranny where women can bear their offspring and place the burden of their upkeep on the state (men). This has to do with simple numbers, and simple genetic interests. A minority of males and a majority of females are better off constructing the greatest rents possible to feed dysgenic reproduction and the minority of productive people who they (and evolution) would prefer to choose eugenic (meritocratic) reproduction are merely farmed by the unproductive.

    Uncomfortable truth but truth none the less.

    (Note: I don’t mean that ALL our behavior is entirely in our genes as much as our class (reproductive value) is evidenced by in our genes and we gravitate to the strategies that suit our genes. )

    Curt Doolittle

    http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/#comment-1283725

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 10:05:00 UTC

  • THE CATHEDRAL’S DEMAND FOR RESPECT I am not sure why I should treat a coward, a

    THE CATHEDRAL’S DEMAND FOR RESPECT

    I am not sure why I should treat a coward, a liar and a thief with respect. Does anyone know the answer to that question? Because I certainly don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:43:00 UTC

  • Curt: Address issue of right to self Government

    Curt: Address issue of right to self Government.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:15:00 UTC

  • UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes

    UKRAINIANS REALLY NEED TO FIND AND KILL YANUKOVYCH. No matter how long it takes or what it costs. Set a precedent that ‘if you betray your people we will kill you.” Never surrender, never forgive, never forget, and defeat your enemies completely.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 14:00:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government”” A

    QUESTION: “Curt, please explain how you mean “their own houses of government””

    ANSWER: People with similar economic interests: the monarchy (ownership of the formal institutions of government – ie: law), landed nobility (responsibility for local economies), commons (responsible for business and finance), church – the house of proletarians (responsibility for production of insurance – insurer of last resort – and all commons: care-taking).

    We had it right all along. If you cannot demonstrate sufficient interests for a higher house then you only have the interests of a lower house.

    If we conducted contractual exchanges between houses (as we did in the past) and that these contracts were constructed under common law (in the ancient sense as organic application of property rights), then we would have a vehicle for cooperation rather than government as a vehicle for conflict.

    And exchange is always welcome. an imposition or theft is not.

    The market cannot solve the provision of all goods, because the purpose of some goods is not produced through competition, nor are all goods produced producible if consumable.

    We are living a lie, and that is why government must be a venue for conflict; it is presumed to be a lie: that we are equal and of equal interest, and that as such a Pareto optimum can be found. Instead, the only known way of producing an optimum is through voluntary exchange – a Nash equilibrium.

    Like infinity, a Pareto optimum does not nor can it, exist. Something approaching Pareto optimums may evolve because we pursue Nash equilibria, but like unicorns and infinity, these are just loose ideas, to use for analogistic purposes.

    NO PROPOSITIONS ARE DECIDABLE BY PARETO OPTIMUM. Only evidence of the success or failure of our achievement of a Nash equilibrium.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:48:00 UTC

  • PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT –“Should we only promote exchanges t

    PARETO VS NASH – THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

    –“Should we only promote exchanges that are net Pareto improvements?”—

    I think that we should only facilitate exchanges that produce no (known) negative externalities (those which cause involuntary transfers); and that if we facilitate exchange in such a matter, we will achieve a Nash equilibrium. (as we did with monogamy, ad as we have with the market.)

    But I think a Pareto optimum is a Keynesian, Platonic, Analytic fallacy: such a thing is unknowable, and causes negative externalities no matter what we do. Our problem is not good collective decision making (the fallacy of the enlightenment) but facilitating moral exchanges between classes with heterogeneous interests – just as we do in the market.

    The problem is that we cannot produce all goods and services in the market because someone always experiences loss of opportunity. Whereas in the production of commons we are generally prohibited from the consumption or privatization of the commons – and as such the majority of effort going into the commons is to pool capital and prohibit its consumption. The incentives of the market for goods and services are the precise inverse. Competition for and consumption of commons merely prohibits their construction by disincentivizing their production. Whereas in the market, lost opportunity (or selling at a lost) is useful information that provides incentives to make better use of your own and others’ resources.

    The ‘we’ if their is to be such a thing in government, is to advocate for exchanges, not monopoly rules by which we advance the interests of some by mere majority rule.

    Each imposition by force, is a lost opportunity for exchange. Each forced imposition, constitutes a lost opportunity for exchange, which in turn is a loss of opportunity to create a moral society free of involuntary transfers.

    The only law is thou shalt not steal or cause loss, directly or indirectly. As such all political decisions are decidable. The poor can always contribute. The fallacy is that their contribution must come in in the production of goods and services, rather than in the production of the voluntary organization of production that we call morality, property rights, and the market. It also assumes that maintenance of the commons (which is what makes a place beautiful and desirable) is the province of those who engage in production of goods and services, rather than those who engage in the production of the commons both physical, and normative, and legal: the voluntary organization of production.

    Arguing otherwise is to say that someone must pay the high costs of forgoing consumption (theft, free riding, privatization, rent seeking) for permission to enter the labor force, rather than permission to participate in the market.

    We do it wrong so to speak. That does not mean we cannot do it right.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 07:28:00 UTC

  • IS PATERNALISM THEN, MERELY THE PREVENTION OF FREE RIDING? And isn’t aristocracy

    IS PATERNALISM THEN, MERELY THE PREVENTION OF FREE RIDING?

    And isn’t aristocracy familial paternalism, tribal paternalism, national paternalism?And isn’t the suppression of lying a parental, communal, and aristocratic necessity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 02:58:00 UTC