Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • Q: “How Is P-Law Different from Any Other?”

    (important) (core)

    —“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty

    GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.

  • Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    Feb 7, 2020, 7:52 AM Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    —“There is not a single example throughout human history that you can point to to prove that formula wrong over any extended period of time. It’s been tried, it always fails.” —JC Trott

    —“Multiculturalism is a euphemism for multiracialism. Multiculturalism doesn’t work and will never work. Countries have been organized on the basis of race since the dawn of civilization. A nation is a group of people living in a region who share a common race, language, and religion. Most of the world’s countries are ethnostates: Japan, China, Israel, multiple black countries in Africa, and multiple Arab Muslim countries in the ME. Only in white countries is “diversity” or “multiculturalism” being pushed, and that is because non-whites want to enjoy the safety and prosperity of white society. But they will necessarily destroy it if they come en masse. Therefore, whites are in the unique position of having to forcibly stop third-world invaders and remove those already here. If they do not, their white societies will be lost. And Jewish people are leading the propaganda campaign against whites from doing so, both by demonizing those who already advocate this as “racists” and by stupefying those who haven’t awakened with their “diversity is our strength” brainwashing. People aren’t flooding into Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, or Egypt en masse from other parts of the world. They are only doing this into the West (white countries). “—John Morrison

  • Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    Feb 7, 2020, 7:52 AM Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    —“There is not a single example throughout human history that you can point to to prove that formula wrong over any extended period of time. It’s been tried, it always fails.” —JC Trott

    —“Multiculturalism is a euphemism for multiracialism. Multiculturalism doesn’t work and will never work. Countries have been organized on the basis of race since the dawn of civilization. A nation is a group of people living in a region who share a common race, language, and religion. Most of the world’s countries are ethnostates: Japan, China, Israel, multiple black countries in Africa, and multiple Arab Muslim countries in the ME. Only in white countries is “diversity” or “multiculturalism” being pushed, and that is because non-whites want to enjoy the safety and prosperity of white society. But they will necessarily destroy it if they come en masse. Therefore, whites are in the unique position of having to forcibly stop third-world invaders and remove those already here. If they do not, their white societies will be lost. And Jewish people are leading the propaganda campaign against whites from doing so, both by demonizing those who already advocate this as “racists” and by stupefying those who haven’t awakened with their “diversity is our strength” brainwashing. People aren’t flooding into Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, or Egypt en masse from other parts of the world. They are only doing this into the West (white countries). “—John Morrison

  • Pay People to Accelerate the Big Sort at The Cost of The State, Academy, Finance, Entertainment Industries

    Feb 7, 2020, 2:56 PM I (we) hold the position that (a) we should be pursuing rights to self determination, and our way of life, and that requires arms just as others require faith. (b) We are tolerant of those that conform to our traditional group strategy, and are inclusive within that limit, but that integration on a scale of other than middle and upper middle class christians (Black, Hispanic, Asian) has failed, and that we will not leave a window open for repeating the failures of the 20th. Our strategy evolves. My strategy at present is to push rights. Move to the center on those rights, but be intolerant regarding policy and rights, which will drive our better people to us, and cause separation on demand for commons that will happen to be those preferred by our people. My understanding from the historical evidence everywhere is that if we create a separate union on our terms, then the best will depart leaving the blue cities ghettos with an elite that exploits them but cannot exploit the middle, and that new cities will replace the commercial them. As I’ve said, by merely emptying DC as a power center, and gutting new york as a financial center, and disemboweling the media’s income stream, we will achieve our goals. The reason this will work is that we are going to buy off left right and center middle with the returns on redistributing all that wealth. So to repeat the strategy for those that aren’t on board with it, we offer a deal that is full of desirable ideas and then turn the population against the real enemy. At that point they will double down like all humans and give us moral license to us both left and right activists and ‘divide the spoils’.

  • Pay People to Accelerate the Big Sort at The Cost of The State, Academy, Finance, Entertainment Industries

    Feb 7, 2020, 2:56 PM I (we) hold the position that (a) we should be pursuing rights to self determination, and our way of life, and that requires arms just as others require faith. (b) We are tolerant of those that conform to our traditional group strategy, and are inclusive within that limit, but that integration on a scale of other than middle and upper middle class christians (Black, Hispanic, Asian) has failed, and that we will not leave a window open for repeating the failures of the 20th. Our strategy evolves. My strategy at present is to push rights. Move to the center on those rights, but be intolerant regarding policy and rights, which will drive our better people to us, and cause separation on demand for commons that will happen to be those preferred by our people. My understanding from the historical evidence everywhere is that if we create a separate union on our terms, then the best will depart leaving the blue cities ghettos with an elite that exploits them but cannot exploit the middle, and that new cities will replace the commercial them. As I’ve said, by merely emptying DC as a power center, and gutting new york as a financial center, and disemboweling the media’s income stream, we will achieve our goals. The reason this will work is that we are going to buy off left right and center middle with the returns on redistributing all that wealth. So to repeat the strategy for those that aren’t on board with it, we offer a deal that is full of desirable ideas and then turn the population against the real enemy. At that point they will double down like all humans and give us moral license to us both left and right activists and ‘divide the spoils’.

  • The Choice of Values Is a Luxury Good Produced by Your Polity

    Feb 10, 2020, 8:36 PM When you say you hold X values:

    (a) What are you not accounting for and not accounting for? (b) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative, ‘if everyone did that then’? (Which is just the same as the conservative intuition). (c) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties within your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (d) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties external to your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (e) So again, what are you accounting for, or failing to account for? Values only matter within the limits of the market for tolerance of them in the circumstance – in other words, values are a luxury good produced by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality within the limits of the available geography, ecology, political ecology, economy, location, and time and space. Demands (Necessities) vs Preferences (Values)

  • The Choice of Values Is a Luxury Good Produced by Your Polity

    Feb 10, 2020, 8:36 PM When you say you hold X values:

    (a) What are you not accounting for and not accounting for? (b) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative, ‘if everyone did that then’? (Which is just the same as the conservative intuition). (c) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties within your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (d) How does your opinion hold up against the kantian imperative in competition with hostile parties external to your polity intent on depriving you of your choice or preference? (e) So again, what are you accounting for, or failing to account for? Values only matter within the limits of the market for tolerance of them in the circumstance – in other words, values are a luxury good produced by reciprocity within the limits of proportionality within the limits of the available geography, ecology, political ecology, economy, location, and time and space. Demands (Necessities) vs Preferences (Values)

  • The Right to Self Determination

    Feb 11, 2020, 5:34 PM We either have the right to self determination – or we have the right to extermination. So choose. (I’m happy either way.) Genomes, genetic distributions, institutions, culture, traditions, norms, manners, ethics, morals, laws, history, myth, legend, monuments, territory, are all assets. Some assets are valuable. Some are not. Some are harmful. If we choose to preserve an asset, we do so. 1) We know that moral intuition is genetic, sex biased, and that only trauma can change it – even then only slightly. We know that all traits are somewhere between 70-80% heritable and the rest is idiosyncratic accumulation rather than patterns of environment. 2) We know that class is genetic, with lower classes accumulating more loads (defects), upper middle the fewest, and aside from noble families, the upper classes random lottery results from the middle – but otherwise there is little to no class rotation. 3) We know that moral biases reflect female (herd, infant-equality, devotion, consumption) strategy and the male (pack, mature-hierarchy, loyalty, capitalization) instinct and that females use social superpredation by undermining, and males political superpredation by violence. 4) We know that each of us is born with a bias in female (lateral breadth) vs male(longitudinal velocity) brain structures, and that the stereotype of male analytic and female empathic is physical construction, and that given freedom to do so we pursue interests fitting our bias. 5) We know that at present we are wealthy enough to want to diverge by the female, empathic, equalitarian, consumptive, infantilized, and underdeveloped strategy and some by the male, analytic, hierarchical, capitalizing, and mature strategy. And so we must separate or civil war. 6) Because while you are of the opinion that you reason, you have very little agency. And if you did, and you had knowledge, you would know that the female strategy is dysgenic, the left’s strategy is dysgenic, and standard of living is dependent on the center of the distribution. 7) So if you want to feel harmony in suicide and bring about another dark age of ignorance, this time with social construction of the myth of possible equality, the only result of which will be dysgenia and decline – we are fine with it. But you can’t take the rest of us with you. 8) Some of us are more than semi domesticated animals sensing, perceiving, feeling, experiencing intuiting, and responding to incentives to hyper consume. And some of us are willing to let you turn your cities into dysgenic favelas. Which is what we plan to let you do.