Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Anarchism cannot survive

    Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.

  • Anarchism cannot survive

    Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.

  • MORON QUESTION OF THE DAY. —“What’s your position on mixing?”— Which questio

    MORON QUESTION OF THE DAY.

    —“What’s your position on mixing?”—

    Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost?

    As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people.

    As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples.

    As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples.

    As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples.

    DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE

    But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so.

    RECIPROCITY

    But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me.

    Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his.

    Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his.

    NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION

    Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear.

    All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended.

    Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate.

    CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR

    You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself.

    Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers.

    Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools.

    ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:56:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVERE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend

    There are only three conditions:
    1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions).
    2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions).
    3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification.

    And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria.

    The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly)

    The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”).

    I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch.

    Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry).

    (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:21:44 UTC

  • REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN) —“What legal grounds can the

    REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend

    There are only three conditions:

    1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions).

    2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions).

    3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification.

    And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria.

    The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly)

    The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”).

    I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch.

    Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry).

    (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 10:21:00 UTC

  • “Genetic deviation between groups is smaller than between individuals in the gro

    —“Genetic deviation between groups is smaller than between individuals in the group.”—

    That is a meaningless truism that easily fools the innumerate.

    – ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.

    – markets the optimum economic strategy.

    – eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.

    – neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.

    Very minor variations in group genes produce very profound group outcomes.

    It appears that a relatively small number of genes (in the thousands) produces 100% of the competitive variation between groups (symmetry, neoteny, dimorphism).

    Meanwhile we have no idea how much of the genome is used (functional), which expressed (conditional), which unused (reserve) or noise (dead).

    As such, “deviation between groups vs individuals” is in itself true but by implication a profound deception (fraud).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:11:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT John Mark “Xy

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
    John Mark

    “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.”

    Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement.

    As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:05:54 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE NATURAL LAW —“When we hear the sophist

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MORE NATURAL LAW

    —“When we hear the sophists claim that law is a social construct, they should be saying that legislation is a social construct?”— Steven Jackson

    Yes. Natural Law (Reciprocity). Law (judicial findings of irreciprocity), Legislation( Commands of Representatives given force of law), Regulation ( Commands of Bureaucracy), Discretion (Commands of Individuals).

    —“Natural law is not a construct but a reality that adapts to social conditions?”— Steven Jackson

    Natural law was ‘discovered’ as the universal method of decidability independent of individual and group differences in judgements, and from which there is no incentive for retaliation.

    Natural law (reciprocity) is the only condition under which both (a) cooperation is the necessary means of survival, reproduction, and flourishing, and (b) individuals cannot prey upon one another, and (c) it is in the self interest of the strong (and sovereign) to adhere to instead of predation, parasitism, and coercion.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:01:01 UTC

  • I don’t know what ‘essence’ means, but the failure to measure the full set of ca

    I don’t know what ‘essence’ means, but the failure to measure the full set of capital (cherry picking), and the violation of reciprocity is endemic. IOW, Aggregations(Correlations) vs Operations(Causations) to obscure measurement of capital transfers. I can’t be wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 18:15:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020009356274864128

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020001034574258176

    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/1020001034574258176

  • No More Lies. No More Abrahamism.

    a) there is no god other than the fictions we create as false appeals to authority that justify our ignorance. Gandalf is as much a god as zeus/jupiter, jeohva or allah – and noticeably of better character. Authur has been more influential on the common anglo man than jesus. In my understanding Aristotle is the father of western thought and his works (those that were not destroyed by the christians and muslims and jews) the only bible (book of wisdom) worth reading. The combination of aristotle, zeno, epicurious, and the stoics constitute the western tradition in rational form. (b) there is no infinite regress, since time has no meaning outside of any given universe. As far as we know the universe(s) are just bubbles of space-time constantly in disequilibrium, and existence has no meaning outside of a universe. To state that the universe must be temporally intuitive to man contradicts the findings of the sciences – both at pre and post human scales. We have consistently found that our presumptions of causality are counter to anthropological and anthropomorphic intuitions. (c) natural law (reciprocity) is an evolutionary necessity for any species that evolves the capacity for sympathetic, voluntary, cooperation. All other strategies are contrary to survival. (d) evidence is that all groups rely on reciprocity for the simple reason that it is universally decidable in matters of cooperation and conflict. (e) ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy given all other known and hypothesized strategies. (f) markets are the optimum group evolutionary strategy given all other known and hypothesized strategies. (g) markets accelerate with the continuous expansion of the suppression of parasitism under the the natural law of reciprocity. As far as I know these are logical necessiteis that have been demonstrated empirically (evidentially) in competition against alternatives.