Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Say There Was An Abolition Of Private Property In America Today. What Would Our Economy And The Crime Rate Look Like After 5 Years?

    The entire economy would immediately tank, the dollar would crash worldwide, and with it the dollar’s reserve currency, the world would plunge into recursive economic depressions, resulting in mass chaos, mass violence, civil and international wars.

    In the united states, we would run out of food in about three days. … I mean. It’s too horrible to even think about.

    People would ignore it, defend their property anyway, and civil war would rage and tens of millions would die.

    Nuclear weapons are not the only way to bring about armageddon.

    https://www.quora.com/Say-there-was-an-abolition-of-private-property-in-America-today-What-would-our-economy-and-the-crime-rate-look-like-after-5-years

  • YES OF COURSE THERE IS MORE SOCIAL MOBILITY IN EUROPE —“You do know that socia

    YES OF COURSE THERE IS MORE SOCIAL MOBILITY IN EUROPE

    —“You do know that social mobility in the USA is actually LOWER than in most of Europe right?”—

    That’s because europe is so much POORER that there are surplus movements available. (Really)

    For a variety of reasons, nearly everyone in america works in a capacity beyond his abilities, and peope who don’t can consume goods, services, and information beyond their productivity.

    Under those conditions, we should expect very little rotation.

    Europe is much poorer in every capacity, and as such, we should expect incomplete rotation.

    It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-10 05:19:00 UTC

  • Are There Any Good Arguments For White Supremacy Without Being Racist?

    If somehow acknowledging racial differences is ‘racism’ then no because you can’t even ask the question, and so you cant answer it either

    If ‘racism’ refers to treating an individual by the average properties of his race then that is a legitimate criticism of an illogical behavior.

    If ‘racism’ refers to criticism of the reproductive, cultural, political strategies of a competing group, rather than criticism of one’s inability to defend against the harm caused you by that group, then that’s illogical also.

    If ‘racism’ refers to a preference for nationalism or separatism in order to reduce conflicts between groups and improve the conditions of either by creating norms and institutions more suitable for each group’s differing wants and needs, then criticizing that is not rational.

    White ‘supremacy’ in nearly every field is simply a fact – although the reason for white success (the high cost of truth even if it may disrupt the dominance hierarchy, and therefore resulting in reason, debate, argument, common law, science, medicine, engineering, technology etc.

    White genetic supremacy does not appear correct. all racial groups both evolved in different geographical conditions and in doing so produced different levels of neoteny. With asians most, whites next, mixed colors next, and blacks last. The reason being that whites and asians have been in homogenous groups a long time, under agrarianism and have succeeded at selecting for neoteny. And secondly, because of the pressures of agrarianism and the winter seasons, the asians and western europeans have more successfully reduced the sizes of the ‘troublesome’ (underclass) population leaving almost the entire population descendent from the genetic middle class. Every other race and subrace has dominated warmer climates where the rate of maturity as a means of surviving a higher disease gradient requires earlier maturity and deeper maturity and therefore limited selection for neoteny.

    The superiority of europeans appears to be the result of a rather small set of noble families never exceeding a few hundred thousand in total population combined with a middle class majority population who expanded downward.

    So because europeans and asians lived in homogenous groups that were somewhat insulated from sun belt density of diverse and nomadic pastoral peoples, they were able to genetically select (not so much evolve) for superior populations. The differences between china and europe are largely that china started earlier. THe muslims were not able to cause a thousand year dark age in china like they were in Europe by collapsing the four major ancient civilizations and reducing them to sub 85IQ averages. But the west is faster than china in both teh ancient and modern worlds because of its institutions of ‘truthfulness’ instead of ‘face-saving’, which allowed the west to advance more quickly in both ancient and modern eras.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-good-arguments-for-white-supremacy-without-being-racist

  • The Oath of Transcendent Man

    A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Sovereignty The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Oath of Transcendent Man

    A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Sovereignty The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Reciprocity The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • WHY DOES CURT TALK TO ALL MANKIND RATHER THAN JUST WHITES? Any statement that is

    WHY DOES CURT TALK TO ALL MANKIND RATHER THAN JUST WHITES?

    Any statement that is universally true (reciprocity) cannot be stated as a particularism (true in the particular).

    I am not producing an ideology for the purpose of seizing power.

    I am producing a science that justifies the seizure of power by whatever ideology one chooses.

    I am happy that those of you who seek to rally by narrative have learned enough from my work to assist you in doing so.

    I am much more interested in producing a book, a constitution, an action plan, and a civil war, using a minority of ACTION oriented men, than a democratic movement of PERSUASIVELY oriented men.

    I am much more interested in causing the spread of a movement to every other country and civilization, than just to my own – I am producing the answer to marxism. An answer to the restatement of abrahamism in pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, and outright falsehood.

    So let each of us work with our demographic. The Evangelists with theirs(Moralism). The populists work with theirs (Ridicule), the scientists with theirs(Truth). The via positiva and literary with theirs; the via negativa and legal with ours.

    We do not need to be united on means, only upon ends. The classes cannot be united on means, only ends. The subraces cannot be united on means, only ends.

    I am just as concerned about every other people as I am with mine.

    Because I am certain that I can only save my people if I save all people from the second wave of abrahamism.

    There is but one cancer of the mind, and it is fictionalism, by which the genes of those lacking agency are fooled by means of suggestion that their reason cannot defend them from.

    End fictionalism, and Abrahamism. End abrahamism, we have only a thousand preferences upon a single truth to work from.

    I AM IN THIS FOR MYSELF MY KIN, MY PEOPLE, AND MANKIND.

    End abrahamism: End Fictionalism: The loading framing and overloading in all its forms.

    End lies to the people. Rule them truthfully or do not rule them at all. We are the inventors and purveyors of truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 10:22:00 UTC

  • The way to kill all feminist arguments is to just be honest. “If you want me to

    The way to kill all feminist arguments is to just be honest. “If you want me to treat you as an equal, then I will treat you as a man, and I would beat any man who spoke to me thusly. So my tolerance of your irrationalism, disapproval, ridicule, shaming and rallying, is only because you are a woman, and men do not expect truth, reason, and respect from women. We expect it from one another, and use violence against one another if we do not discourse with truth, reason, and respect. So by using irrationalism, disapproval, ridicule, shaming, and rallying you prove that you are inferior to men, and it is unseemly for men to beat children and females for the same reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 09:54:00 UTC

  • THE IMPOLITIC TRUTH: WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP SIGNAL ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE (in respo

    THE IMPOLITIC TRUTH: WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP SIGNAL ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE

    (in response to May, LePen, Clinton, Merkel)

    Women distribute wealth earned by the inventions and aggressions of men. Just as they do to children. They do not resolve conflicts. They do not invent solutions. They cannot lead. They cannot rule.

    Any organization with a woman at its helm, that is not in the business of redistributing wealth or servicing **signals of wealth redistribution** (health, beauty, fitness, fashion) is an indication of organizational failure, and the board’s inability to find a strategic solution to the condition: that the board and shareholders are merely preserving income streams as the organization declines.

    As far as I can tell, this rule is exceptionless. Entrepreneurial competition, economic competition, and political competition, are all warfare by the three means of coercion possible to man: remuneration(business), gossip(politics), and violence(war).

    And with few exceptions, women in charge of companies of any scale fit this rule. Women in politics fit this rule. and female defense ministers (in europe there are a lot of them) fit this rule.

    Women redistribute the wealth earned by the inventions and aggressions of men. If they are in a position to do that, it’s a luxury good. At some point we must understand that such luxury goods are merely *signal* goods that are the result of man-made goods, and not in fact – goods proper.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 07:55:00 UTC

  • Well, it’s just another version of Marxism, right? Central control of resources

    Well, it’s just another version of Marxism, right? Central control of resources by some self selected elite in order to pursue some end chosen by those elites?

    So instead of pursuing a worker revolution. Instead of pursuing equality under the law. Instead of pursuing equality of opportunity. Instead of pursuing equality of condition. Instead of pursuing equality of outcome. Instead of pursuing the end of class oppression, of economic oppression, of racial oppression, of gender oppression, and now of identity oppression, the left wants once again to control resources and opportunities they cannot demonstrate the ability to conceive, organize, and produce, they want that control *without* demonstrating merit?

    What record do democratic governments have of good choices? Any? What do good any governments that are in the lead do? Nothing. Government can drive change if the change is produced elsewhere and the people need to ‘catch up’. But they cannot know what hypothetical goods to pursue.

    And for that matter, who is of the opinion that we are already not enduring change faster than our minds, norms, cultures, philosophies, laws, and institutions can adapt to on empirical evidence? We can’t.

    We cannot know ‘the good’ other than by discovering something that works and determining what is good. The via positiva fallacy is that we can know what is good, other than what is bad.

    We can know what is bad. We can act via negativa to eliminate the bad, and devote resources only to the potential goods.

    We know the central ‘bad’: overpopulation by a vast world underclass.

    The central problem we face is the REDUCTION OF THE SCALE OF THE UNDER CLASSES.

    The rest of the opportunities are rapidly exploited by the private sector as fast as we can manage them. And the only ones they private sector can’t do is space exploration.

    No. So no. All this wisfhul thinking is nonsense. FInd something we are behind on that is already proven and government can do that. Find soething that the market CAN’T do that is basic reserach, and maybe that is ok.

    Otherwise, governement does one thing: pilfer as much as it can to distribute to cronies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 20:04:00 UTC

  • ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS (the koran licen

    ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS

    (the koran licenses terrorists)

    Christians and Jews went through the enlightenment and the reformation, and the legal and scientific revolutions. The evil in the west has been caused by the re-introduction of abrahamism (christianity, judaism, and islam) in the forms of Jewish Marxism, and French Postmodernism, and less so by Anglo Egalitarianism. And now we’re dealing with the only people who have failed to go through the enlightenment, and historicize, rationalize, and legalize their customs.

    So the point I’m making is that if you DON’T convert the Koran into uninterpretable (Decidable) propositions, then DE FACTO, all interpretation of the Koran IS IN FACT licensed by the Book, the religion, and all muslims.

    In other words, the jihadis and terrorists are in fact practicing Islam because it is possible to interpret islam from the book as such, because the inability to interpret islam in that way is not restated in a new version of the Book.

    And my argument is, that if it was restated, then it would be untenable for western authors.

    Which is why I suspect western authors will, as some of them have begun to, state the Koran in legal verse.

    We know that the book is a fabrication just as was the Jewish Bible, and the Christian Bible. We know the Koran was only Codified a century ago. We have begun producing an historical literature demonstrating that Mohammed is no more real a character than Jesus, Arthur, or Siegfried.

    We have not however converted it to a set of statements of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 12:16:00 UTC