Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • YES FASCISM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL TOOL OF WAR (read this or remain stupid) —“Curt,

    YES FASCISM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL TOOL OF WAR

    (read this or remain stupid)

    —“Curt, would you still say fascism possesses a useful albeit temporary function?”—Robert Harris Scott Hayes

    Fascism has an EXCEPTIONAL short term function. It is a means of marshaling every resource in a nation for war on all fronts: military, trade, economic, financial, cultural, religious and informational.

    But it’s as costly as war over the long term. It is a means of warfare. Just as an army is an authoritarian means of organizing a people for physical war, and investing in certain commercial sectors is a means of organizing people for trade and economic war, and organizing credit for financial war….. Fascism allows us even to organize INFORMATION for the purpose of warfare. And that is what the Fascist generation did.

    War is war.

    But we do not fight the last battle just because we understand the tactic. Today we have a different tactic. We have a very very very fragile civilization that has been at war for a century or more with the cosmopolitan financial vision of managing the world for their benefit rather than each nation using financial, legal, cultural, and informational institutions to advance each nation WITHOUT exporting capital to others – by PREVENTING the parasitism of the cosmopolitan order we live under.

    Fascism isn’t necessary because fascism is DISCRETIONARY. We can do the SAME THING without putting a dictator in charge. We can simply starve out the other side by cutting off their means of funding.

    1) direct redistribution of fiat liquidity to citizens.

    2) demand for warranty of due diligence upon truthfulness (testimonialism) for all speech of all forms in the commons.

    3) revocation of the copyright and institution of involuntary creative commons.

    4) require sponsorship and full warranty of all costs for any immigrant, and rolling back the 64 immigration act, as well as the 14th and all related judgements.

    5) addition of voluntary and involuntary disassociation without limit.

    I can lengthen this list but it is unnecessary. The first three will end globalism, the academy, the media, the entertainment business, and vague statements from the politicians in short order.

    Whether you understand these things or not, they will destroy the cosmopolitan attack on western civlization in months.

    Because they may shame us and harm our status and employability. But we will prosecute, judge, and hang them.

    Dead people can’t propagandize and lie.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:40:00 UTC

  • AS A SOVEREIGN-IST I’M AN EGALITARIAN (merit) NOT AN EQUALITARIAN (without merit

    AS A SOVEREIGN-IST I’M AN EGALITARIAN (merit) NOT AN EQUALITARIAN (without merit)

    —“Classism is just as exclusionary as racism and sexism.”—Fredrick George Welfare

    And? so what? I didn’t say I’m not exclusionary, I said I’m a eugenicist – because it is the only criteria of decidability that is logical at the epistemological limits of perception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-18 17:33:00 UTC

  • DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO. THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE

    DO WE NEED THE UNDERCLASSES TO FIGHT FOR US? NO.

    THIS IS GOING TO UPSET YOU THE AVERAGE IQ IS: 106. MEANING THE 65TH PERCENTILE. MEANING THE (GENETIC) WORKING AND MIDDLE CLASSES.

    So quite differently from what the underclass supposes, they are dead military weight as well as dead political weight, as well as dead economic weight as well as dead social weight. As far as I can tell, below 95, you’re dead weight on humanity, and any value you have in the military, political, economic, and social organizations of society is simply displacing the young and ignorant, and the old and tired from fulfilling work in the service of self and others.

    sure, it’s possible to do menial labor, and not be a problem, but basically below 95, everyone is dead weight. Why?

    95 to learn by (costly) repetition – and use machines and equipment.

    105 to learn by instruction – and to repair machines – and speak ideas clearly.

    115 (college) to learn by self reading

    125 (graduate) to learn by self investigation

    135 to interpret and distill information for others to learn by.

    145 to innovate purely in ideas.

    Honestly I can’t see a lot of difference over 145 in practical terms, because at that point it seems that your discipline, general knowledge, and time devoted to innovation are more influential than additional intelligence. (although I can be wrong). For example, i can tell that Hayek and I are similar in many ways, and I can tell that Chomsky and Wittgenstein have superior verbal abilities (substantially) – but they were both wrong. And when I read the works of other people I think are very bright It seems to me that they have more discipline than I do. (and less autism). So what does that mean?

    From what I can see, there is no reason why we could not breed up to 125 median without encountering consequences I do not yet know how to deal with. But my observation of english history and jewish history is that the closer you get to 115 median, the closer you get to social, economic, political, and military nirvana so to speak. I am not sure that without technological enhancements we do much better than that with homo sapiens sapiens.

    —“the military is the greatest middle class redistribution system in America”— (forget his name at the moment)

    VIA SAILER:

    —“Following the latest John Kerry brouhaha, a reader asked what the average IQ of U.S. military personnel is. From table 2.8 of the is Department of Defense document, I estimate that the average for new enlisted men in 1998 was about 105.

    This would be in the 60th to 65th percentile compared to all the young people in America when the Armed Forces Qualification Test was normalized in 1980 on the National Longitudinal Study of Youth’s sample of 13,000 people ages 15-23. (This is the same enormous study that provides the data in Section 2 of The Bell Curve.)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 19:17:00 UTC

  • CAN WE OUTLAW VIRTUE SIGNALING UNDER NATURAL LAW? by James Augustus Berens (flaw

    CAN WE OUTLAW VIRTUE SIGNALING UNDER NATURAL LAW?

    by James Augustus Berens

    (flawless)(perfect argument)

    Can we outlaw virtue signaling?

    Yes, it would be limited by default under symmetrical exchange (natural law).

    Virtue Signalling (modern): advocacy for asymmetric transfers of property without warranty, voluntary contract and/or full-accounting.

    If we suppress asymmetric transfers of property-en-toto, then we limit individuals to compete for signals in the market for goods and services, the market for norms, the market for producing and maintaining commons, and the market for defense and rule.

    We suppressed profiteering through interpersonal (in-group) violence (masculine), but we haven’t suppressed asymmetric profiteering from the production of gossip & [mis]information and by advocacy of involuntary transfers (feminine).

    So the problem isn’t so much that humans signal virtue, status and rank, but that we have yet to sufficiently limit the market for signals to warrantied, productive, fully-informed exchanges

    consisting of positive externalities.

    And we can either have an institutional solution (high trust/cooperative/centralized cost) by extending the purview of natural law to include the production of information, or we can re-introduce interpersonal violence (low trust/competitive/distributed cost) as means of re-masculinizing our dominance hierarchies; thereby shifting signals from the feminine, consumptive and dysgenic to the masculine, accumulative and eugenic—and by consequence restoring western aristocratic civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-14 03:35:00 UTC

  • PROGRAMMING IS AS IMPORTANT AS MATHEMATICS —“Programming should be part of bas

    PROGRAMMING IS AS IMPORTANT AS MATHEMATICS

    —“Programming should be part of basic education if for no other reason than to promote humility. Trying to write a program is like being Phil Connors in Groundhog Day – you fail at life, again and again and again… until you realize and accept responsibility for ALL the errors of your ways. In that way, being a good programmer is more about emotional resiliency than brilliant problem solving.”—Siraaj Khandkar

    Programming teaches you how little you know, and how precise you have to be. It teaches you just how often you don’t knw what you’re talking about, and neither do the other people you’re talking to, but because you’re all using words and ideas you don’t understand, but are using words and ideas that others do understand, you’re able to use conceptual tools like any other complex tool you don’t understand, but can still use for the purpose at hand.

    THE SERIES

    … Perception,

    … … Identity,

    … … … Arithmetic,

    … … … … Mathematics,

    … … … … … Logic,

    … … … … … … Programming(grammar),

    … … … … … … … Contract(reciprocity),

    … … … … … … … … Argument(rhetoric),

    … … … … … … … … … Communication (essay),

    … … … … … … … … … … Illustrating (literature),

    … … … … … … … … … … … Hyperbolic Illustration (mythology),

    … … … … … … … … … … … … Symbolic (arts).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-13 09:05:00 UTC

  • ***Christianity can be taught as myth, while removing the falsehoods by stating

    ***Christianity can be taught as myth, while removing the falsehoods by stating that it is myth and parable not history and truth.***

    —“All science relies on metaphor. The science of wisdom is no different. Metaphor and allegory contain truths in tangible terms that can be readily understood and applied. The problems are not so much with the group (church) but with the leaders (priests) who, given sufficient authority, seek greater means of control over the group. Lies are the means of control and control is necessary for ‘steering’ in a given direction. This is only necessary because the individuals of whom the group is comprised lack self-control…and, so, back to the message….a self-referencing feed-back loop.”— Lesley Keys

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-12 17:40:00 UTC

  • NAZI FANTASIES ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIBERTARIAN FANTASIES. THE CONDITIONS OF BO

    NAZI FANTASIES ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM LIBERTARIAN FANTASIES. THE CONDITIONS OF BOTH FANTASIES CANNOT BE REPLICATED. THE FUTURE REQUIRES NEW SOLUTIONS/

    Death camps. So what. If you convince the mainstream that the case is overstated that is not the same as saying the case is nonexistent.

    Nope. it would just shift. to ‘so what. it was still bad, and the nazis caused millions to die. It is just jerking off.

    You can read hitler’s writing and read his words, and it is nothing like jefferson’s, churchill’s, or even Marx’s, Trotsky’s or Lenin’s. He was well read. Intelligent. But he places a lot of ‘faith’ in that which he has no reason to. Becaues he was playing what’s called a ‘momentum’ game. He succeeded with it. But momentum in stocks is not the same as profits and productivity in industry. Eventually you’re screwed if you can’t convert it. Hitler didn’t have a plan. He had an ambition. And unable to construct a plan he created a momentum stock. Given that the german civilization could have achieved it on his behalf, given motivation and permission, well… he didn’t so much neeed it.

    You are, and others are, just trying to find an excuse to live in the past in a condition that no longer exists, rather than to construct a future, in the condition that it now exists.

    We can have the same aspirational aesthetic. WE can do it. But we cannot do it the way he did. Those conditions do not exist.

    So wasting time on Nazi arguments is NO DIFFERENT FROM WASTING THEM ON LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENTS.

    It’s the same ‘mental disease’.

    The future is one in which we produce an institutional set of solutions to our problem, and apply violence to enact them, and violence to prevent their reversal, and then we use activisim and those laws to end all competitors.

    we can win competitively. But we cannot win against desirable lies that can be acted upon by women and our underclasses.

    THE WEAK GRASP AT WHAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND. THE STRONG MAKE WHAT THEY WILL.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-11 10:27:00 UTC

  • there is nothing jesus said which is in conflict with Propertarianism. There is

    there is nothing jesus said which is in conflict with Propertarianism. There is a hell of a lot Justinian did, and a hell of a lot more the church did, that does conflict with Testimonialism.

    We need a church (A Sacred Commons). Jesus had a brilliant idea (Chrisitan Love). But we do not need a church that teaches babylonian submission to authority (Justinianism).

    Nor do we need an academy that seeks to create a new religion out of pseudoscience for the same authoritarian purposes as Justinian.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 15:31:00 UTC

  • a) the a priori is but a special case of the empirical, and the empirical a spec

    a) the a priori is but a special case of the empirical, and the empirical a special case of the testimonial.

    (b) one does not define a general case by a special. that would require that we ignore information available in the general.

    (c) one of the great fallacies of all time is that a subset of terms can be used to define itself. The fact that you (and many others) posit such things is not much different from the intentional design people positing things after the discovery and expansion of evolution.

    Testimonially speaking, the record of history consists of DEMONSTRATED preferences, and the literary record consists of REPORTED, and undemonstrated preferences. The difference between demonstrated truths and reported lies.

    In other words, just as literature claims only to be fantasy by which we can learn by analogy; Rational Philosophy claims to be that which it cannot be demonstrated (complete); and Theology claims to be that which is impossible to demonstrate (supernatural).

    As far as I can tell, pretty much all of philosophy proper is nonsense, wishful thinking, and deceit. The tradition broke between Supernatural Theology, Imaginary Platonism, and Demonstrated Aristotelianism -fairly early on.

    There are no answers there. Only the record of errors.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 15:27:00 UTC

  • GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION: SPEECH IS JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT BROUGHT TO MARK

    GOODS, SERVICES, AND INFORMATION: SPEECH IS JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT BROUGHT TO MARKET FOR PROFIT.

    —“If you derive monetary gain from so-called free speech, including the spoken word, text, graphics, audio, videos, cinema, and theatre – then you can be held to the same standard as any other profession is held to.” — JP Miller

    Exactly. If you derive money from your speech then you are using the market – and if using the market, we can demand you warranty your words like any other good, service, or information.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 17:13:00 UTC