Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING

    ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING TREES FOR THE LIARS.

    No we are not having a constitutional convention.

    1) Liberals have destroyed the constitution’s rule of law by arguing that we can pass whatever laws we want. The 14th amendment alone invalidated the constitution. What damage wasn’t done then was done by the income tax. What wasn’t done then was done by Roosevelt’s threat to stack the supreme court if we didn’t enact social security. If we can pass abortion, gay marriage, and obamacare, and if we have circumvented the amendment and convention process, then rule of law no longer exists. the government exists only out of habit, and simply hasn’t created enough discord to cause a revolution – until now.

    2) So lets just skip yet another leftist lie. There is no united states any longer, because there is no constitution any longer, because there is no rule of law any longer, because the liberals destroyed rule of law in order to destroy the united states by achieving through immigration of the third world against the will of the people in order to destroy the united states by an act of fraud..

    3) So here is what we suggest: the moment you call for a convention you’re declaring war. And we WANT a war. We love war. It is our greatest achievement after truth.

    We can agree that the undesirable states with the immigrant cities leave the union, freeing us from generations of accumulated debt and expense, and cultural and genetic conquest. Preserving the government.

    Or we can remove all federal legislation and return it to the states, and dissolve the supreme court, the congress and the presidency, leaving only the Military, the Treasury, and The Insurer of Last Resort, to be managed by a board of the governors.

    Or we will end the united states and devolve into separate regional polities that reflect regional cultures, and abandon the federal government entirely, returning all powers and functions to the regions or states.

    Or we can start a civil war, kill as many of each other and the members of the government that we can – and let the chips fall where they may.

    But what we will NOT do is allow the liberals to use the pretense of rule of law to engineer a conquest of our people, culture, and territories We’ll kill all of you first – and revel in it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-06 18:45:00 UTC

  • WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT. W

    WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT.

    Women are capable of understanding rationality. I believe they require different kinds of education from men to achieve rational perspective.

    The problem for women is finding a man that they can trust to provide the instruction. Usually this comes from experience talking with good fathers and brothers.

    Contemporary education consists merely of exercises in social conformity for women, hence the ease with indoctrinating them with socialist propaganda in university courses.

    In conversations on politics and society, conservative women always speak of the opinions of their father and husband with great frequency, they respect these men highly and thus integrate their perspectives.

    I don’t see the problem as women, the true problem is the feminization of men thus creating a society of weak fathers and husbands/boyfriends who validate the emotions of their daughters and wives/girlfriends instead of correcting them through assertive rational instruction on these topics.

    If we have good fathers, brothers, and husbands, women’s will be rational. Just as if we have good women men will be rational.

    We’ve done the opposite.

    Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 13:59:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY???? EXCELLENT QUESTION! 1) the majority of societ

    Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY????

    EXCELLENT QUESTION!

    1) the majority of societies allowed for polygamy of one sort or another, but the problem is:

    i) women are damned expensive. so few men can afford them.

    ii) most of the time it exists to absorb excess women for home and farm labor because of a shortage of men due to warfare, much like taking in relatives or god-children. WE forget that through most of history, people died a lot.

    iii) because of the nature of women’s characters they tend to form a hierarchy. There is always a ‘first wife’. And women seem to kill one another in polygamous marriages pretty often.

    iv) normies really, really, really, do not like it in their ‘midst’ because it provides a malincentive to men. Flip it around and having a second wife you fuck now and then (or don’t) is different from having a woman in your midst who you fuck instead of your wife. So polygamy is rarely what we assume it would be through our modern senses. It’s either a means of increasing your children so that you can hold together a monarchy, a sign of ostentatious wealth to display your status and power, a means of supplanting household and farm labor, a means of absorbing excess females, or a means of obtaining additional household sex and labor without discrediting your first wife. The mormon thing is an outlier (because there were a lot of mormon women and not many men) but unfortunately it’s our first reference point.

    v) we aren’t poor enough any longer that people prefer that type of arrangement over having their own apartment and ‘fooling around’. In other words, women have a demonstrated preference for not engaging in polygamy. In fact, as far as we know, humans (out of evolutionary necessity) seem to naturally gravitate to serial marriages. And if the law assisted us in that by eliminating the pretense of permanent marriage and eliminating common marital property (using merely powers of attorney for certain affairs) then we might be able to return to serial marriage more easily. And economically and socially and legally it seems the right answer.

    2) it’s still pairing off: There is still a market exchange made. Otherwise it’s slavery.

    3) if it’s an assigned marriage that violates natural law. The purpose of assigned marriage was traditionally to keep property in the family in propertied civilizations, or to preserve and build family networks prior to propertied civilizations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 11:40:00 UTC

  • YES THE LEFT SEES ALL COMPARISON, JUDGEMENT, REASON, AND SCIENCE AS FASCISM. (wh

    YES THE LEFT SEES ALL COMPARISON, JUDGEMENT, REASON, AND SCIENCE AS FASCISM.

    (what they mean is ‘eugenic’)

    Under natural law, we produce natural eugenics, natural hierarchies, natural distributions, and we adapt to the environment by expressing the genes we need in that environment. If we apply natural law to information, just as we have to actions, products and services, then that means the left can no longer lie. In other words, what the left perceives as ‘fascism’: judgement, does in fact exist for them.

    However, the left is easier to understand as a herd of cows eating grass: they just want to eat what is in front of them like everyone else in the herd, and they view reason, comparison, judgement, as an attempt to deprive them of the grass in front of them.

    Once you realize that this is just another symptom of the herd strategy of women, you realize that when we are dealing with the left we are not dealing with sentient creatures.

    The left is to treated as any other domesticated animal, and not quite human. For a human engages in comparison, reason, and judgement.

    We always herded our women. We herded and domesticated animals. We domesticated plants. We domesticated tribes, and nations. But among the people of the world – our own, and those that are not our own, we have not completed the process of domestication.

    And we let pandora out of the box with democracy and inclusion of women.

    Women are in fact the source of decivilization.

    The men who are undomesticated are merely an ongoing expression of the fact that it is harder to domesticate women, and some lines of women may not in fact be domesticatable. They remain animals. Creatures of impulse not comparison, reason, and decidability.

    I realize how heretical this is but it is what it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 13:13:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRATIC SOVEREIGNTY IN FACT, AND BOURGEOISE

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARISTOCRATIC SOVEREIGNTY IN FACT, AND BOURGEOISE LIBERTY BY PERMISSION?

    (good argument against parasitic rothbardians, and libertarians who have not yet ‘come over’.)

    All talk of rights is the equivalent of all talk of god’s demands. Nonsense. Rights are created as the end result – the effect. What are they the result of?

    (a) Sovereignty is testably true or false, and is a condition created by nothing other than the capacity to oppose impositions against one’s possessions by retaliation with violence. Sovereign men = legislatures of one.

    (b) A condition of liberty is obtained by permission of those who are sovereign. And the history of liberty is the history of begging the sovereign for a limited imitation of sovereignty that we call liberty. Liberty is granted by sovereign men to unsovereign men so that they may be taxed for profit.

    (d) among sovereign men, and those dependents who one grants liberty, the only means of preserving sovereignty and liberty is to resolve disputes by natural, judge discovered, common law of no-imposition: non-provocation of retaliation, against property-in-toto: the investments of the other.

    (e) The sovereign minority creates liberty for the dependent minority who holds liberty by permission, in exchange for producing commissions earned by the sovereign that those who possess liberty do not pay.

    (f) There exist moral fees and immoral fees. But if the fees are moral (productive ends) then *all moral taxes are moral* so to speak.

    (g) we are not equal, unless we are equal in sovereignty. We are only equal in sovereignty in a militia of reciprocally insured men.

    (h) and reciprocally insured men have by their action created a commons which we call property rights and the court of common law: a right constitutes an insurance claim upon the promise of reciprocity between and enforced by sovereign men.

    THEREFORE

    1) the scope of ones possessions and interests one claims reciprocal insurance of in order not to retaliate, break the peace and harm the market, and produce retaliation spirals, is limited only by the range of investments sovereign men make in the market that they have constructed by the use of violence to prohibit parasitism and create increases in trade from which they profit.

    2) The entire libertine corpus consists of whining and begging to obtain the benefits of a market created by others, while escaping the costs. in other words libertarianism is an elaborate excuse to free ride upon the commons just as socialism is an elaborate excuse to free ride on private production. just another fraud in obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 07:38:00 UTC

  • On CalExit

    The International challenges we face are due to our status as empire. End the empire, focus on local culture and people. Secede. The only value of Geographic scale is the military tax base. The USA is not a country it is an empire. End it. Devolve to Regions. There is no advantage to territorial scale if different regions cannot pursue cultural and legal preferences that they seek. The USA has two strategies to avoid civil war: exit California and leave the rest, or exit Texas and take heartland with it. Without California and Quebec, both the USA and Canada would remain Nationalist, ‘Heartland’ nations. California does the same damage to the rest of American that Quebec does to the rest of Canada. Not all compromises are beneficial.

  • On CalExit

    The International challenges we face are due to our status as empire. End the empire, focus on local culture and people. Secede. The only value of Geographic scale is the military tax base. The USA is not a country it is an empire. End it. Devolve to Regions. There is no advantage to territorial scale if different regions cannot pursue cultural and legal preferences that they seek. The USA has two strategies to avoid civil war: exit California and leave the rest, or exit Texas and take heartland with it. Without California and Quebec, both the USA and Canada would remain Nationalist, ‘Heartland’ nations. California does the same damage to the rest of American that Quebec does to the rest of Canada. Not all compromises are beneficial.

  • MORE NON-AGGRESSION FALLACY SUPPRESSION —-“1. Against someone who initiates ag

    MORE NON-AGGRESSION FALLACY SUPPRESSION

    —-“1. Against someone who initiates aggression.”—-

    (libertarian fallacy by suggestion)

    It’s like saying the sky is blue. Aggress is a verb. like “act”. Its meaningless unless you define the noun that functions as the predicate: the scope of what we tolerate retaliation against aggressions against.

    The fact that so many people are suckers for this rhetorical fallacy says volumes about human cognitive bias. Aggression = Bad, non Aggression=Good, but only if you are in kindergarten.

    The problem of ethics lies in determining what empirically causes people to retaliate no matter what we agree to, what normative contracts we invest in, and what commons we invest in, and of those three categories, what transgressions they will insure by formal punishment, formal restitution, formal penalty, informal boycott or disassociation, informal shaming, or interpersonal shaming.

    Another strange cognitive bias is the common impulse that the subject matter (conflict resolution) that has empirically driven the evolution of the common law of torts for over two thousand years; is the origin of philosophical reason in the ancient world, rationalism in the medieval, empiricism in the modern, and science of late, should somehow be a matter of personal introspection by the common folk rather than empirical science by masters of the craft.

    In other words, why does the average person feel capable of issuing pronouncements on ethics any more than structural engineering, the structure of space time, protein folding or algebraic geometry?

    Yet we know the reason: because we are not trying to discover the truth when we speak of ethics. We did not evolve to tell the truth, or science would not have taken us over two thousand years to develop. Instead, our genes are telling us to negotiate, influence, and lie on their behalf. And we are faithful servants of their influences.

    Man is a rational animal. He is not moral or immoral but moral or immoral when it suits him. And his definition of ‘moral’ is whatever suits his reproductive strategy at the moment. This is why genders and classes, nations, tribes and races all state that moral truths favor their genetic advancement over the genetic advancement of others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 18:09:00 UTC

  • if you submit to mysticism you have abandoned reason. if you abandon reason you

    if you submit to mysticism you have abandoned reason. if you abandon reason you are no longer capable of rational cooperation. if you are no longer capable of rational cooperation then you are not longer human.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-23 13:24:00 UTC

  • So, as far as I know, you are always a slave as long as you are dependent upon o

    So, as far as I know, you are always a slave as long as you are dependent upon other people’s efforts to survive.

    1 – Undomesticated animal

    2 – Slave (no rights)

    3 – Serf (rights to some of the proceeds of labor)

    4 – Employee/Freeman (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons) – Rule of Law

    5 – Manager ( rights to property, rights to proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility for the organization of others in their production )

    6 – Investor (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons, responsibility to determine the utilization of scarce resources among various managers )

    7 – Ruler (rights to property, rights to the proceeds of labor, responsibility for contribution to commons,responsibility to create some combination of voluntary or involuntary organizations of defense, production, distribution, and trade, that make investment, management, employment, serfdom, slavery possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 14:55:00 UTC