Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Outstanding Issue of The Second American Constitution

    THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE OF THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTION The issue in the first american constitution was the exception of slavery. The issue in the second american constitution will be the exception of christianity. I’m just recording that this exception, like the first one, is necessary, but will lead to the same problems, without a continuation of the reformation of christianity. We have at least Religious, Fascist, Traditional, Constitutional, Ratio-economic, and Scientific ‘factions’ that we must satisfy in order to form a more perfect union. Mine must sacrifice tolerance for christian abrahamism, the fascists must tolerate monarchy via negativa instead of a strong man via positiva, and the christians must tolerate the protestantization of christianity as a folk religion, the ongoing decline (3rd Worlding) of the catholic church, and our inability to restore churches to control of family law and education because of their doctrine, in exchange for defense by the state, advocacy by the state, and competition between theological, moral, rational, and scientific practices of christianity and our ancient germanic and slavic religions of nature and the hearth. In exchange we all get restoration of our nation state(s), and the permanent destruction of the second abrahamic attack on western civilization – all civilization for that matter, by a monopoly religion of the state. HIERARCHY OF LAWS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION (TRUTH) … > Physical Laws … … > Heathen (Pagan) Law of War … … … > Natural Law of Cooperation: Reciprocity … … … … > Christian Law Of Investment in Cooperation

  • We Are the Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc

    WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC

    1. The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.

    2. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.

    3. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.

    4. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.

    5. Propertarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.

    What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the greeks and the romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.

  • We Are the Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc

    WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC

    1. The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.

    2. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.

    3. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.

    4. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.

    5. Propertarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.

    What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the greeks and the romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.

  • The National Socialism Question. It Won the 20 Th Right?

    THE NATIONAL SOCIALISM QUESTION. IT WON THE 20TH RIGHT? I know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now. My problem with supporting the NS political program is limited to the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time. So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top? NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians … … who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet … … but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization. There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents. But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector. This problem is easily rectified.

  • The National Socialism Question. It Won the 20 Th Right?

    THE NATIONAL SOCIALISM QUESTION. IT WON THE 20TH RIGHT? I know history is currently overturning the mythology but I want to address the National Socialist community for a moment, even if it’s politically incorrect for now. My problem with supporting the NS political program is limited to the strange german obsession with recreating a secular religion to replace the devotion of the catholic church. It’s in everything they do. It’s also why they’re the most moral people on earth most of the time. So this remains one of my most frustrating problems: the germans have pretty much always ‘been right’, throughout all of history. And I know why (customary law). Am I right that we must create this formal law, but that we must also produce a secular political religion on top? NS won the 20th right? I mean, that’s what China is practicing, and that’s what Russia wants to practice – if we’d let them. Democracy failed as always. Representative democracy failed as always. and the only decent countries are those with intact monarchies, or politicians … … who in practice act as monarchs rather than CEO’s. Now. I prefer a monarchy, under our traditional rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, with the purpose of the government the intergenerational persistence of family and nation. Where the monarchy appoints a cabinet … … but in english fashion, a jury of the people (or multiple houses acting as juries) approve or veto requests from the cabinet, which are all to be structured as contracts of the commons. This depoliticizes society, which has been a catastrophe for western civlization. There is precious little evidence that political competition does anything except undermine the nation. And by limiting people to voluntary means of cooperating, we deprive them of pursuit of rents. But given our historical mistake of not making the state treasury the bank of the realm, and separating credit to the people, with credit in business and industry, we allowed creation of rents against the people that belong to them in the first place, not to the finance sector. This problem is easily rectified.

  • No You Don”t Understand Ukraine. (Really)

    NO YOU DON”T UNDERSTAND UKRAINE. (REALLY) I don’t think any American who hasn’t lived in Kiev and talked with these people has the vaguest ideal how good the legislature and law is, but who owns the various judiciaries, and how corrupt the bureaucracy is, and it’s not because these are bad people, but because everyone is so poor, that it’s the only way to make a decent living: charging for government services. The Kremlin is far more byzantine than the Rada (parliament) and like the chinese communist party, far more a group of powerful families. Ukrainian power is outside of the government in the 40+ oligarchs (Gangsters), and they have more money than the state (and more men and guns). Putin could put down the Oligarchs in Russia with the Chechens, and the FSB, and so could the chinese with the red army but the conspiracy between moscow and kiev to undermine ukrainian military and bureaucracy so that they could restore the union of the two countries was so far along that once the revolution started, there is no possible way to put down the oligarchs, fight a war with russia in the east, and survive as a country without descending into internecine warfare. States need wealth for this reason. And every libertarian is completely unaware he’s advocating for the condition in Ukraine now and in the Pale in the past. Where do they think Rothbard, Rand and Mises got their ideas from? Useful idiots whether left, right, or libertarian. Edit

  • No You Don”t Understand Ukraine. (Really)

    NO YOU DON”T UNDERSTAND UKRAINE. (REALLY) I don’t think any American who hasn’t lived in Kiev and talked with these people has the vaguest ideal how good the legislature and law is, but who owns the various judiciaries, and how corrupt the bureaucracy is, and it’s not because these are bad people, but because everyone is so poor, that it’s the only way to make a decent living: charging for government services. The Kremlin is far more byzantine than the Rada (parliament) and like the chinese communist party, far more a group of powerful families. Ukrainian power is outside of the government in the 40+ oligarchs (Gangsters), and they have more money than the state (and more men and guns). Putin could put down the Oligarchs in Russia with the Chechens, and the FSB, and so could the chinese with the red army but the conspiracy between moscow and kiev to undermine ukrainian military and bureaucracy so that they could restore the union of the two countries was so far along that once the revolution started, there is no possible way to put down the oligarchs, fight a war with russia in the east, and survive as a country without descending into internecine warfare. States need wealth for this reason. And every libertarian is completely unaware he’s advocating for the condition in Ukraine now and in the Pale in the past. Where do they think Rothbard, Rand and Mises got their ideas from? Useful idiots whether left, right, or libertarian. Edit

  • Yarvin Version Two Part Three

    YARVIN VERSION TWO PART THREE Yarvin and Rothbard and Rand are Jewish, Hoppe german, Doolittle anglo. I don’t expect change in visions of the future. Mises, Popper, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Doolittle, we solved social science in what, four generations? After how many centuries?

    —“Eric Danelaw well you’re cringe too then hahah seriously tho how his is method of argument “jewish”? Also Hoppe is an ontological Liberal and Nick Land is too so they’re kinda silly”—Arrus Kacchi

    Really, what form of argument do Yarvin, Land, and Hoppe rely upon? Do they use Hindu mythical analogy, abrahamic theological, Jewish Critique, Confucian Reason, Continental Rational, German Phenomenological, Kantian Rational, Anglo Analytic, Anglo Ratio-empirical? They are just as different as theology, philosophy, law, and science. They are just as different as physics, chemistry, biology, and sentience. Does his suggested social order of ‘freedom’ reflect jewish diasporic, german free cities, Anglo Rule of Law, European National Socialism, Russian Oligarchical, or Chinese hierarchical oligarchy, or Hindu communal? I never disagree with nick, or curtis, or hans on criticism or goals – we all criticize using our cultural methods of analysis, we all propose solutions our culture is familiar with. Hoppe identified property as the unit of measure of social science, but not commons as necessary for survival of a polity able to produce the institution of property. Hayek worked thru economics then finally identified law and commons, and extended commons to information. I took hoppe and hayek (and popperian falsification and united them) and in my understanding, I completed the project of a system of measurement for the social and political sciences. Curtis identified the migration of the church state complex, to the military state industrial complex, to the academy, media, state complex. I identified the problems of law and economics. What is different about these findings? Yarvin “talk and belief” (jewish or truthfully, female ‘words and belief’), Hoppe morality as empirical (german moral, ‘intuitions and norms’), I identified the operational problem (finance, economics and law ‘actions’. ) All of us come from gene pools and cultures or subcultures and we cannot escape them. Because we are raised on moral foundations in families that persist moral foundations, and those moral foundations contain metaphysical paradigms, goods, bads, orders, rights and wrongs. This is why moral differences between cultures persist in the USA (and judaism and islam and christianity and every other religion) across generation. No one is immune. Just as you and I are not. The only way to increase your immunity is through comparative analysis of the techniques of different civilizations to produce different arguments with different objectives.

  • Wisdom Literature Good and Bad

    WISDOM LITERATURE GOOD AND BAD Wisdom literature is necessary. Fairy Tales, Myths, Legends, all use unknown forces to educate us. That’s just different from using wisdom (advice) as truth (decidability). One cannot deduce in argument from such premises. But one can seek counsel, and give counsel with wisdom. It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less broad, General Rules for narrower, Law for narrower, science for narrower, and math for narrowest. This range allows us graceful increase and decrease in precision – or dishonestly, to obscure precision. We must only know whether we are using the sufficient degree of precision for the question, whether we lack information for, or are ignorant of, further precision, or whether we are obscuring greater precision for dishonest purposes. Theology uses all three – unfortunately.

  • Truth Before Face

    TRUTH BEFORE FACE (sensitive but true topic warning) (this is advanced political theory, read at your own risk) Postmodernism(Political Correctness, Denial of Cultural Racial and Class Differences) and Feminism(Denial of Gender Differences) are attempts to undermine the uniqueness of western civilization’s MALES. Males who speak Truth before Face, Truth Regardless of Status, Truth Regardless of offense; Truth regardless of the Competence Hierarchy, Truth regardless of the Dominance Hierarchy. The entirety of our way of life, Rule of Law, Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Jury and the reason, science, and technology that arose from it, are dependent upon the ond thing western men do that no other people do: and that is to report and report alone by speaking martial, empirical, testimonial, truth before face – anyone’s face – regardless of cost to self or others. This is the highest cost an individual can pay for his civilization. And institutionalizing it has only been done once: at the origins of western civilization, thousands of years ago. Why the change: women cannot bear it, that is why they are easy victims and practitioners of feminism and postmodernism. Women fight one another by undermining with words. So among women, because they have had so little time in the public sphere, truth before face has not been institutionalized. And just as women were sold christianity in the ancient world, they have been sold postmodernism and feminism in the modern world. And because they (a) spend 80% of the income (b) spend the majority of money (on unscientific non-STEM courses) in university, (c) consume 80% of tax revenues, (d) white women are the only group that defects against their males, and vote against truth before face, against meritocracy, and against defense of the commons from consumption. They have the entire Cathedral Complex (State, Academy, Media, Finance) working to cater to their denial, and doing so by degradation of men, truth before face, rule of law, and the entire western edifice that has made women’s freedom from labor and servitude possible. We spent millenia outlawing male anti-social behavior, but we have ceased outlawing female anti-social behavior, and face before truth, denial, and undermining are anti-social behaviors that must, like violence, be equally suppressed. That’s what our Natural Law did, and that’s what it must do again. It’s a test of Reciprocity: If men may not undermine by violence and force, women may not undermine by denial, gossiping, rallying, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, ridiculing, and will limit themselves to truthful reciprocal speech, not disapproval and undermining as a substitute for truthful speech. If not then men will return the favor with their method of undermining, and then both genders lose.