Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE OF THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTION The issue in the first

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 11:25:00 UTC

  • OUR CONDITION (AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, LIBERTARIAN) (important) We still own the biz

    OUR CONDITION (AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, LIBERTARIAN)

    (important)

    We still own the biz cycle which is, as far as I know, the only substantial question of 21st century economics, and what we should be investigating and in the paradigm we should be investigating economics: the behavior of sustainable networks of specialization and trade.

    What we don’t do is call AE the Economics of Rule of Law of Reciprocity, or the Economics of Natural Law, or Operational Economics – we’d get farther with it if we did. These are descriptive names, not historical (arbitrary) names.

    When AE is framed as the economics of rule of law by natural law, then it is no longer an isolated fringe discipline, open to ridicule – and at the same time, but the one and only economics of that system of rule of law upon which western civilization originated, developed, depends. It frames (correctly) opposition paradigms as violations of reciprocity and natural law. It correctly identifies the production of commons by contract, even competing commons, rather than monopoly (majority rule) common (authoritarian) with the central problem of free-ridership remaining, but providing a market competition for free ridership via the state. And as such Rule of Law, AE, contractual commons, solve the problem of the malincentives of the state, by constraining commons to those of *demonstrated interest*.

    Unfortunately Rothbardians (including me as a Hoppeian) forever tainted AE – so much so that before the last crisis (before economics lost its influence to politics once again) leadership in the community (George Mason) considered changing the name once again (AE was originally disparagingly called Jewish Economics just as capitalism was a disparagement and ‘propertarian’ was a disparagement). And they should have – and we should.

    Like Randians, Rothbarians and many AE advocates are attracted to it, ignore the methods and findings of all other economic paradigms, fall for the sophomoric apriorism et al (german and jewish sophisms of Kantian rationalism and rabbinical pilpul), and are obsessively defensive of that malinvestment, in which they have constructed and invested their identity and moral framework, like any cult does. So many of these people are no different from the Marxists. Because these folk have treated AE as the economics of the private property commune, just like communists the economics of the common property commune: the pretense that an territory, polity, and economy can survive without the production of sufficient commons to (a) deny all opposition, (b) attract and retain sufficient population, (c) attract and retain sufficient revenues, to retain, population, defense, territory, political control sufficient to produce the institution of property and it’s juridical defense.

    We do not have the choice of determining the commons of polity we wish to have – the market does. The ideal isn’t possible. There are no borderlands to settle on behalf of an empire, that provides territorial defense at no cost in exchange for settlers to occupy it any longer. One must produce sufficiently competitive commons to maintain control of a polity on the terms one desires, or that polity will not survive competition in the market for territories and polities – just like every single other human organization from the family to the empire.

    You do not determine the scope of property necessary to preserve cooperation in lieu of violence, nor the scope of commons necessary to produce a polity that can survive competition in the market for polities.

    The market does.

    So you must start at the market demand and work backward to the polity that can successfully obtain and hold territory against competitors in the world at this moment and any future moment.

    Otherwise you’re a simpleton: a useful idiot to those who would undermine the only civilization ever to produce rule of law: European.

    And why I need state such an obvious series of necessary dependencies to a political ideology pretentiously advocating the logical contradiction between an operational law, attendant operational economics, dependent upon the economic productivity for its justification, and that of an ideal polity independent of market forces is simply beyond me – and a measure of what lengths the human mind will go to in order to escape reality on the one hand and free ride upon the production of commons by others, on the other.

    There is only one source of Sovereignty(Upper), Liberty(Middle), and Freedom(working), and that is the rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity, reciprocally insured by every man capable of bearing arms, in role of individual, sheriff, warrior, and judge of the commons, measured by the economics of rule of law of reciprocity, with the scope of property consisting of anything over which man can engage in dispute.

    Everyone else is engaging in yet another sophomoric pseudoscientific effort to assist in undermining the only people every to produce any order of sovereignty for all but the few, in all of human history.

    Thanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 10:39:00 UTC

  • SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Capitalism creates an economic market producing a war of all

    SOVEREIGNTARIANISM

    Capitalism creates an economic market producing a war of all against all. Socialism creates a political market producing a war of all against all. Rule of law by Reciprocity, Reciprocal insurance of Sovereignty, and paying the high cost of Heroism and Excellence, Truth and Duty, and Paternalism and Charity, create the optimum polity without the extremes of capitalism or socialism at the cost of total suppression of the irreciprocal and false, under that rule of law by reciprocity and reciprocal insurance.

    Reciprocal insurance of Sovereignty

    Rule of Law by Reciprocity

    Heroism and Excellence (Beauty)

    Truth and Duty

    Paternalism and Charity

    We create commons, accumulate capital, and its multipliers.

    The enemy consumes like locusts and creates only temporary economic velocity.

    These are very expensive commons because they require we trust one another to invest in a commons that will not be consumed – because every man is a father, sheriff, warrior, and if necessary, judge of the commons and will defend it.

    We must separate and return to speciation, or the consumption of accumulated material, institutional, informational, genetic, and planetary capital will be consumed by the enemy.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 08:46:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism Is Dead. And We Were All Useful Idiots for The Enemy

    LET’S GET DOWN TO IT. LIBERTARIANISM IS DEAD. AND WE WERE ALL USEFUL IDIOTS TO THE ENEMY

    —“Let’s just get down to it. … libertarianism simply means you don’t f*** with people and leave them generally alone so long as they’re not messing with anyone and doing things wrong to other people directly and intentionally. The free market is the most important thing outside of that. We support family values and other things only for the purpose of having able bodies to then contribute to the free market with their mind in the right place.”— Kevin Flynn

    ^The problem is, that’s like marxism, in that it specifies goals, not means of achieving them (a sequence of testable operations) or the means of sustaining them. So it’s like saying “i wanna feel good’. It doesn’t mean anything other than whatever nonsense the individual dreams up in his head. Thats why it works. It’s the abrahamic means of suggestion. You actually supply whatever the meaning is, because there is no content to supply meaning in the statements. So, let’s get down to it. Libertarianism either means rule of law by reciprocity that insures us all against conflict, where conflict consists of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (negatives), codified in tangible categories we call ‘property’ (positives), with MANDATORY contribution to the defense of rule of law from all enemies both external and internal that would seek to incrementally or radically impose violations of those interests, with the MARKET of competition for territory population and rule, determining the necessary mandatory contribution to the defense of that rule of law. Period. Either that’s your definition, or you’re just making up fantasy stories like communism. In fact, that is what you’re doing, and what most libertarians are doing, they are promoting common property marxism, instead of private property marxism. So no, “Lets Get Down To It” means libertarians are either demanding rule of law and contribution to the defense of it by reciprocal insurance of it, or they are just asking for communes with private instead of common property – which is exactly what the ‘inventors’ of left-propertarianism (leave me alone) indented you to think. There is no such thing as “libertarianism”. There is just rule of law and the production of commons sufficient to preserve it. Sovereignty, liberty, and freedom cannot be produced by any other possible means. Not Hoppe’s fantasy of recreating the German Free cities (by permission), or Rothbard’s dream of recreating the Pale of Settlement, or the Ghetto (by permission), or the dream of recreating the American frontier (by permission). There are no ‘borderlands’ left to settle on behalf of a state in exchange for defense but the ‘liberty’ to preserve local custom (which is the meaning of liberty.) So I’ll call out all libertarians as Useful Idiots of the enemy. Suckers. Ass Clowns. There is no such thing as Libertarianism any More than there is such a thing as it’s mirror image: communism. You’re either a Propertarian or a fucking idiot. And there isn’t any debate to be had. It’s not even open to discussion, only education. One has liberty by permission of a state. One has freedom by permission of an owner. One has sovereignty because a group of men are willing and able to deny other men of any practical scale, from imposing something other than rule of law by reciprocity upon them. LIBERTARIANISM CAN’T EXIST. It’s another false dichotomy like Socialism vs Capitalism. There is only rule of law and the property that results from it, and the commons necessary to defend it, or there is rule by man and all are subjects to those who rule, with the degree of liberty, freedom, or slavery imposed upon them against their will – for having FAILED to produce a condition of sovereignty. For this reason I call Propertarianism SOVEREIGNTARIANISM and I almost changed the name to it. And maybe I should have. Liberty consist of permission for those who live in border areas to have defense of superior peoples in exchange for temporarily holding territory – meaning, buying an option on territory – until sufficiently developed to rule, or sufficiently useful to exchange with a competitor. Libertarians are beggars like marxists. Sovereigntarians are OWNERS of their territory, polity, institutions, norms, traditions, and all commons under their domain. Libertarianism then is sophistry. We either are sovereigntarians descriptively, propertarians operationally, or absolute fking idiots practicing yet another sophomoric secular religion produced by the enemy, just like marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, and the three abrahamic religions – although, we gotta give christianity a pass having been so thoroughly germanicized into a folk religion. We are warriors. Or we are slaves. Choose.

  • Libertarianism Is Dead. And We Were All Useful Idiots for The Enemy

    LET’S GET DOWN TO IT. LIBERTARIANISM IS DEAD. AND WE WERE ALL USEFUL IDIOTS TO THE ENEMY

    —“Let’s just get down to it. … libertarianism simply means you don’t f*** with people and leave them generally alone so long as they’re not messing with anyone and doing things wrong to other people directly and intentionally. The free market is the most important thing outside of that. We support family values and other things only for the purpose of having able bodies to then contribute to the free market with their mind in the right place.”— Kevin Flynn

    ^The problem is, that’s like marxism, in that it specifies goals, not means of achieving them (a sequence of testable operations) or the means of sustaining them. So it’s like saying “i wanna feel good’. It doesn’t mean anything other than whatever nonsense the individual dreams up in his head. Thats why it works. It’s the abrahamic means of suggestion. You actually supply whatever the meaning is, because there is no content to supply meaning in the statements. So, let’s get down to it. Libertarianism either means rule of law by reciprocity that insures us all against conflict, where conflict consists of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (negatives), codified in tangible categories we call ‘property’ (positives), with MANDATORY contribution to the defense of rule of law from all enemies both external and internal that would seek to incrementally or radically impose violations of those interests, with the MARKET of competition for territory population and rule, determining the necessary mandatory contribution to the defense of that rule of law. Period. Either that’s your definition, or you’re just making up fantasy stories like communism. In fact, that is what you’re doing, and what most libertarians are doing, they are promoting common property marxism, instead of private property marxism. So no, “Lets Get Down To It” means libertarians are either demanding rule of law and contribution to the defense of it by reciprocal insurance of it, or they are just asking for communes with private instead of common property – which is exactly what the ‘inventors’ of left-propertarianism (leave me alone) indented you to think. There is no such thing as “libertarianism”. There is just rule of law and the production of commons sufficient to preserve it. Sovereignty, liberty, and freedom cannot be produced by any other possible means. Not Hoppe’s fantasy of recreating the German Free cities (by permission), or Rothbard’s dream of recreating the Pale of Settlement, or the Ghetto (by permission), or the dream of recreating the American frontier (by permission). There are no ‘borderlands’ left to settle on behalf of a state in exchange for defense but the ‘liberty’ to preserve local custom (which is the meaning of liberty.) So I’ll call out all libertarians as Useful Idiots of the enemy. Suckers. Ass Clowns. There is no such thing as Libertarianism any More than there is such a thing as it’s mirror image: communism. You’re either a Propertarian or a fucking idiot. And there isn’t any debate to be had. It’s not even open to discussion, only education. One has liberty by permission of a state. One has freedom by permission of an owner. One has sovereignty because a group of men are willing and able to deny other men of any practical scale, from imposing something other than rule of law by reciprocity upon them. LIBERTARIANISM CAN’T EXIST. It’s another false dichotomy like Socialism vs Capitalism. There is only rule of law and the property that results from it, and the commons necessary to defend it, or there is rule by man and all are subjects to those who rule, with the degree of liberty, freedom, or slavery imposed upon them against their will – for having FAILED to produce a condition of sovereignty. For this reason I call Propertarianism SOVEREIGNTARIANISM and I almost changed the name to it. And maybe I should have. Liberty consist of permission for those who live in border areas to have defense of superior peoples in exchange for temporarily holding territory – meaning, buying an option on territory – until sufficiently developed to rule, or sufficiently useful to exchange with a competitor. Libertarians are beggars like marxists. Sovereigntarians are OWNERS of their territory, polity, institutions, norms, traditions, and all commons under their domain. Libertarianism then is sophistry. We either are sovereigntarians descriptively, propertarians operationally, or absolute fking idiots practicing yet another sophomoric secular religion produced by the enemy, just like marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism, and the three abrahamic religions – although, we gotta give christianity a pass having been so thoroughly germanicized into a folk religion. We are warriors. Or we are slaves. Choose.

  • WHY WE NEED TO PEACEFULLY SEPARATE AND LET EACHOTHER GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS There

    WHY WE NEED TO PEACEFULLY SEPARATE AND LET EACHOTHER GO OUR SEPARATE WAYS

    There are only a few directions the brain can evolve:

    1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development).

    … a) developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in.

    … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin.

    … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume.

    The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions.

    2) sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development.

    The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk.

    We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females.

    Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men.

    Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure.

    One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused.

    SO WHAT DO WE DO

    We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to.

    We are simply able to afford specialization.

    It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:07:00 UTC

  • UNDERSTANDING MEN OF POWER AND WEALTH 1. Ordinary people cannot comprehend the i

    UNDERSTANDING MEN OF POWER AND WEALTH

    1. Ordinary people cannot comprehend the incentives or minds of men of achievement. The difference is unimaginable. A life lacking agency, and a life made from it produce very different understandings of the world, and possibilities within it.

    2. Just assume you don’t understand.When you pretend that you understand the motives of men of achievement you simply demonstrate that you lack agency sufficient to understand them. To a successful entrepreneur working in hostile markets, Trump is tediously obvious and practical.

    3. You have never had responsibility in corridors of power, where we do not make character judgements of others who are in power, we simply trade favors in order to accomplish our goals. So you are making the mistake that you understand the behavior of men of agency and ….

    4. …. achievement just like many women fail to understand politics. You attribute your emotions values and influence to men who do not share them, as they are of no value to them. Wealth gives independence from the negative, and different opportunities to the positive, but the limit ….

    5. … of wealth is influence. On must buy it somehow, and money is not as helpful once you have it, as influence necessary to change the priorities of others who likewise have money and influence. …

    6 … Power is a market with a currency consisting of the power to influence the priorities of others with power. When one has money and influence the problem is setting the priorities of others in power with a trade for which money alone is insufficient. Favors Matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 15:39:00 UTC

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE SYSTEM OF LIBERTARIANISM AND IT IS EURO

    THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE SYSTEM OF LIBERTARIANISM AND IT IS EUROPEAN RULE OF LAW OF RECIPROCITY

    (updated)

    Libertarianism in the Western sense is just rule of law. The difference between libertarians (jewish vs european) has been the scope of tort (trespass) that the law must provide resolution of disputes over.

    Rothbardians use intersubjectively verifiable property (material things), and I (following Hayek and Ostrom) include everything at all in which people demonstrate and investment interest (demonstrated interest) over which disputes must be settled.

    The law must satisfy the market for dispute resolution, and the scope of property is determined by the market for dispute resolution. And reciprocity is always and everywhere decidable under all circumstances under which there is human conflict – because it is purely scientific purely logical, and of evolutionary necessity.

    Rothbardianism is just marxism(denial) of the commons instead of marxism(denial) of private property. In other words I use the empirical definition of property (that which people desire we insure) not an arbitrary one (that which is materially scarce).

    This jewish(monopoly, authoritarian) vs european(markets) conflict is consistent across every branch of thought, including the so called Austrian economics of Menger (european) and Mises (jewish) in which Menger merely applied calculus to markets, but mises tried to invent a version of Pilpul (a sophism) in praxeology, when all he had discovered (without knowing it, probably because the insight was not his own) operational falsification in economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 13:26:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY CUTS BOTH WAYS —“Employers need to grant you off for religious hol

    RECIPROCITY CUTS BOTH WAYS

    —“Employers need to grant you off for religious holidays if they think their beliefs are sincere and genuine. So what happens if an employer doubts your religiosity when asking off Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, because you, for instance, don’t keep kosher?”–Ashley Rae Goldenberg @Communism_Kills

    Nope. If you want to burn personal time instead of working, please do but don’t ask employers to pay for your choice, or the loss of the work you should be providing. We can all think of excuses why we’re special. Sincerity isn’t testable, and isn’t meaningful.

    ·

    —“This is about religious holidays dude. Not everyone is Christian so not everyone gets their religious holidays off. It seems like you missed that.”—Ashley Rae Goldenberg

    @Communism_Kills

    I didn’t miss anything. The only Christian holiday is Christmas, and even then, only because it is so familially and commercially influential. All other holidays are secular. If we restored Christian holidays we’d have at least 35.

    There are no exclusively religious work holidays.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 07:06:00 UTC

  • Strategic Options in Warfare

    1. If you want to overturn the government directly it might rally people against you but it’s possible to siege the capital. I wouldn’t recommend it. That’s a left tactic.

    2. If you want to start a secession movement and take the center of the country, you take Texas because it has sufficient population, sufficient military resources, ports, a power grid, and one of the two mints. You move north using texas as a base, and cut off the rest of the country – but you have to do it fast.   I don’t favor holding territory on the defense, it’s better to keep in constant motion.

    3. If you want to take over the country you raid one of the more vulnerable immigrant or leftist cities, and overload it’s resources, and move on to the next in short order, leaving fires, power, water, communication, rail, and road (air doesn’t matter), although preventing landings at least is trivial.

    4. If you want to win quickly you issue demands that people actually prefer to the current order, issue incentives to police, military, guard, and ‘civilian actors’, and then do three to four cities at once. It’s impossible to react to that.  And it only takes ‘thousands’ per city.

    Communication is more important than power. Power more important than money, money more important than transport, transport more important than political figures.