Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • 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.

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

      [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

      [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • Property as A Human Behavior

    PROPERTY AS A HUMAN BEHAVIOR by Bill Joslin A demonstrated definition of property doesn’t result in a less precise criteria for deciding property. The demonstrated definition: i.e. the investment to seek a future benefit to the extent one would seek restitution or retaliation if said investment has been imposed upon, damaged or destroyed. This definition has two sides to it – the investment (which is demonstrated) and the willingness protect the investment. Another way to describe property is the term “demonstrated interests”. By this we have a clear means of calculating (not interpreting) property and a measure for imposiition. People would not be able to claim their feelings as a property because there is no demonstrated investment. The demonstrated definition of property closes the door to discretionary interpretation (abuse) and opens the door to calculation. It accomplishes the opposite of what you are concerned about. So think of it this way – the point of a demonstrated definition of property wasn’t to expand property rights beyond material possessions etc. (This isn’t a ploy.) It begins with clarifying the causes for human conflict, i.e. what inspires retaliation and why do we retaliate. By doing this it becomes clear older versions of property definitions (possession i.e. property equates to ownership, exclusive control) and mixed labour theories (material becomes property when we mix our labor with it) are partially correct but highly flawed. Simply put, property exists as a behaviour humans exhibit toward objects. And once the behaviour was discovered then it became clear that humans behave this way toward more than just objects. Our language use exemplifies this. We use the possessive for all sorts of things which we don’t consider property by traditional definitions… my wife, my daughter, my religion, my idea, my friend etc… And in all of these cases we have investment and willingness to maintain (reinvest), protect if threatened, and retaliate if damaged. So this isn’t word games, it runs deeper with thicker foundations than just “changing definitions”. (Much like “health” is an abstract, it is also something we’ve incrementally discovered, a demonstrated definition of property exists as an incremental discovery of a real abstraction.)

  • Property as A Human Behavior

    PROPERTY AS A HUMAN BEHAVIOR by Bill Joslin A demonstrated definition of property doesn’t result in a less precise criteria for deciding property. The demonstrated definition: i.e. the investment to seek a future benefit to the extent one would seek restitution or retaliation if said investment has been imposed upon, damaged or destroyed. This definition has two sides to it – the investment (which is demonstrated) and the willingness protect the investment. Another way to describe property is the term “demonstrated interests”. By this we have a clear means of calculating (not interpreting) property and a measure for imposiition. People would not be able to claim their feelings as a property because there is no demonstrated investment. The demonstrated definition of property closes the door to discretionary interpretation (abuse) and opens the door to calculation. It accomplishes the opposite of what you are concerned about. So think of it this way – the point of a demonstrated definition of property wasn’t to expand property rights beyond material possessions etc. (This isn’t a ploy.) It begins with clarifying the causes for human conflict, i.e. what inspires retaliation and why do we retaliate. By doing this it becomes clear older versions of property definitions (possession i.e. property equates to ownership, exclusive control) and mixed labour theories (material becomes property when we mix our labor with it) are partially correct but highly flawed. Simply put, property exists as a behaviour humans exhibit toward objects. And once the behaviour was discovered then it became clear that humans behave this way toward more than just objects. Our language use exemplifies this. We use the possessive for all sorts of things which we don’t consider property by traditional definitions… my wife, my daughter, my religion, my idea, my friend etc… And in all of these cases we have investment and willingness to maintain (reinvest), protect if threatened, and retaliate if damaged. So this isn’t word games, it runs deeper with thicker foundations than just “changing definitions”. (Much like “health” is an abstract, it is also something we’ve incrementally discovered, a demonstrated definition of property exists as an incremental discovery of a real abstraction.)

  • “WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”— Monarchy (which is a purely christian euro

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    Monarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract.

    Russian Tzars had dictatorial power,

    European monarchs did not.

    Roman and Greek did not.

    The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law.

    As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state.

    Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises.

    If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other.

    As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things).

    And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory goverment altogether – as predicted.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 10:42:00 UTC

  • Fields, Not Ideals, Truths, Or Favorites

    —“What are people’s take on the Fermi paradox? Like what is most likely scenario anyone have their own theory on it?”—Sam McPhail

    [T]he question is rather strange – because of the odd human desire for certainty. As far as I know there are a field of possibilities, and we simply do not know. Some of us are able to tolerate fields of possibilities, and some of us are unable to tolerate fields of possibilities. As far as I know this behavior is driven by the feeling of whether one is in or out of control of one’s circumstances, and this conflation exists because we humans lack the ability to compartmentalize: our brain can literally associate anything with anything, which is only productive until it’s not.

  • Fields, Not Ideals, Truths, Or Favorites

    —“What are people’s take on the Fermi paradox? Like what is most likely scenario anyone have their own theory on it?”—Sam McPhail

    [T]he question is rather strange – because of the odd human desire for certainty. As far as I know there are a field of possibilities, and we simply do not know. Some of us are able to tolerate fields of possibilities, and some of us are unable to tolerate fields of possibilities. As far as I know this behavior is driven by the feeling of whether one is in or out of control of one’s circumstances, and this conflation exists because we humans lack the ability to compartmentalize: our brain can literally associate anything with anything, which is only productive until it’s not.

  • The False Dichotomy Of Capitalism vs Socialism is Another Abrahamic Deception

    The Anarchism(impossible) to Capitalism(rule of law universalism) to classical liberalism(rule of law nationalism ) to National Socialism to communism (impossible, universalism) is another bit of sophistry sold by the abrahamic left: whereas the difference is one of rule of law vs rule by discretion. So, as usual in the abrahamic method of deceit, the public is presented with a false dichotomy, between two economic models where all economies are and must be mixed economies, and where the debate is only over the rule of law that forces cooperative solutions , and rule of man, which forces uncooperative solutions. The Romans solved this problem by preserving the senate (aristocracy), and the middle classes (plebeians) during times of market cooperation, and dictators (generals) in time of war. As far as I know there is no better system than authority in war, houses in peace, and redistribution of windfalls. And all of that is possible only when the law is empirical and sacred, and men will willingly kill usurpers at every opportunity.

  • The False Dichotomy Of Capitalism vs Socialism is Another Abrahamic Deception

    The Anarchism(impossible) to Capitalism(rule of law universalism) to classical liberalism(rule of law nationalism ) to National Socialism to communism (impossible, universalism) is another bit of sophistry sold by the abrahamic left: whereas the difference is one of rule of law vs rule by discretion. So, as usual in the abrahamic method of deceit, the public is presented with a false dichotomy, between two economic models where all economies are and must be mixed economies, and where the debate is only over the rule of law that forces cooperative solutions , and rule of man, which forces uncooperative solutions. The Romans solved this problem by preserving the senate (aristocracy), and the middle classes (plebeians) during times of market cooperation, and dictators (generals) in time of war. As far as I know there is no better system than authority in war, houses in peace, and redistribution of windfalls. And all of that is possible only when the law is empirical and sacred, and men will willingly kill usurpers at every opportunity.