Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The New Standard on Social Media – Use Extra Caution

    [O]ver the years, I’ve been excessively careful at (a) avoiding hate speech – (violating FB policy), and (b) not crossing the line from educating, informing, and advocating, and developing a constitutional alternative in public – to planning or incentivizing action (violating the law). What I do is expressly legal in America and has a long time honored tradition back to Thomas Paine. Over the past year we (John in particular) have experimented with directly addressing the coming revolution as deterministic, and imminently triggerable. And that we should be prepared for it with Arguments, Organization, and a Ready Constitutional Solution to the coming conflict. However, I didn’t count on, or adequately react to, the escalation in shootings in New Zealand and the USA.  In my view of the world I interpreted these events as the normal escalation to the civil war I’ve predicted for years. In other words, I viewed them as supporting data. My experience with these matters, which goes back to the tampering era, is that it’s the media that creates these events, and only media’s silence that can stop them. Now, anyone who follows me for long enough knows my strategy and plan.  And knows the difference between the King of the Hill game we’re playing to educate and inform. But it was very easy to cast this information as providing incentive to individual actors. And we must understand that it is rational for social media platforms to do so. They should however, give us our PERSONAL data back when they close an account, meaning any image, video, or text that we upload. There are legitimate liability reasons they may prefer not to, but we (meaning the political and legal ‘we’) have to choose between depriving people of their property (diary) and limiting the liability of the platform.  And limiting the liability of the platform is the choice I advocate. Of the risks to us, the risk of loss of our property is greater. In context, had I understood the change at FB  – and had they announced this change – I should have taken down the potentially offensive content by careful search-and-delete, but honestly – as usual – I didn’t adequately interpret the neuro-commoner and cortico-normative interpretation of recent events. So it’s not that I so much care about being dropped from the platform for what I consider reasonable reasons in the given social and political climate.  It’s that I don’t have 90 days of work, and I am not sure what I composed during that 90 days. It’s that simple. I want my data. So we want to repeat here again, that: … (a) individual violent action is not helpful to a reform movement. Don’t do it. Stop anyone who might. … (b) if we must act, we must act as one – en mass – not one by one; no matter how frustrated. And yes, I ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ the rage building up to that weekend, I just assumed it was me misinterpreting the flow in sentiments. … (c) If we act as one – en masse – it must be to show up  – en masse – and make our demands. … (d) Those demands must be amenable to all but fringe actors – in other words the mainstream.  And ours are pretty hard to argue with by any measure. … (e) If our demands are not met, then we have cause for action – as a group. … (f) But the problem is until those demands are made, and the threat is real, the state and the antifa-communist left have no incentive to compromise. … (g) even if the compromise we present, give everyone but the left extremists what they want. My provocative speech, provocative assertions and provocative questions, as well as my use of King of the Hill games – as those who follow me are aware – are for marketing, educational, and strategic purposes: to restore the discourse from the pseudo moral to that of natural law.  To train men once again to debate in truth, duty and reciprocity, with immunity to ridicule, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, rally and disapproval as a substitute for argument – a substitute that does little more than obscure the underlying fraud: attempted theft by use of the coercive violence of the state. Reasons; … a) Demonstrating that men must be taught by the means they prefer (dominance play) … b) That the rothbardian libertarian movement’s capture of the liberty movement had to be defeated through exposure of it’s failure so that we could return the discourse to one of sovereignty under the law, under rule of law, insured by every man acting as a soldier, warrior, sheriff and judge. I had to return ‘violence’ as did our founders, to the discourse on liberty. … c) So that men were taught the reason for their traditions morals and institutions – that they were a strategy of natural law that is the optimum strategy for not only our people, but for all mankind. … c) Restore confidence that if they chose to fight a civil war, that the rule of law (conservatives) would win. (Keep hope alive, and not regress in to desperate acts.) And that I use the public and social media as a means of running experiments on what people currently think, did think, and how they interpret various arguments and prose. I use social media as my laboratory – and it is the best laboratory that I have found. People say what they feel in King of the Hill games.  It’s the optimum research platform for political thought. Unfortunately, as usual, I over-achieve, over work, and over-invest in over-precision, and take too long to do everything  – and my understanding at present is that the Overton window has not only caught up to me and my work, but that it may be too late and I may not finish before what I see as a deterministic explosive conflict triggered by an as yet unpredictable but ever closer event. All I know is that between immigration, the left’s gain influence because of it, and the news media’s influence because of the opportunity for capturing attention and therefore advertiser revenues, that seeking power on one end and seeking to prevent loss of sovereignty on the other – no society, nation, empire, or civilization has survived a mass migration like this in human history without collapse and civil war. I am very good at what I do. I will not err in this matter. Thanks Curt

  • The New Standard on Social Media – Use Extra Caution

    [O]ver the years, I’ve been excessively careful at (a) avoiding hate speech – (violating FB policy), and (b) not crossing the line from educating, informing, and advocating, and developing a constitutional alternative in public – to planning or incentivizing action (violating the law). What I do is expressly legal in America and has a long time honored tradition back to Thomas Paine. Over the past year we (John in particular) have experimented with directly addressing the coming revolution as deterministic, and imminently triggerable. And that we should be prepared for it with Arguments, Organization, and a Ready Constitutional Solution to the coming conflict. However, I didn’t count on, or adequately react to, the escalation in shootings in New Zealand and the USA.  In my view of the world I interpreted these events as the normal escalation to the civil war I’ve predicted for years. In other words, I viewed them as supporting data. My experience with these matters, which goes back to the tampering era, is that it’s the media that creates these events, and only media’s silence that can stop them. Now, anyone who follows me for long enough knows my strategy and plan.  And knows the difference between the King of the Hill game we’re playing to educate and inform. But it was very easy to cast this information as providing incentive to individual actors. And we must understand that it is rational for social media platforms to do so. They should however, give us our PERSONAL data back when they close an account, meaning any image, video, or text that we upload. There are legitimate liability reasons they may prefer not to, but we (meaning the political and legal ‘we’) have to choose between depriving people of their property (diary) and limiting the liability of the platform.  And limiting the liability of the platform is the choice I advocate. Of the risks to us, the risk of loss of our property is greater. In context, had I understood the change at FB  – and had they announced this change – I should have taken down the potentially offensive content by careful search-and-delete, but honestly – as usual – I didn’t adequately interpret the neuro-commoner and cortico-normative interpretation of recent events. So it’s not that I so much care about being dropped from the platform for what I consider reasonable reasons in the given social and political climate.  It’s that I don’t have 90 days of work, and I am not sure what I composed during that 90 days. It’s that simple. I want my data. So we want to repeat here again, that: … (a) individual violent action is not helpful to a reform movement. Don’t do it. Stop anyone who might. … (b) if we must act, we must act as one – en mass – not one by one; no matter how frustrated. And yes, I ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ the rage building up to that weekend, I just assumed it was me misinterpreting the flow in sentiments. … (c) If we act as one – en masse – it must be to show up  – en masse – and make our demands. … (d) Those demands must be amenable to all but fringe actors – in other words the mainstream.  And ours are pretty hard to argue with by any measure. … (e) If our demands are not met, then we have cause for action – as a group. … (f) But the problem is until those demands are made, and the threat is real, the state and the antifa-communist left have no incentive to compromise. … (g) even if the compromise we present, give everyone but the left extremists what they want. My provocative speech, provocative assertions and provocative questions, as well as my use of King of the Hill games – as those who follow me are aware – are for marketing, educational, and strategic purposes: to restore the discourse from the pseudo moral to that of natural law.  To train men once again to debate in truth, duty and reciprocity, with immunity to ridicule, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, rally and disapproval as a substitute for argument – a substitute that does little more than obscure the underlying fraud: attempted theft by use of the coercive violence of the state. Reasons; … a) Demonstrating that men must be taught by the means they prefer (dominance play) … b) That the rothbardian libertarian movement’s capture of the liberty movement had to be defeated through exposure of it’s failure so that we could return the discourse to one of sovereignty under the law, under rule of law, insured by every man acting as a soldier, warrior, sheriff and judge. I had to return ‘violence’ as did our founders, to the discourse on liberty. … c) So that men were taught the reason for their traditions morals and institutions – that they were a strategy of natural law that is the optimum strategy for not only our people, but for all mankind. … c) Restore confidence that if they chose to fight a civil war, that the rule of law (conservatives) would win. (Keep hope alive, and not regress in to desperate acts.) And that I use the public and social media as a means of running experiments on what people currently think, did think, and how they interpret various arguments and prose. I use social media as my laboratory – and it is the best laboratory that I have found. People say what they feel in King of the Hill games.  It’s the optimum research platform for political thought. Unfortunately, as usual, I over-achieve, over work, and over-invest in over-precision, and take too long to do everything  – and my understanding at present is that the Overton window has not only caught up to me and my work, but that it may be too late and I may not finish before what I see as a deterministic explosive conflict triggered by an as yet unpredictable but ever closer event. All I know is that between immigration, the left’s gain influence because of it, and the news media’s influence because of the opportunity for capturing attention and therefore advertiser revenues, that seeking power on one end and seeking to prevent loss of sovereignty on the other – no society, nation, empire, or civilization has survived a mass migration like this in human history without collapse and civil war. I am very good at what I do. I will not err in this matter. Thanks Curt

  • APPARENTLY RULE OF LAW IS AN EXTREMIST POSITION Apparently we live in an era whe

    APPARENTLY RULE OF LAW IS AN EXTREMIST POSITION

    Apparently we live in an era where Individual Sovereignty, Reciprocity (reciprocal volition), Tort (property), Nomocracy (Rule of Law) under Isonomy (equality under the law) and No-Retroactivity, where the subject of law is the individual, the subject of policy the family, the function of government is the production and preservation of commons across families, and the state the service of the kin group, not a corporation, in the service of all against the kin group is called ‘Radical’ or ‘Extremist’.

    The Purpose of The Abrahamic(religious) > Marxist > Neoliberal > Postmodern > Program: the second destruction of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 18:33:04 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102633752732130089

  • YES WE NEED ORDER RATHER THAN CHAOS (from Gab) —“Jefferson? We don’t need free

    YES WE NEED ORDER RATHER THAN CHAOS

    (from Gab)

    —“Jefferson? We don’t need freedom, we need order”–

    @alternative_right

    Yes, but what order?

    1. Order of Truth, Science, Law and productive cooperation? (Rule of Law – Competition between men under the law of reciprocity.)

    2. Or order of Lies, Supernaturalism, Scripture and Parasitism – Rule by men? (Rule by Church Men – Priests)

    3. Or order of Fraud, Pseudoscience, Sophism and Parasitism – rule by men? (Rule by Dishonest Men – “You Know Who”)

    4. Or order of Force, Command, Whim, and Parasitism – rule by man? (Rule by Forceful Men – Military )

    Let me explain Jefferson’s context.

    1. The Aristocratic order (taxation force),

    2. The Priestly Order(lies, obedience and Tithes) and

    3. The Commercial order (truth, tort, and trade).

    His understanding was natural law

    Natural law by rule of law.

    Rule of law producing a commercial order.

    A commercial order is a voluntary order.

    An order of meritocracy.

    Meritocracy meaning Natural Aristocracy.

    We haven’t replaced it with socializing.

    We’ve replaced it with DISORDER.

    We can have our order but we cannot have it by the simple means you intuit. Rules must exist, and rules free of human ‘discretion’ because in the end all human discretion ‘swims left’.

    Jefferson was (correctly) trying to create a THIRD WAY, free of the parasitism of the state and church – who were both tremendous parasites that kept our people in ignorance and poverty.

    The Enemy can bed defeated by law and prosecution without planting the seeds of another enemy.

    The natural law is the best civic religion ever invented by man.

    The natural law, the stoic method, and the Epicurean goals are the optimum personal religion.

    The Five Rules of Christianity, if limited to Kin, are the optimum method of producing harmony.

    The only cost one bears under the natural law is christian forgiveness.

    And Aryan Intolerance.

    Every Man a Sheriff.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 10:08:00 UTC

  • ( … more) There are limits to the scope of private property. Property is neces

    ( … more)

    There are limits to the scope of private property. Property is necessary because of the limits of people’s knowledge in time. However, there are points at which certain forms of private property deny service to consumers, (such as misuse of intellectual property rights) and therefore it is theft from consumers. Why? Because consumers forgo the opportunity for violence, and in doing so pay for the cost of creating that private property. So denying the market a good in order to increase prices and profits is a theft of the costs paid by consumers to create the opportunity for private property. So the limits to private property come from artificial scarcity (denying a good to market), whereas reinforcement of private property comes from the

    There are limits to the scope of public property, because there are limits to the amount of knowledge that can exist in any person’s mind, and limits to decision making among groups of individuals, and distortionary effects (basically, perceived risk reduction, limited by the amount of knowledge of the largest population able to exercise it’s will) and the rapidity of timely action, and because of the limits of timely action, limitations on the opportunity cost for the group. ie: increases in private property are an opportunity cost reduction for a group.

    The purpose of the union movement is to allow the populists to use threats against the capitalists, without fear that the capitalists can respond in kind, and thereby allow government to profit from intermediation, thereby forming an alliance between the unions and the state, regulated only by the long term (and therefore easily imperceptible) impact of their intervention on tax revenues.

    Violence should not be eliminated from our discourse. It is a ruse. Starting with a principle of non violence is and always shall be a ruse.

    The fact is, that ALL movements that presume non-violence are attempts at theft of the cost needed to create private property.

    Costs are the only means of honest political dialog. Both direct costs and opportunity costs.

    The Principle of Non-violence is fraud.

    Plain and simple.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 19:50:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628396190935050

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628393880515362

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    The Threat Of Revolt, The General Strike, And The Myth Of Non-Violence 28 Monday Dec 2009 Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment A tactic used by the vocal left is the threat of violence, or revolt if their needs are not met. The tactic of revolt is ancient. This modern version of revolt is a product of The Myth Of The General Strike. (I am referring to Burnham’s treatment) The contemporary version is the Economic Armageddon and Political Upheaval of the classes. The opposing argument is the libertarian argument for private property, and private capitalism, and the Randian version of Atlas shrugging. Both of these are myths of the general strike. The argument, or myth in any of it’s versions, is disingenuous. Workers will eventually relent, be replaced, or the businesses close. Entrepreneurs will be replaced by others. It is the state who would suffer it’s loss of legitimacy in the event of failure. But a new group would take over in government, and life would go on. An analysis of history tells us that it is much easier for the minority with wealth to pay another minority to violently oppress the peasantry, and to obtain their compliance going forward with commercial incentives and rewards, than it is for a peasantry to organize a movement of a general strike. In fact, the government conducts all general strikes, because without government suport and threats of government violence on business people, they would largely be irrelevant. When a ruling class loses it’s will for violence, the society loses it’s binding mythology. It simply opens it’s ranks for a different group to take over the ruling class, and redefine the existing network-map of property rights, and the dispensation of them. However, provided that the ranks of the elite are open to absorb those ambitous people from all classes, and the elite retain sufficient willingness to use violence, the myth of the revolt is specious. Because people simply need leaders in order to revolt. Before an elite allows itself to be displaced, it commits fraud. They verbally ally themselves with ‘the people’. All societies determine the scope of private and group property differently. (more…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628393880515362

  • **A FALSE DICHOTOMY OF WEALTH FLIGHT: THERE IS A THIRD CHOICE** From April 28th,

    **A FALSE DICHOTOMY OF WEALTH FLIGHT: THERE IS A THIRD CHOICE**

    From April 28th, 2009

    The rhetoric on the flight of the wealthy is pretty thick right now. But I thought that I would correct the false dichotomy of submission to taxes or flight from taxes.

    When the minority of people pay all the taxes, they form a bloc of similar interests. If those interests are similar enough, those interests become their primary interest. And it becomes more attractive for the wealthy to pay a minority of the people to side with them in producing social change, even revolutionary social change.

    Revolutions are not created by the high crimes of a few. They are created by the accumulation of rudeness, administrative burden, legal propagation, and petty abuses of power by the bureaucrats who annoy the citizenry to the point of intolerance. I am not afraid of a proletariat revolution, despite my belief that we will see riots at some time in the near future. I am not afraid of a revolution by the wealthy. I am afraid of a minority proletariat revolution funded by the wealthy. And I am rapidly approaching the point at which I am both an advocate and willing to fund it. The state is attempting to pit us against each other when, in fact, it is the people who should simply be done with the abuses of the state. Fixing the centralization of wealth is not a problem. Providing social services is not a problem. Stopping the state from pitting us against each other is the issue we must face. I don’t know any wealthy person who objects to the payment of taxes. We object to the use of the tax revenue to pit different social classes against each other, rather than to help us work together toward shared goals and objectives. In this conflict, the state is actually the problem.

    We must understand that there is a difference between personal wealth and political wealth. Personal wealth means that one has made enough money that he can lend it to the following generation, who will then allow him leisure in exchange for the use of his money now, so that they can live a better life more immediately, and higher cost over time. Political wealth is the possession of money at such volume that it is possible to put it to political use, and therefore subvert the market process that requires that we serve our fellow man’s needs in order to gain reward. Typically, and this is just an oversimplified way of looking at it, personal wealth requires between 10 and 50, but no more than 100 times the median annual income. Political wealth requires at least 100, but more effectively around 1000 times the median annual income.

    If we simply used a tax that was HIGHLY progressive and on the balance sheet, rather than on annual income, so that the middle class of merchants and small business people could accumulate wealth and gain financial independence in exchange for their extreme personal financial risk, and where the tax rate started where the net worth was 10 times the median income, then increased rapidly at 100 times median income, there would be no use for the Republican Party. The party exists entirely on that one pillar. Without that divide we could form a middle ground, work toward common goals, and marginalize both the left and right extremes.

    If we required bankers to hold 20% of all originated loans, and required that they be permanently tied to the lending “individual,” we would fix the corrupting behavior of lending that built up since deregulation. If we further stopped providing general liquidity and instead offered only targeted liquidity from the Fed, then we would put more of a halt on bubbles.

    If we kept the interest on state credit money with the state, then we would both have a replacement source of revenue and would force the state to think in terms of advancing national competition rather than giving away our competitiveness. We would also be able to see who performed what good for the country and who did what harm.

    The choice for the wealthy is not just between submission to taxes and flight. It’s between submission to taxes, flight, and revolution.

    I’m one of the people who is rapidly beginning to call for “the Third Choice.” Because if we took the money wasted on government in this country and used it for medical and infrastructure improvements, as well as basic research, we would rapidly regain our competitive position in this world and, in doing so, drastically change the position of our working class.

    I am an unrelenting advocate of noblesse oblige: If we are lucky enough to become wealthy, then we must use our wealth to the betterment of our fellow men. But only we can know what that betterment is, because only we have demonstrated by our accumulation of wealth that we know how best to serve our fellow man. Servitude to a state that pits its citizens against each other, exports jobs, makes our state uncompetitive by policy and taxation, and under-educates our people is not service to our fellow man. It is, instead, a crime against them.

    I’m not there yet. But I’m getting close to thinking we need to pull out some rope and learn how to tie knots.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 09:17:00 UTC

  • **A DECIDEDLY CHRISTIAN SET OF LAWS IN 1603 **December 9th, 2010 I hadn’t read H

    **A DECIDEDLY CHRISTIAN SET OF LAWS IN 1603

    **December 9th, 2010

    I hadn’t read Hugo Grotius’ Commentary before today. It is an interesting attempt to provide a coherent set of legal principles. Even if it is just very simply a recitation of Biblical principles with european legal conventions.

    I would never agree to place such faith in Magistrates, or any other officer of the state. They are only human beings, and not exceptional human beings at that.

    I give my violence to the state to use justly on my behalf, so that I may spend my time in other activities, in our division of knowledge and labor. That does not mean that it has the ability to act justly on my behalf, or the will to act justly on my behalf, nor has it demonstrated that it has the tendency to act justly on my behalf. I do not believe that any officer of the state is better equipped to make judgements over property than I am. And those are the only judgements a man need know. If he must do other than that, he submits to servitude.

    Now, once we possess a significant market, we must have administrators, and regulators of that market, and citizens who adhere to the manners, morals, ethics, taxes and regulations that prevent fraud, theft, and violence within that market, are it’s shareholders. Those shareholders will often seek to escape payment, or to transfer liability and risk onto others, or to draw more than their earnings from the corporation of the market that we call the state. I recognize that such thefts are invisible to men without the adminstration of the state to monitor them. As such, I agree that we must have courts and jurors.

    However, should these men, in the observance of their duties, abridge the laws of property, of theft, of violence, or fraud and deception in the course of their duties — even if it is to pursue just ends, or if such men, in the name of ease, or efficiency, or laziness or stupidity, or most importantly, the fallacy of just democratic law making, then I do not allow them to use my violence on my behalf, to seek reparation from my fellow men. And instead, I must withdraw my violence from the account of the state, and use it at my own discretion.

    Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty [1603]

    by Hugo Grotius

    Table Of Rules And Laws Compiled From Chapter II Of The Commentary

    **Rules**

    rule i. What God has shown to be His Will, that is law.

    rule ii. What the common consent of mankind has shown to be the will of all, that is law.

    rule iii. What each individual has indicated to be his will, that is law with respect to him.

    rule iv. What the commonwealth has indicated to be its will, that is law for the whole body of citizens.

    rule v. What the commonwealth has indicated to be its will, that is law for the individual citizens in their mutual relations.

    rule vi. What the magistrate has indicated to be his will, that is law in regard to the whole body of citizens.

    rule vii. What the magistrate has indicated to be his will, that is law in regard to the citizens as individuals.

    rule viii. Whatever all states have indicated to be their will, that is law in regard to all of them.

    rule ix. In regard to judicial procedure, precedence shall be given to the state which is the defendant, or whose citizen is the defendant; but if the said state proves remiss in the discharge of its judicial duty, then that state shall be the judge, which is itself the plaintiff, or whose citizen is the plaintiff.

    **Laws**

    law i. It shall be permissible to defend [one’s own] life and to shun that which threatens to prove injurious.

    law ii. It shall be permissible to acquire for oneself, and to retain, those things which are useful for life.

    law iii. Let no one inflict injury upon his fellow.

    law iv. Let no one seize possession of that which has been taken into the possession of another.

    law v. Evil deeds must be corrected.

    law vi. Good deeds must be recompensed.

    law vii. Individual citizens should not only refrain from injuring other citizens, but should furthermore protect them, both as a whole and as individuals.

    law viii. Citizens should not only refrain from seizing one another’s possessions, whether these be held privately or in common, but should furthermore contribute individually both that which is necessary to [other] individuals and that which is necessary to the whole.

    law ix. No citizen shall seek to enforce his own right against a fellow citizen, save by judicial procedure.

    law x. The magistrate shall act in all matters for the good of the state.

    law xi. The state shall uphold as valid every act of the magistrate.

    law xii. Neither the state nor any citizen thereof shall seek to enforce his own right against another state or its citizens, save by judicial procedure.

    law xiii. In cases where [the laws] can be observed simultaneously, let them [all] be observed; when this is impossible, the law of superior rank shall prevail.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 08:45:00 UTC

  • **YES WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SUFFERING OF CITIZENS** April 14th, 2010 Rebek

    **YES WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SUFFERING OF CITIZENS**

    April 14th, 2010

    Rebekka Grun, on The Growth And Crisis Blog writes that we could have protected the consumers rather than the banks, in her posting

    Conditional Individual Bailouts – a Potential Anti-crisis Instrument

    Why not save the individuals that went bust rather than their banks? Unconditional bailouts, of course, would generate the wrong incentives (for the banks as well, by the way). It is therefore important to attach smart conditions to discourage free riding. For example a course in financial literacy and commitment to a program of (maybe painful) debt restructuring, and possibly further measures to improve the education or health of the affected individual or family.

    Your sentiment is correct even if you haven’t done the math on it.

    In general terms, there is a simply technique for doing exactly what you’ve suggested, but we lack the infrastructure for it.

    The arguments against the solution at the time were that we didn’t know how far prices would fall (I’m not sure, I think we were about right), and that it would make very visible that the government was the source of the problem (true), that it would have geopolitical impact on the value of the dollar (of course, but so would the alternative), and that it could be unfair to people who had behaved well (that would be fixable), and that it would encourage a bubble (this is false).

    The primary problem with distortions is that the distortions are in PRICING. Libertarians would call corrections ‘repricing’. The problem is that human beings must suffer a great deal and absorb a lot of stress to conduct that ‘repricing’. When the state, as the creator of the distortion by the manufacture of cheap credit, could easily reprice major (home) assets by repricing the DEBT of those assets.

    In other words, we could have easily corrected the economy by bypassing the banking system, and giving money directly to the citizenry as buy-downs on their mortgages, which would have provided them with cash to spend or to put into banks. Doing this is fine if you do it FAST.

    In other words, the state created both the BOOM problem and the CRASH problem because it relies on the irresponsible tool of providing general liquidity – easy money.

    In hindsight this is more obvious than it was at the time. Those of us who made this recommendation were the smaller voices, because the banks and the financial industry were so terrified and the impact on the economy if they failed, so severe.

    The problem for our country is to put this system in place, so that we are insuring citizens AGAINST their bankers, so that we can use the market to PUNISH bad bankers and their investors, rather than the citizenry.

    I’ve worked the mechanics of this process out in some detail, and it’s quite simple. It’s just novel. And it’s anti-bank. And that makes it dangerous to a lot of people in one of our biggest industries: finance.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 08:42:00 UTC

  • LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURT’S FB ACCOUNT LOSS. Apparently someone (probably via No

    LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURT’S FB ACCOUNT LOSS.

    Apparently someone (probably via Noah’s triggered Feminist Posse targeted Curt, used the multiple post reporting ability, and submitted a series of Curt’s posts on revolution.

    So it wasn’t ‘hate speech’ (He doesn’t do that). And Facebook is very sensitive at the moment because of recent events.

    GOING FORWARD

    From here forward we will limit FB posts of Curt Doolittle’s ideas to those of natural law and comparative civilizations and avoid the topic of revolutionary content.

    So we’ll segregate the revolutionary content from the visible social platforms, onto Gab, and Telegram, and the Institute site.

    CONTEXT

    John Mark and Curt Doolittle pursued this experiment in revolutionary content quite deliberately, and have been testing it since last fall.

    This experiment has not been popular with everyone, Bill included.

    Curt’s opinion is that he stretched the experiment as far as he could on FB, and wasn’t sensitive enough to the recent violence. So the FB result is probably expected.

    THE OPPORTUNITY

    Now, Revolutionary content drives more people to us than any other type of conversation. FB popularity increase is wonderful for P but the reality is that Curt is behind in course content and book content. And he’s not doing well personally because of it. So in some senses, he’s relieved at the current ‘reduction in duties’.

    At this point we’re going to try to get others in the movement to manage the institute page’s daily while Curt passes them post content. With over 1000 pending friend requests it was time to move our main focus there anyway.

    More soon.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-14 18:12:00 UTC

  • THE CONSERVATIVE WEAKNESS OF CONFORMITY TO SELF INTEREST RATHER THAN TO SHARED G

    THE CONSERVATIVE WEAKNESS OF CONFORMITY TO SELF INTEREST RATHER THAN TO SHARED GOALS

    As a person who succeeds at any scale, one develops the habit of judging people on their utility toward achieving ends, not on their shared frames and values, or their utility as a friend, confidant, and equal. But as an allied state with very different interests the present of which are aligned. In some sense this is the universal benefit and weakness of the right: demand for conformity when we are a host of packs, so that conformity to more than a small group is impossible. This is why the herd strategy defeats the pack strategy of the right.
    Libertarian middle and upper middle, churchy lower middle and upper working, fascist working and upper laboring. Just what you would expect in any civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:56:38 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576514559683383