Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THERE IS GOING TO BE A REVOLUTION – I KNOW. BECAUSE I’M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WI

    THERE IS GOING TO BE A REVOLUTION – I KNOW. BECAUSE I’M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL START IT.

    1. Moral men need a reason for rebellion. (they have it: rule by credit, familicide, genocide, culturecide, civilization. )

    2. They need an institutional solution implementable as law, to demand that resolves their issues, (we have it) and to which they can feel, claim, argue, and fight for, as a moral high ground (they can).

    3. They need a plan of transition to the new institutional system that they can envision bringing to fruition. (we have it)

    4. They need a strategy and a plan of action making use of available means by which to conduct a rebellion that will succeed. (we have it)

    5. They need an opportunity to seize under which the revolution can be visibly successful (we do – no civilization in history has been more fragile)

    6. They need a communication system by which to coordinate their efforts over large territories that are impossible for standard police, emergency, and military to concentrate power against. (we have it).

    7. If possible they need an icon behind which to anthropomorphize their actions (we have it)

    (Some of us have been at this a while)

    Sovereignty. Rule of Natural Judge Discovered, Common Law. Direct Democracy over a Market Commons with Houses for the Classes. Direct redistribution of proceeds from the commons, and liquidity from the treasury to the citizenry. An end to Fiat Credit Capitalism, an end to Politicians, and an end to propaganda, misrepresentation, pseudoscience, and deceit in the informational commons (public discourse). And the creation of opportunities in every state by the decentralization of power, and the devolution of the federal government to regions.

    The American Empire was useful in the conquest of the continent. It was useful in the preservation of the British Empire’s patterns of finance and trade. It was useful in the defeat of world communism. But it is not useful in the defeat of Islamism, nor our own suicidal pseudoscientific secular humanism – it is the sponsor of both in the deep state’s pursuit of customers from both.

    We are going to end the empire. Preserve the military as overwhelmingly powerful domestic rather than overstretched international force. Preserve the systems of insurers of last resort. But eliminate the discretion of the federal government over our daily lives. We are not equal. We do not have equal desires. And both the European imperial and American imperial systems must end. Or like all empires, they will kill the host that made them possible.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 21:44:07 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424998459531497

  • CHRISTIANITY WAS *NOT* A HELLENIC RELIGION The claim that it’s hellenic is not t

    CHRISTIANITY WAS *NOT* A HELLENIC RELIGION

    The claim that it’s hellenic is not true. It’s one of *the big lies*. Hellenes under alexander (a Macedonian barbarian) Conquered the Anatolian > Semitic > Persian > west indian civilizations … for a time. They spread their technology in all its forms. That does not make Conquered people ‘greeks’ or ‘hellene’s any more than it makes Chinese Japanese and Koreans europeans for having adopted their technology under british-american imperial control of world patterns of law, finance, transport, and trade.

    Hellenes (Greeks) were CONQUERED by southeast european (illyrian), Anatolian, and Syrian members of the Bosporus state – which was neither roman (latin) or greek (hellene) but a combination then as today of ruled peoples, providing taxation to rome given the asymmetry of eastern vs western Mediterranean trade.

    These “Christians(jews)” killed the philosophers, closed the schools, forcibly converted the communes to nunneries and monasteries, destroyed the monuments statues, arts, and literature, and drove off, paid off, or killed off the aristocracy, and overturned or raided the trade routes (muslims) that destroyed western mediterranean trade while the west was attempting to survive the migration period brought about by Rome’s Celtic Holocaust, leaving a power vacuum in central europe that was easily filled by germanic-scandianvian migration.

    There is nothing Hellenic about the middle east or Egypt other than it was conquered and governed by greek aristocracy, who spread literacy the way jews, christians and muslims spread illiteracy and superstition and poverty. Claiming otherwise would be like saying that the present population of western european civ, that is governed by proxy by old families and jewish families, is in turn jewish.

    Because people write in greek or latin or any given language does not make them culturally or cognitively a member of the group who originated that language any more then that it does now. People the world over speak english but does that change their cognition, values, traditions, logic, rhetoric?

    Of all the thinkers plato is the only one who even approaches semitic supernaturalism with his idealism. Gods, demigods, ad heroes we trade with and are as frail as human families vs gods and demons we beg mercy from, are omnipotent, omniscient, and to whom we must submit. Epicurus vs Zeno, Aristotle and Socrates vs Plato, western geometry vs semitic algebra, greco roman history vs semitic mythology, greco-roman engineering vs semitic astrology, Archimedes vs (no one), greco-roman-germanic truth vs semitic face and endemic lying, greco roman Germanic trust vs semitic inability to produce trust. greco roman professional bureaucracy vs semitic inability to produce a professional bureaucracy.

    (continued…)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:38:55 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424742095465130

  • THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH —“One of the counter currents

    THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    —“One of the counter currents arguments was that in a Proprietarian system of law. privacy would be wrecked, because everyone would be suing each other for insufficient warranty of speech. So you would constantly have to justify that your speech was as good as it could have been according to your knowledge at the time. It does seem like a high bar no?”— Michael Churchill

    The bar is science, politics, economics, law, education, religion – in other words we avoid it anyway when speaking to one another. the SCOPE is advocacy of HARM.

    What would you want to sue intellectuals, public officials, news media, political activists for when making public speech?

    Both sides of the discourse want the other to stop. My argument is that once they stop they can only negotiate trades, and truthfully so.

    Which as far as I know solves the problem of politics: extension of market demand to all speech.

    In real life people adapt to laws that promote cooperation because its in their interests.

    Law that is enforceable under tort creates good people without state monitoring, interference, or monopoly out of individual and group self interest.

    Tort law is the via negativa market that mirrors the exchange via positiva market. we need both remunerative and restitutionary markets.

    Asymmetries permit abuses. and neutrality remains possible at all times.

    How this affronts privacy when public speech is by definition public not private, is beyond me.

    My understanding is that humans with interest in public affairs will seek education sufficient for truthful discourse, and that the education system will adapt to provide it.

    P-Law does not ask you to produce public speech and be right, only TRUTHFUL AND MORAL by practicing due dilligence sufficient for the demands, claims, or criticisms you are making.

    P teaches us that t is fairly easy to perform such due diligence if we are taught it like grammar and ethics as we were in the past.

    The socialists removed these from education in order to undermine our civlization – by design. We can not only restore these skills to the common people out of their own self defense, but state them in scientific terms and operational logic rather, than religious, traditional, normative and moral .. and in doing so restoring truth, sacredness of the commons, and good citizens ship to our people.

    I think things trough. 😉

    It’s my job. 😉

    -curt

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424718754657778

  • INTELLIGENCE, FLYNN, CLASS, ETHNICITY, REGRESSION I don’t make mistakes. It’s my

    INTELLIGENCE, FLYNN, CLASS, ETHNICITY, REGRESSION

    I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job. I have to compensate for you folks. 😉

    Neural Plasticity refers to change – usually through generalization, and adaptation of a region to compensate for loss of another region – not to raw ability. If you sacrifice neurons in some area to gain them in another you gained at a cost.

    Intelligence scales ALL abilities up and down with limited differences in the ‘objects and abstractions’ that we specialize in – largely male or female, and the degree of agency we train for (daydreaming vs calculating). And “g” changes by only on point or so every three to six years if you work very hard at it constantly. The reason being that many many factors developmental, molecular, biological, and physical affect the outcome.

    The Flynn effect (an average) was caused by two factors: a) the culling of the bottom extremes (natal care), and b) general adoption of scientific knowledge. For example, eye response tests (another intelligence test) have DECLINED over the same period.

    We did not make people smarter biologically, we removed impediments to their demonstrated intelligence by removing ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and falsehood.

    So, it is not ‘magical’ but statistical. In general, scientific knowledge improves learning and reasoning rapidly (just as supernatural nonsense makes you dumber). We can’t test unscientific learning (pattern matching) when the structure of unscientific information is not coherent or commensurable. Scientific knowledge (general rules) are coherent and commensurable – which is how we know they are ‘true’.

    It takes only 6-7 generations to domesticate an animal. Major transformations of a genome GOOD AND BAD can occur in just four to eight generations. Group selection (class rates of reproduction) can work in just two or three generations, and certainly in four.

    British IQ was in the 112-115 range by the industrial revolution (From Lynn). Since the industrial revolution reproductive asymmetry has reversed over a thousand years of systemic eugenics.

    The same is occurring in china. Within one generation or so the Chinese advantage of 105 (even among rurals) will reduce to 100 thru asymmetric reproduction.

    Islam has been asymmetrically reproductive for far longer than anywhere other than Africa and india. In india they compensated with castes so that they have a two tiered society (the two extremes of “Jews and Gypsies”). The islamic world has been affected deeply by african, slave, inbreeding, and destruction of the old upper classes, and the limited rates of reproduction of the upper. This is one of the reasons for Lebanese success in the region – it had sufficient population that was either christian or jewish both of whom produced the opposite behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:12:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424637058664968

  • (…continued) The debates that are open as far as I know, are: (a) whether anat

    (…continued)

    The debates that are open as far as I know, are:

    (a) whether anatolians came counter-clockwise around the black sea, or clockwise. I have assumed that it’s counter-clockwise until evidence otherwise – the reason being their arts.

    (b) And whether the Iranic people went south of the caspian sea, or north into central Asia and then down and back eastward into today’s Iranic lands.

    (c) I don’t think anyone disputes that the turkic people were far eastern edge, and moved southwest under pressure from the east asians. (I generally ignore the central asians because they have’t produced a ‘civilization’ per se.)

    (d) Whether the Mesopotamians, and whether they are indigenous “marsh arabs”, or a mixture of everyone in the region. It sure looks like they are north semites (marsh arabs). And it sure looks like the south west eurasians and northeast africans merged in what is today’s somalia-yemen-red sea -persian gulf basins, and split between river(north semitic) and sea (south semitic) groups.

    (d) whether anatolians or caucasians or arabs (afro-asiatics) occupied the eastern mediterranean but that over time we’ve seen admixture between groups.

    (e) whether the berber (north african) peoples emerged from the north of africa (top of the red sea, egypt, or the east (horn) of africa. I operate under the assumption that they migrated north and the were relatively insulated (they were on and off insulated).

    (f) the timing and mode of the competition between modern east asians, central eurasians, and the same for modern east asians (mongolids) and their fork from broader souther-route negroids (austronesians).

    There are others but they don’t affect my pursuit f the problem of truth and institutions.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:10:39 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424630975094590

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424627484718540

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    CRITICISM OF MY INTERPRETATION OF POPULATION GENETICS I got another supposed criticism last night without explaining what, from fans of population genetics. However, I can’t separate out their bias from anyone else’s. I have three people I can ask, but they have stopped participating, apparently because I won’t conform to their bias. That bias is to limit discussion to pop gen, and not further disambiguate by language, and further disambiguate by group competitive (evolutionary) strategy. In other words, I’m solving for the big questions of (a) where did technological competitiveness, paternalism, heroism and maneuver, truth and duty, sovereignty, reciprocity(property), commons, tort and jury, come from, (b) why, (c) how was it purified(west) or polluted (semitism), hinduism, buddhism. I use the same research everyone else does. I just am solving for ‘the western group evolutionary strategy that produced sovereignty, law, reason, logic, empiricism, science, technology. So I am interested in the civilizations, their technology, means of production, cooperation, and organization, and fighting. Those groups that we think of as caucasian (really: west eurasian) are spread along the lower boundary of the ice from Spain to Mongolia (or even further?) (So does Caucasian mean west eurasian? the people of the caucuses today? the people that spread into the levant? the people north and west of the black sea? I try to avoid the term because it’s useless.) The black sea is fresh water at that point and seems to be where the rapid evolution of west eurasians peaks, beaks into the IE expansion, and that in to north and west (european), south west (old european), from old european to Anatolian. And from caucuses east to the Tocharian, and south to the coastal middle east, and southeast into the Iranic peoples, then further east into the old indus river peoples (india). Where did truth come from and why did we do it, and why didn’t anyone else? A coincidence: tech, animals, territory, economics, strategy (ooda-loop/maneuver), entrepreneurialism, law, debate, argument, reason, contract. (continued…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424627484718540

  • DO YOU FAIL TO GRASP THE MEANING OF “WAR”? You see, the problem is, you think of

    DO YOU FAIL TO GRASP THE MEANING OF “WAR”?
    You see, the problem is, you think of war in the westphalian terms – the war of states. But that period is over. When I talk about civil war I mean PIRACY, BOOTY, PROFIT, with the political ends merely being the most lucrative return. The european domestication of war was ended by the european failure to grasp that it was only europeans who agreed to the domestication.

    That period is over. Its a war of all against all again, by any and all means possible: genetic, reproductive, invasive, migratory, cultural, religious, institutional, political, economic, technological, and military. A war of all against all. There is no state to protect you. There is no limit to the means by which war is conducted. The westphalian period is over, the postwar period is over, the anglo-american period is over, and it is again, a demographic war of all against all.

    Great Men write about war for one reason: to remind their moral domesticated fellows that war is not a moral thing. It is ‘whatever is possible by whatever means to achieve whatever ends in whatever time, until the enemy ceases or is ceased.’

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:04:15 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424605798066361

  • RUSSIAN INTERESTS GIVEN A USA CIVIL WAR Russia’s interest in the USA is only in

    RUSSIAN INTERESTS GIVEN A USA CIVIL WAR

    Russia’s interest in the USA is only in so much as:

    … (a) they are right (as are the brits and eastern europeans) to desire to stop the spread of liberalism((())); (“suicide”).

    … (b) the USA’s demon lets a weak govt stay in power with high approval ratings despite sanctions and low oil prices;

    … (c) we suppress the oil price and their economy by doing so;

    … (d) we are competitor in the sale and manufacture of weaponry which is Russia’s second best industry after resources; (Personally I would prefer we all bought russian equipment when possible, and the USA focused on higher technology when advantageous. Heavy industry is better done in russia.)

    … (e) we limit russian ability to insulate herself from hostile neighbors through political control of weak neighboring central asian states; (and prevent her capture of baltic states and those seaports); ( I am an advocate of the Intermarium since russians have not been ‘domesticated’ into a high trust polity as have been the eastern european countries under lithuanian, polish, and austrian, german rule.)

    … (f) we limit the russian restoration of the empire and the population necessary for Russia to act as a world power – and the russian ‘mission’ to restore orthodox civilization;

    … (g) And possibly we prevent the restoration of the monarchy there which is really what they need. … Russia like all european peoples is best served by a working government with the people exercising veto on a government, and a monarchy that can overrule that government when necessary, and where the monarchy has sufficient discretion with funds to act better than the public can. Russia is uniquely structured for this condition, and it makes no sense to be why it isn’t taking that route.

    I might have missed a few things here but this is my understanding of russian interests and ambitions.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 19:59:39 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424587757567521

  • heroism consists of directing risk to the production of commons. you will find t

    heroism consists of directing risk to the production of commons. you will find that most of western civ consists of producing commons. The open question is whether it’s genetic or cultural or both. I used to think it was cultural but now I’m not sure. neoteny leads to it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-06-25 13:36:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143513354427912192

    Reply addressees: @OrienPermu

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143511591129964544

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1143511591129964544

  • As always the false dichotomy in economics, like those of philosophy, are ignora

    As always the false dichotomy in economics, like those of philosophy, are ignorance, error, bias, or deceit by framing.

    We solve the problem that suits our bias. Production(Classical), Consumption(Socialism), Reproduction (Aristocracy)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-06-22 11:37:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142396201200959488

    Reply addressees: @karlbykarlsmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1142395664111980544

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @karlbykarlsmith In other words, Chad is only marginally better than Virgin. Meanwhile Greybeard is watching history repeat itself because the problem isn’t seizing the means of production (Virgin) or consumption(Chad) but reproduction(Manorialism).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1142395664111980544

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @karlbykarlsmith In other words, Chad is only marginally better than Virgin. Meanwhile Greybeard is watching history repeat itself because the problem isn’t seizing the means of production (Virgin) or consumption(Chad) but reproduction(Manorialism).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1142395664111980544

  • The physical universe never reaches equilibrium (homogeneity) if only due to vas

    The physical universe never reaches equilibrium (homogeneity) if only due to vast scale and time. Because of scale, time, and disequilibrium, universes (big bangs) will arise chaotically (assuming temporal independence) or oscillate or froth asymptotically otherwise.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-06-15 13:00:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1139880366825791489

    Reply addressees: @HaraldMagnusson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1139879255402323971

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HaraldMagnusson I didn’t say that at all. Where did you come to that conclusion? Measurement (observation) of the otherwise unobservable (scale, time) may be necessary for testimony, and measurements(actions) may interfere with(alter) the course of events.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1139879255402323971

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HaraldMagnusson I didn’t say that at all. Where did you come to that conclusion? Measurement (observation) of the otherwise unobservable (scale, time) may be necessary for testimony, and measurements(actions) may interfere with(alter) the course of events.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1139879255402323971