Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE PURPOSE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IN PROPERT

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE PURPOSE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IN PROPERTARIAN PROSE:

    The purpose of the religious right is captured in:

    (a) Resist the destruction of the intergenerational family as the purpose of government, policy, law and norm.
    (b) Resist the destruction of civic (voluntary market) society with civil (involuntary monopoly) society.
    (c) Resist the replacement with the accumulative with the consumptive.
    (d) Resist the export of charity onto other (virtue signaling)
    (e) Resist the replacement of humility with arrogance.
    (f) Resist the replacement of self discipline with self indiscipline.
    (g) Resist the replacement of the sacred (non-consumption) with the profane (consumption)
    (g) Resist the replacement of natural law (reciprocity and meritocracy) with arbitrary rule (democracy and equality).
    (h) Resist the replacement of eugenics (meritocracy) with dysgenics (equality).

    I am an anti-abrahamist, but that includes the ancient generation (judaism, christianity, Islam), and the modern generation (postmodernism, feminism, libertarianism, marxism, and neo-conservatism).

    The Germanics (europeans) managed to Germanicize Christianity, into the masculine, hierarchical, and meritocratic (markets), in all but prose. The Germans managed to secularize it in prose (Kant, Hegel). The English managed to restore science (Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Hume, Darwin, Maxwell). The french (Latins) (Rousseau, Derrida, Foucault) and the Ashkenazi (Mendelsohn, Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno, Chomsky) have sought to restore the feminine, equalitarian, and authoritarian (monopoly).

    But both Protestant and Catholic religion resists de-germanization (violating natural law), and rationalism resists supernaturalism but not pseudoscience (marxism), and science resists pseudoscience( marxism, feminism), pseudo-rationalism (postmodernism), supernaturalism (abrahamism in all its forms), and violation of natural law (arbitrary rule, and equality).

    There is only one problem remaining of substance for man: one child for those that cannot compete at current levels of development. In four generations, the dysgenia of the industrial revolution would be reversed, and the 3500 year program in market eugenics that we call western civilization will be restored.

    That is truth. All else is falsehood.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 19:44:41 UTC

  • CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP Capitalism is impossible

    CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

    Capitalism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than parasites without producing commons open to free riding or defection. The question is only the method for producing those commons while suppressing free riding and defection.

    Communism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than predators and parasites, by producing commons to the exclusion of private property, because all are incentivized only to free ride (do as little as possible) and defect (engage in black markets and corruption).

    State (corporation) private (shareholder) partnerships have the best record in history, when the state provides roles of insurer and banker in exchange for returns to the commons.

    At present the only reason the USA is not competing successfully in the world market is a failure to produce public-private partnerships.

    The reason we cannot do so is because the left can seek rents on these public private partnerships both politically, economically, and socially by the use of syndicalism (unions etc). Unions are only necessary because the courts do not provide universal standing in matters of the commons – ever since the british began violating the ancestral common law of reciprocity and universal standing.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 16:42:00 UTC

  • The Herd All Speaks the Same Language. the Packs Don’t.

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

  • The Herd All Speaks the Same Language. the Packs Don’t.

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack.

    Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary.

    And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant

    But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass.

    And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism.

    So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight.

    So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all.

    The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 19:04:47 UTC

  • The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack.

    Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary.

    And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant

    But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass.

    And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism.

    So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight.

    So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all.

    The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 15:04:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“What do you use as a basis for your resea

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend

    Maybe I don’t understand the question….

    I mean. I have a very deliberate methodology.

    Mostly the history of (a) group competitive strategies, (b) geography (c) economics, (d) political orders, (e) laws, (f) methods of argument (grammars). And I use propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law) to perform the analysis.

    The difficult part of the work is deflating history into Propertarian terms so that all group actions are commensurable.

    This often requires attacking a proposition until only the truth (in Testimonial terms) remains. And in particular attacking most sacred presumptions and values. And that takes a great deal of time. I have to work long enough that I’ve defeated my own biases as best I can as well.

    In other words I look at the actions ( inputs, operations, and outputs) not the excuses (what people say about them), and explain the world as the different tactics we use to acquire.

    The methodology is something I understand very well. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to possess sufficient knowledge to employ it. As such it’s just as hard as any of the other sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 13:05:37 UTC

  • “What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend Maybe I don’t unders

    —“What do you use as a basis for your research?”— A Friend

    Maybe I don’t understand the question….

    I mean. I have a very deliberate methodology.

    Mostly the history of (a) group competitive strategies, (b) geography (c) economics, (d) political orders, (e) laws, (f) methods of argument (grammars). And I use propertarianism (Vitruvianism, Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, Testimonialism, and Natural Law) to perform the analysis.

    The difficult part of the work is deflating history into Propertarian terms so that all group actions are commensurable.

    This often requires attacking a proposition until only the truth (in Testimonial terms) remains. And in particular attacking most sacred presumptions and values. And that takes a great deal of time. I have to work long enough that I’ve defeated my own biases as best I can as well.

    In other words I look at the actions ( inputs, operations, and outputs) not the excuses (what people say about them), and explain the world as the different tactics we use to acquire.

    The methodology is something I understand very well. Unfortunately it is rather difficult to possess sufficient knowledge to employ it. As such it’s just as hard as any of the other sciences.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 09:05:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. women fear to alter the status quo when it cr

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    women fear to alter the status quo when it creates risk, men do not since it creates opportunity. This is why women perpetuate virtue signals like they do fashion signals or hen-pecking in female groups. It never ends. There is no optimum condition.

    Women voted to alter the status quo as a virtue, fashion, pecking cycle. It’s endless (Suicidal, obsessive, precognitive).

    Children and men are costly, so if they can marry the state and invite underclass opponents, and end marriage demands, they will do so (and have demonstrated it everywhere).

    SO they have and do alter the status quo, they wll not vote and do not act or vote to produce scarcity even when scarcity of opportunity is the optimum intertemporal investment.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 19:03:53 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORON QUESTION OF THE DAY. —“What’s your po

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MORON QUESTION OF THE DAY.

    —“What’s your position on mixing?”—

    Which question are you asking me? As a jurist of natural law? As a public intellectual practicing political economy seeking political solutions to optimum flourishing? Or as an anglo northern european man seeking the intersets of my people? Or as a man who loves his kinfolk first and foremost?

    As a jurist of natural law it is a question for a polity to choose mixing or not, since underclass mixing seems to be as beneficial as working, middle, and upper class race mixing is counter-productive. And as such the optimum conditions for all are to create many states, that produce commons that reflect the interests of the people who live in them. Nationalism is in the interests of all people.

    As a public intellectual it’s clearly superior politically and economically to create homogenous nation states. For my people as for all other peoples.

    As a northern european, I prefer others of my kin don’t mix, and I want my people and civilization to survive, and prosper. Just as I do for all other peoples.

    As an individual, am certain that I don’t choose to mix (and I have tried). But as such I won’t choose for all other peoples.

    DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE
    But I dont just talk about it – I demonstrated that I prefer to live in a traditional, religious, homogenous country. Although, I would prefer to live in old new england, or old england, or old normandy, old netherlands, or maybe old denmark if I could – since those are the origins of my people. But due to conquest by french, cosmopolitans, and marxists, I cannot do so.

    RECIPROCITY
    But I will not force the choice for others. Only prevent others from making the choice for me and those that agree with me.

    Any man who will work to help me make a nation for me and mine, I will by reciprocity help to make a nation for he and his.

    Any man who seeks to stop me and mine from creating a nation that provides the optimum for our kin interests is an enemy and I will work against him at the cost of my life and his.

    NATURAL LAW ON INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION
    Under natural law, heterogeneity is not a choice that is open to restitution (repair) and therefore involuntary imposition is against the law of nature and of men, and as such must be prosecuted, and the only restitution for genocide is genocide – a consequence for which western politicians should tremble and fear.

    All men who fight for nationalism are our brothers in arms. All others are merely obstacles to be ended.

    Revolt. Separate. Prosper. Speciate.

    CRITICISM OF THE MAN IN THE MIRROR
    You have simple answers if you’re a simple person with simple responsibilities, particularly if you are only vaguely responsible for yourself.

    Those of us who are more sophisticated, more able, with wider affect, and broader responsibilities, who work to take responsibilities for tribe, nation, race, and mankind have more sophisticated answers.

    Don’t equate us other than in our interests. In my world I work for in the intersets of the common moral people, and against the interests of parasites and fools.

    ***Is that clear enough (you f-cking idiot). WN is trash because only fucking morons are stupid enough to take the short obvious, selfish, moron-route to political change.***

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 18:56:56 UTC