Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Copernicus’ Children and Galileo’s Children

    Copernicus’ Children Copernicus never married and is not known to have had children, but from at least 1531 until 1539 his relations with Anna Schilling, a live-in housekeeper, were seen as scandalous by two bishops of Warmia who urged him over the years to break off relations with his “mistress”. His sister Katharina married the businessman and Toruń city councilor Barthel Gertner and left five children, whom Copernicus looked after to the end of his life.  

    Galileo’s Children Despite being a genuinely pious Roman Catholic, Galileo fathered three children out of wedlock with Marina Gamba. They had two daughters, Virginia (born in 1600) and Livia (born in 1601), and a son, Vincenzo (born in 1606). Because of their illegitimate birth, their father considered the girls unmarriageable, if not posing problems of prohibitively expensive support or dowries, which would have been similar to Galileo’s previous extensive financial problems with two of his sisters. Their only worthy alternative was the religious life. Both girls were accepted by the convent of San Matteo in Arcetri and remained there for the rest of their lives. Virginia took the name Maria Celeste upon entering the convent. She died on 2 April 1634, and is buried with Galileo at the Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence. Livia took the name Sister Arcangela and was ill for most of her life. Vincenzo was later legitimised as the legal heir of Galileo and married Sestilia Bocchineri.

  • The Differences Between European Legal Codes Whether Germanic, Hellenic, or Roman Differed in Little Other than Scope of Cooperation.

    THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMAN DIFFERED IN LITTLE OTHER THAN SCOPE OF COOPERATION. (Note that Rik Storey deleted my comment on the site.) The argument that early governments were stateless is specious (questionable). The state existed and is referenced throughout the literature. Applications of the law (“laws”) evolve with demand for them, and demand for them is almost entirely the function of production, distribution, and trade. The universality european customary law, which evolved into germanic law, and the european customary law of the Etru, Ital, Hellenes was as similar as were their religions. As the Lotharingian trade routes expanded, creating inter-territorial trade (particularly between northern italy and the rivers of france, germany, and the north-sea/baltic routes), demand for law increased, and the more advanced versions of the mediterranean commercial codes were adopted. They were adopted in large part because they were logically the same. The church functioned as a very weak central government and power between the church (50%) of the lands, and the states (manor-holdings) was in constant competition – the church then tended to take credit for that which was produced organically. The ancient traditional law of europeans is was of military necessity, natural law ( reciprocity ). The romans discarded hellenic idealism during the romanization of Greece, just as anglos discarded continental idealism in the enlightenment era. Thereby returning it to its anglo saxon > germanic > west indo european origins. The church then re-idealized it. Anglo enlightenment then restored it. The 20th century can largely be seen as a third attempt to make natural law idealized or supernatural. And some of us struggle to restore it.

  • The Differences Between European Legal Codes Whether Germanic, Hellenic, or Roman Differed in Little Other than Scope of Cooperation.

    THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMAN DIFFERED IN LITTLE OTHER THAN SCOPE OF COOPERATION. (Note that Rik Storey deleted my comment on the site.) The argument that early governments were stateless is specious (questionable). The state existed and is referenced throughout the literature. Applications of the law (“laws”) evolve with demand for them, and demand for them is almost entirely the function of production, distribution, and trade. The universality european customary law, which evolved into germanic law, and the european customary law of the Etru, Ital, Hellenes was as similar as were their religions. As the Lotharingian trade routes expanded, creating inter-territorial trade (particularly between northern italy and the rivers of france, germany, and the north-sea/baltic routes), demand for law increased, and the more advanced versions of the mediterranean commercial codes were adopted. They were adopted in large part because they were logically the same. The church functioned as a very weak central government and power between the church (50%) of the lands, and the states (manor-holdings) was in constant competition – the church then tended to take credit for that which was produced organically. The ancient traditional law of europeans is was of military necessity, natural law ( reciprocity ). The romans discarded hellenic idealism during the romanization of Greece, just as anglos discarded continental idealism in the enlightenment era. Thereby returning it to its anglo saxon > germanic > west indo european origins. The church then re-idealized it. Anglo enlightenment then restored it. The 20th century can largely be seen as a third attempt to make natural law idealized or supernatural. And some of us struggle to restore it.

  • We Are Irrelevant Under the Law, Not Equal

    AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as equal by any measure. The law does not consider equality but reciprocity (“exchange of consideration”). We use the term ‘equal under the law’ as a proxy for reciprocity, simply because in the past, different classes could seek privileges of rank (largely differences in restitution). We are in fact always and everywhere unequal, which is why reciprocity solves the problem of our inequality. Better said we are not considered whatsoever by the law, only our property. We have no part in it. As such the law does not treat us equally, it ignores us entirely and considers only the property transferred.

  • We Are Irrelevant Under the Law, Not Equal

    AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as equal by any measure. The law does not consider equality but reciprocity (“exchange of consideration”). We use the term ‘equal under the law’ as a proxy for reciprocity, simply because in the past, different classes could seek privileges of rank (largely differences in restitution). We are in fact always and everywhere unequal, which is why reciprocity solves the problem of our inequality. Better said we are not considered whatsoever by the law, only our property. We have no part in it. As such the law does not treat us equally, it ignores us entirely and considers only the property transferred.

  • THE MIRROR IMAGE OF OUR HISTORY I mean, they just took our prophet, Homer, His W

    THE MIRROR IMAGE OF OUR HISTORY
    I mean, they just took our prophet, Homer, His Works, and his Hero Achilles, to resist the east, and created a new prophet Abraham, His Works, and his Hero, Jesus to resist the west.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 12:34:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1010138839032258562

  • THE WEAK USE TOOLS OF THE WEAK The problem with mythology, conflation and fictio

    THE WEAK USE TOOLS OF THE WEAK

    The problem with mythology, conflation and fictionalism is that like numerology astrology and scriptural interpretation, you can find any meaning you look for. Just as any opponent can do the same. As such it is just the wittiest liar that wins the tactical argument and the most utilitarian lies that win the war of political control. The only way for the good to win is the truth, and to abandon all convenient sophisms and to prosecute as liars all who do otherwise.

    Weak and false is weak and false no matter how useful weakness and falsehood are.

    THE STRONG USE TRUTH , VIOLENCE, AND RULE

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 12:04:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMA

    THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMAN DIFFERED IN LITTLE OTHER THAN SCOPE OF COOPERATION.

    (Note that Rik Storey deleted my comment on the site.)

    Good post, although the argument that they were stateless is specious (questionable). The state existed and is referenced throughout the literature. Applications of the law (“laws”) evolve with demand for them, and demand for them is almost entirely the function of production, distribution, and trade. The universality european customary law, which evolved into germanic law, and the european customary law of the Etru, Ital, Hellenes was as similar as were their religions. As the Lotharingian trade routes expanded, creating inter-territorial trade (particularly between northern italy and the rivers of france, germany, and the north-sea/baltic routes), demand for law increased, and the more advanced versions of the mediterranean commercial codes were adopted. They were adopted in large part because they were logically the same.

    The church functioned as a very weak central government and power between the church (50%) of the lands, and the states (manor-holdings) was in constant competition – the church then tended to take credit for that which was produced organically.

    The ancient traditional law of europeans is was of military necessity, natural law ( reciprocity ). The romans discarded hellenic idealism during the romanization of Greece, just as anglos discarded continental idealism in the enlightenment era. Thereby returning it to its anglo saxon > germanic > west indo european origins. The church then re-idealized it. Anglo enlightenment then restored it. The 20th century can largely be seen as a third attempt to make natural law idealized or supernatural. And some of us struggle to restore it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 11:57:00 UTC

  • WE ARE IRRELEVANT UNDER THE LAW, NOT EQUAL AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as e

    WE ARE IRRELEVANT UNDER THE LAW, NOT EQUAL

    AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as equal by any measure. The law does not consider equality but reciprocity (“exchange of consideration”). We use the term ‘equal under the law’ as a proxy for reciprocity, simply because in the past, different classes could seek privileges of rank (largely differences in restitution). We are in fact always and everywhere unequal, which is why reciprocity solves the problem of our inequality. Better said we are not considered whatsoever by the law, only our property. We have no part in it. As such the law does not treat us equally, it ignores us entirely and considers only the property transferred.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-22 09:27:00 UTC

  • RAGNAR REDBEARD AND NIETZCHE: INTRODUCTIONS TO ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS OF PROPERTARI

    RAGNAR REDBEARD AND NIETZCHE: INTRODUCTIONS TO ARISTOCRATIC ETHICS OF PROPERTARIANISM

    —“Have you ever read Might is Right? I’m almost finished it. I’d like to know your thoughts on the topic. Can you explain how it relates to Propertarianism?”— Kelly Wilson

    Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond)

    – Might is Right

    Nietzche:

    – The Birth of Tragedy

    – The Geneology of Morals

    – Beyond Good and Evil

    – The Will to Power

    1) The book Might is Right was written in 1890 as a derivation of Nietzsche – written in English by a Briton, with the ‘clarity’ of anglo sentiments, rather than the ‘romanticized’ prose of German sentiments. In that sense it should be taken as a more aggressive anglo restatement of Nietzsche’s works published at that time.

    2) Nietzsche’s works and Redbeard’s (Arthur Desmond), were followed by the social darwinist and eugenics movements, especially (British) Herbert Spencer’s thought. They were extremely popular pre-war. (And should have remained so. That failure will haunt us for centuries.)

    3) Neither Nietzsche nor Redbeard solved the problem of replacing ‘slave’ (jewish and christian) morality with aristocratic morality for the simple reason that they did not understand aristocratic morality’s origins in germanic common law. We do see that Hayek, by the late 1970’s has begun to understand but he was german again, and too ‘tepid’, where the more aggressive British Keynes and American Rawls, and the very, very, aggressive ashkenazi marxists and socialists were more successful.

    4) I have, I think, in propertarianism, completed the scientific explanation of our ancient heroic morality – although I am frequently criticized for writing it so legally and dryly. Most men want something more romantic (german), or passionate (anglo), or spiritual (Italian). When in reality, it is the Russians who have begun to practice it – absence the commitment to truth and sovereignty and reciprocity. They have at least taken on the Aryan Ambition.

    5) So I would say that Ragnar Redbeard is a great … let us say, Young Adult Literary introduction to aristocracy and Propertarianism, yes. Just as Nietzsche is a freshman college introduction to aristocratic ethics and Propertarianism. Where Propertarianism is a bit like the graduate school version of both. Meaning that those are both works of literary inspiration, where Propertarianism is literally ‘The Natural Law Of Reciprocity of Sovereign Peoples: The Law of Aristocratic Egalitarians.”

    Hope that helps

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-21 16:24:00 UTC