Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • UNDERCLASS IMMIGRANTS HAVE HAD PRECISELY THE ANTICIPATED NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WEST

    UNDERCLASS IMMIGRANTS HAVE HAD PRECISELY THE ANTICIPATED NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    Irish and italian immigrants (catholics) had precisely the effect on the political order that protestants argued they would. In fact, the protestants have been correct every single time without fail, that the underclasses (catholics are largely the underclass and protestants largely the middle class) would destroy the experiment in ‘a third way’ government not by aristocracy or church but by the middle class and in the interests of the middle class.

    That’s why the constitution is so close to natural law (tort). Because the USA was conceived of as a middle class (propertied agrarian) alternative to the Old Order of Europe. And all the underclasses european and otherwise have sought to undermine this experiment under the insane illusion that the wealth generated by a middle class ‘third way’ will survive the existence of underclasses imported from around the world. It can’t. Europe excelled after 700 almost entirely because bipartite manorialism is brutally eugenic, and by the late middle ages all of europe above the Hajnal line was genetically middle class. That’s the truth. It’s not ideas. IT’S GENES.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 10:21:00 UTC

  • A NOTE FOR REVOLUTIONARIES ON AMMO —“Basic combat load is 7, 30 round magazine

    A NOTE FOR REVOLUTIONARIES ON AMMO

    —“Basic combat load is 7, 30 round magazines. It has been for a very long time. “—

    But when you state it as “200 rounds” people get a better idea of how few rounds that is. And Americans still too frequently run down on ammunition in a defensive firefight.

    —“Ignoring the basic correct answer is 210 rounds for the M4, here is a real combat load after 18 months before, during and after the surge in Iraq. I was a combat medic in an infantry unit deployed to a high tempo battlezone. We rolled outside the wire at least 5 days a week and often multiple times a day. About 1/4 of those would see some degree of combat. I carried a 30lb lite aid bag in addition to 10 magazines on my rack and drop pouches. Additionally my hot mag was a double and my main aid bag stayed on our vehicle with another 4 mags along with 65 lbs of medical gear. Long range patrols and extended ops were a bitch for me but after running out of ammo in one fight everything changed. I started dropping other gear from my load and replacing everything I could with composite material. I carried more than anyone but the squad gunner but it came in handy for others as well.I can function for 2 days without water. I can survive almost a week without food. My life expectancy in a firefight while out of ammo isn’t shit. In combat every bullet is a chance to save a life.”— Anon.

    In other words, he carried, 60 round hot mag, 10 30 round mags and 4 spare 30 round mags. 60 + 300 + 120 = 480. (My estimate of defensive ammo reserve from everything I’ve read is 600 rounds per man), and also from what I’ve read, no less than double that for a light machine gunner.

    Patrol is very dangerous. It’s searching for the enemy by presenting yourself as a target (bullet magnet). I prefer the Russian method: saturate the ground with artillery, roll in with equipment, destroy anything standing, kill everything that moves, and mop up the remainder on foot. The best way to hold territory is when everything other than you is pebbles, soot, splinters, or dead.

    –“Seven (7) mags was your “naked walking around load” and at no time was I more than a short distance away from an additional 10 mags. Point being, historically, I’m sure there was a prescribed basic load for the Italian military of the time but nobody ever says they had too much ammo in a firefight.”– Will Harm

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 09:58:00 UTC

  • The Cost of Social Optimism

    by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.

  • The Cost of Social Optimism

    by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.

  • Why Direct Redistribution of Liquidity vs Tax Breaks, Monetary Policy(interest) or Fiscal Policy(spending)

    Timeliness. In a shock, tax breaks, lowering interest rates, and fiscal policy are extremely slow, and it certainly appears from the data, largely ineffectual compared to simply distributing cash to every citizen to do with as he may. During the 2008 Crisis only me and Galbraith were talking about it (and I am nobody). Later a few others tepidly put forward the argument. Galbraith died, or he might have gotten somewhere. We could have all but paid off american home mortgages with the trillions we spent. So that was what I recommended. We could have done that and the world pricing structure would not have had to adjust. Since then I’ve come to understand that while MMT cannot work without hyperinflation, (a) there is no meaningful reason for consumer interest, and (b) there is no meaningful reason for NOT distributing liquidity directly to consumers rather than through the financial system (monetary policy), the state (fiscal policy), or tax rebates (tax policy). The problems with these methods is that they must be algorithmic (rule of law) just as is targeting the money supply today, or politicians will destroy the economy for votes. The reason I advocate this system is not just reciprocity (and therefore morality) but I want to force the financial system to seek returns on innovation (investment) rather than returns on rents (loans). And I want to addict the population to those returns, so that the bureaucratic government is incrementally eroded in return for increasing those direct redistributions, and so that people are hesitant to allow immigrants who merely capture those dividends leaving less for the citizenry. This is the best way to kill the state I have ever come across.

  • Why Direct Redistribution of Liquidity vs Tax Breaks, Monetary Policy(interest) or Fiscal Policy(spending)

    Timeliness. In a shock, tax breaks, lowering interest rates, and fiscal policy are extremely slow, and it certainly appears from the data, largely ineffectual compared to simply distributing cash to every citizen to do with as he may. During the 2008 Crisis only me and Galbraith were talking about it (and I am nobody). Later a few others tepidly put forward the argument. Galbraith died, or he might have gotten somewhere. We could have all but paid off american home mortgages with the trillions we spent. So that was what I recommended. We could have done that and the world pricing structure would not have had to adjust. Since then I’ve come to understand that while MMT cannot work without hyperinflation, (a) there is no meaningful reason for consumer interest, and (b) there is no meaningful reason for NOT distributing liquidity directly to consumers rather than through the financial system (monetary policy), the state (fiscal policy), or tax rebates (tax policy). The problems with these methods is that they must be algorithmic (rule of law) just as is targeting the money supply today, or politicians will destroy the economy for votes. The reason I advocate this system is not just reciprocity (and therefore morality) but I want to force the financial system to seek returns on innovation (investment) rather than returns on rents (loans). And I want to addict the population to those returns, so that the bureaucratic government is incrementally eroded in return for increasing those direct redistributions, and so that people are hesitant to allow immigrants who merely capture those dividends leaving less for the citizenry. This is the best way to kill the state I have ever come across.

  • WHY DIRECT REDISTRIBUTION OF LIQUIDITY VS TAX BREAKS, MONETARY POLICY(INTEREST)

    WHY DIRECT REDISTRIBUTION OF LIQUIDITY VS TAX BREAKS, MONETARY POLICY(INTEREST) OR FISCAL POLICY(SPENDING)

    Timeliness. In a shock, tax breaks, lowering interest rates, and fiscal policy are extremely slow, and it certainly appears from the data, largely ineffectual compared to simply distributing cash to every citizen to do with as he may.

    During the 2008 Crisis only me and Galbraith were talking about it (and I am nobody). Later a few others tepidly put forward the argument. Galbraith died, or he might have gotten somewhere.

    We could have all but paid off american home mortgages with the trillions we spent. So that was what I recommended. We could have done that and the world pricing structure would not have had to adjust.

    Since then I’ve come to understand that while MMT cannot work without hyperinflation, (a) there is no meaningful reason for consumer interest, and (b) there is no meaningful reason for NOT distributing liquidity directly to consumers rather than through the financial system (monetary policy), the state (fiscal policy), or tax rebates (tax policy).

    The problems with these methods is that they must be algorithmic (rule of law) just as is targeting the money supply today, or politicians will destroy the economy for votes.

    The reason I advocate this system is not just reciprocity (and therefore morality) but I want to force the financial system to seek returns on innovation (investment) rather than returns on rents (loans). And I want to addict the population to those returns, so that the bureaucratic government is incrementally eroded in return for increasing those direct redistributions, and so that people are hesitant to allow immigrants who merely capture those dividends leaving less for the citizenry.

    This is the best way to kill the state I have ever come across.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 17:51:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T —“How does libertarian/anarcho ca

    LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T

    —“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User

    Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives.

    Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity.

    So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property.

    As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information.

    So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law.

    The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 19:41:00 UTC

  • The Next Reformation of Our Church (Religion)

    I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite their words, and millions to repeat their words – on any subject. Just as we can find millions of liars today in the postmodern movement, just as we could find millions a few decades ago in the marxist and bolshevik movement. Che was one of the worst people to live in modernity, but his image is used world round as a savior of modernity. Marx caused 100M dead and he is treated as a savior. Mohammed caused 750M deaths at a minimum, destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, and is the longest threat to prosperity man ever made, yet he is a prophet, his words memorized, his warfare deified. The christians were instrumental in the destruction of the roman empire, and the church in undermining the aristocracy, and empire, and the church responsible for the conversion and submission, and illiteracy of europeans to the point where without the vikings, and the remilitarization of europe to resist them, they would have been too weak to resist the muslims. And today christians and their postmodern descendants are the advocates of bringing in the Hordes among us. By the time we overthrew the church half of the capital in europe was ‘dead’ (static), feeding the parasitic, corrupt, church and her politics. Today the church works daily to undermine western civilization. What separates evangelicals from the church is that they have half-recovered. The history of the church is of appropriation of credit they did not earn, and avoidance of criticism that they did. We nearly escaped her with 19th century romanticism, yet the catholic, half catholic, and orthodox countries destroyed germany, which was the remaining engine of our traditions. That we need a church or temple is one thing. That charity must be personally performed is another. That mindfulness is necessary for the many is yet another, but the cancer upon mankind that is abrahamism must end forever as the most evil lie ever invented.

  • The Next Reformation of Our Church (Religion)

    I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite their words, and millions to repeat their words – on any subject. Just as we can find millions of liars today in the postmodern movement, just as we could find millions a few decades ago in the marxist and bolshevik movement. Che was one of the worst people to live in modernity, but his image is used world round as a savior of modernity. Marx caused 100M dead and he is treated as a savior. Mohammed caused 750M deaths at a minimum, destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, and is the longest threat to prosperity man ever made, yet he is a prophet, his words memorized, his warfare deified. The christians were instrumental in the destruction of the roman empire, and the church in undermining the aristocracy, and empire, and the church responsible for the conversion and submission, and illiteracy of europeans to the point where without the vikings, and the remilitarization of europe to resist them, they would have been too weak to resist the muslims. And today christians and their postmodern descendants are the advocates of bringing in the Hordes among us. By the time we overthrew the church half of the capital in europe was ‘dead’ (static), feeding the parasitic, corrupt, church and her politics. Today the church works daily to undermine western civilization. What separates evangelicals from the church is that they have half-recovered. The history of the church is of appropriation of credit they did not earn, and avoidance of criticism that they did. We nearly escaped her with 19th century romanticism, yet the catholic, half catholic, and orthodox countries destroyed germany, which was the remaining engine of our traditions. That we need a church or temple is one thing. That charity must be personally performed is another. That mindfulness is necessary for the many is yet another, but the cancer upon mankind that is abrahamism must end forever as the most evil lie ever invented.