Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than c

    Libertarian ethics derive from hebrew diasporic pastoralist ethics (those than can run away) whereas western sovereign ethics derive from western indo european agrarian militia ethics (those that remain present) – which is a difference between the short term temporal and longer term intertemporal. which is why libertarian ethics lare limited to volition, not like western,inclusive of reciprocity. In other words, under western indo european ethics you warranty your words and deeds, whereas hebrew ethics are designed to be irreciprocal, and without warranty on purpose – as is stated in jewish law. Otherwise, if you don’t follow ethics of warranty, and instead if you follow jewish ethics, then there is no prohibition on creating and profiting from moral hazard (parasitism). And so if they follow irreciprocal ethics a group can specialize in profiting from moral hazard (parasitism), like lending usurious money to poor people, engaging in the slave trade, blackmail, slumlording and tax collection. Whereas moral peoples specialize in the lower returns on warrantable and reciprocal goods that do not create incentive to retaliate (kill). WHich is why jews in Europe had such a problem, (and had population bottlenecks). A low trust immoral parasitic population hosted by a high trust moral productive population will always lead to accumulated grievances and explosive retaliation. But, none of us can look i the mirror at our ancestors and recognize them for their criminality – although westerners since Burke certainly have done so. Most other civilizations lack the intellectual honesty to look in the mirror at their ancestors and understand that their punishments were earned. In the case of the west our adoption of christianity demilitarized and fragmented europe to the point where it was the viking invasions that restored the western ethos, and the reintroduction of greek thought that lead to it’s return to it’s traditional vector after the damage of the abrahamic dark ages.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:26:00 UTC

  • Yes we are being colonized. But The Only Enemy Is In The Mirror

    THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies. 0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds. 1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt. 2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states. 3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration. 4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost. In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can? Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.

  • Yes we are being colonized. But The Only Enemy Is In The Mirror

    THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies. 0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds. 1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt. 2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states. 3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration. 4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost. In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can? Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.

  • THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR Never let people get away with irreciprocal judg

    THE ONLY ENEMY IS IN THE MIRROR

    Never let people get away with irreciprocal judgement of others. Start complaining about others only after you have exhausted analysis of your own failings. This is what I tell to white people as well. We are unhappy because we expect others to do other than pursue their reproductive strategies – yet this in itself is illogical. The question is always, not why does a competitor harm you, but why are you too weak and incompetent to fend off a competitor? The only enemy is in the mirror. The strong and capable have no enemies because they have defended against those enemies.

    0 – Yes the asian states are (filthy) dirty places, which is why westerners must (a) get shots, (b) are told “not touch anything that isn’t you”, and (c) are told not to eat or drink anything that a ‘Mohammed’s hands could touch’, and (d) india in particular but china as well produces such an extraordinary range of birth defects that are not due to inbreeding and incest – which are the cause of extraordinary birth defects in the arab and muslim worlds.

    1 – yes these states are backward by nature. Hence the difference in corruption between ukraine, russia, india, and china. They are all very corrupt.

    2 – Anglo revenue is from (a) reliable (non-corrupt) courts and the social and political superiority that arises from non-corrupt courts, (b) technological superiority that arises from the wealth of superior social and juridical non-corruption, (c) consumer consumption, and particularly consumer consumption of of housing. Our military is a money-losing proposition other than for preventing a non-market volatility of petroleum which has replaced agrarian territory as the most influential determinant of the wealth of advanced nation states.

    3 – Anglos have made a great deal of their wealth dragging the primitive world out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, hunger, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature. Anglos have spent a great deal of their wealth (a) preventing communism, (b) and now preventing islamism, and (c) we will probably have to prevent chinese authoritarianism if we are not careful. And worse we have committed near self destruction out of foolish charitability in immigration.

    4 – The question is, since we have seen chinese colonization, russian colonization, french colonization, spanish colonization, dutch colonization, and inter-african colonization, and it was possible to conquer the world or even commit genocide on the entire planet – that is the opportunity cost.

    In other words, you could be colonized by the chinese, russians, mongols, turks, muslims. The question is not why these people colonize you. It is why you are so weak demographically, culturally, economically, politically, and militarily, that they can?

    Which is what I say to white men. If we are being colonized the only reason we are colonized is because we are too weak to prevent it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 12:16:00 UTC

  • Simplify Education and Increase Socialization

    Roughly speaking, about 1/4 of people should go through STEM university training, and the rest should graduate high school able to work. The problem is that we teach nonsense after 6th grade. Roughly half of all educational hours are wasted. In my understanding we should enter people into the workforce between 12 and 14 given their rate of maturity, and teach life tools a few hours a day: money, accounting, economics, basic contracts. In fact, it’s very interesting that we teach all the sciences OTHER than the one that is most important: COOPERATION. Instead of cooperation we teach SUBMISSION. If we were to do this we would extend work lives, and reverse infantilization, as well as all but eliminate the difficulty entering the work force. We would have vast programs of teaching-in-the-workplace at very low wages, and produce the highest skilled people in the world. We could have fully socialized people, a more competente work force, have children in our late teens and twenties, and far lower costs.

  • Simplify Education and Increase Socialization

    Roughly speaking, about 1/4 of people should go through STEM university training, and the rest should graduate high school able to work. The problem is that we teach nonsense after 6th grade. Roughly half of all educational hours are wasted. In my understanding we should enter people into the workforce between 12 and 14 given their rate of maturity, and teach life tools a few hours a day: money, accounting, economics, basic contracts. In fact, it’s very interesting that we teach all the sciences OTHER than the one that is most important: COOPERATION. Instead of cooperation we teach SUBMISSION. If we were to do this we would extend work lives, and reverse infantilization, as well as all but eliminate the difficulty entering the work force. We would have vast programs of teaching-in-the-workplace at very low wages, and produce the highest skilled people in the world. We could have fully socialized people, a more competente work force, have children in our late teens and twenties, and far lower costs.

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • Teaching by Discourse

    Teaching: Some Read, Some Narrate, Some Speak, Some Preach, Some Interrogate, and Some Discourse. I teach by discourse, which is very suitable for Seminars. And honestly it is the only way I know how to teach – by guided storytelling. (I learned how to teach and manage by playing dungeons and dragons – really.) However, it is extremely difficult for me to read and speak at the wall, and interrogation is counter-productive. So the principle problem I have been having, now that I am ready to produce courses, is that I can’t actually present well without the ‘class’ (Audience). And the reason is I tailor my storytelling to the audience and their feedback. I can even work well in interview conditions. But without ‘responsiveness’ of an audience I find it almost impossible. Had I moved to London (or ny, or atlanta) instead of taking care of an ill family member I could easily put together a seminar and use that as the basis for videos. And I find it difficult to write without having first taught it. So (thinking out loud) I’m going to see if I an put together some sort of substitute. All in all I’m ‘done’ except for editing. But editing this density of text on this range of topics without practice ‘storytelling’ is actually very hard for me for reasons familiar to most authors – ‘to whom am I speaking’ will devolve into ‘myself’ and that is very hard for everyone other than me to understand. This problem has been dogging me since I left ukraine and the (wonderful) studio we had there.

  • Teaching by Discourse

    Teaching: Some Read, Some Narrate, Some Speak, Some Preach, Some Interrogate, and Some Discourse. I teach by discourse, which is very suitable for Seminars. And honestly it is the only way I know how to teach – by guided storytelling. (I learned how to teach and manage by playing dungeons and dragons – really.) However, it is extremely difficult for me to read and speak at the wall, and interrogation is counter-productive. So the principle problem I have been having, now that I am ready to produce courses, is that I can’t actually present well without the ‘class’ (Audience). And the reason is I tailor my storytelling to the audience and their feedback. I can even work well in interview conditions. But without ‘responsiveness’ of an audience I find it almost impossible. Had I moved to London (or ny, or atlanta) instead of taking care of an ill family member I could easily put together a seminar and use that as the basis for videos. And I find it difficult to write without having first taught it. So (thinking out loud) I’m going to see if I an put together some sort of substitute. All in all I’m ‘done’ except for editing. But editing this density of text on this range of topics without practice ‘storytelling’ is actually very hard for me for reasons familiar to most authors – ‘to whom am I speaking’ will devolve into ‘myself’ and that is very hard for everyone other than me to understand. This problem has been dogging me since I left ukraine and the (wonderful) studio we had there.