Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • I DON’T HATE ON PEOPLE. SORRY. IN THAT SENSE I AM A CHRISTIAN. My point is, don’

    I DON’T HATE ON PEOPLE. SORRY. IN THAT SENSE I AM A CHRISTIAN.

    My point is, don’t criticize or counter-signal me because I don’t climb on the racist bandwagon; because I counter-signal demands that I join the racist bandwagon. And i counter-signal the use of my work for the purpose of advocating racism.

    I don’t hate on people. I hate on ideas. I may hate on some genes. I may hate a bit on nature once in awhile. But I don’t hate on people because of their race. Their strategy, their government, their culture, their beliefs, and their actions.

    I am a christian to the extent that I have understood and adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive tit-for-tat before going to war. And 4) I retain the Aryan conviction that once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, and without mercy, without constraint, without remorse – defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of your enemy.

    I understand all people must follow our reproductive incentives. We have no other rational means of choice. But I try to solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem is DC/NY imperialism, a demographic government, abrahamism/marxism/postmodernism, and most of all, the lack of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity, and the perpetual militia necessary to preserve it.

    I want EVERYONE to be free to form nations that produce the commons they NEED for their state of genetic development, and their distribution of abilities.

    And I want everyone to be accountable for the domestication of their own people rather than offloading that cost onto others (especially us).

    And if I don’t join on the “LET’S FAIL AGAIN PLEASE” bandwagon of promoting fictionalism in order to compensate for the remaining inferiority of the distribution of my own ‘white’ kin, then, understand, that’s OK with me. I’m not after the attention of the common man. I’m after creating an answer to the Frankfurt School – this time via truth, that prevents all further abrahamic deceptions. And then using small numbers to start a revolution that will spiral – not from understanding of my arguments, but from opportunity to obtain what they desire. And I hope most of all to use the very threat and possibility of it, to cause serious conversation about the restoration of natural law and markets in everything through the restoration of reciprocity and truthful speech.

    If you want to “FAIL AGAIN PLEASE” then you’re welcome to. Some of us favor voluntary religion (fictionalism) and some of us favor involuntary law (truth). We all pursue those actions within our realm of comprehension and ability. The common man is not my audience or my objective. A few angry men that need an organization to assist them is.

    I know that I can produce weapons that few can make use of. Others can adopt for their use. And others adopt from those adoptions. I have said all along that this is my strategy. It has been since I went public.

    I’m going to end abrahamism forever. And that means ending fictionalism forever. And that means ONLY THE SMART AND THE STRONG WILL RULE.

    And that is what I’m aiming for.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 11:28:00 UTC

  • EDUCATION IS CRUEL TO BOYS AND MEN It’s F—KING CRUEL to put black kids in the

    EDUCATION IS CRUEL TO BOYS AND MEN

    It’s F—KING CRUEL to put black kids in the same classrooms and taught the same way as whites and asians.

    Hell, it’s cruel to whites to put them in the same classroom with asians. I mean, asian kids are amazing right out out of the womb. My son (very scandianvian, bigger, stronger, more aggressive) nearly got kicked out of school. Not because he exercises dominance. But because he won’t tolerate dominance of him – and will do something about some annoying kid who dominates him in noisiness, word, or action.

    The more rapid the maturity and the deeper the maturity the higher the ratio of physical exercise to classroom teaching is necessary to NOT produce brain damage in boys.

    The more experiential the girls, the more team sports are necessary so that girls are socialized so that they can learn to manage their emotions.

    I mean think of all the damage this postmodernism in education does to our people!!!!

    There was a point I wanted to open an inner city school for black men just so I could prove that the problem is entirely solvable by teaching everything physically instead of in-situ.

    ALmost all boys benefit from Military school with a lot of sports.

    Almost all girls benefit from any individual or team sport.

    Civilization consists of the suppression of animal impulse and the direction of dominance to the war and market rather than each other.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 10:09:00 UTC

  • ACTUALLY I LOVE WOMEN. I JUST HATE FEMINISM. And basically f-off if you think I

    ACTUALLY I LOVE WOMEN. I JUST HATE FEMINISM.

    And basically f-off if you think I don’t love women. I adore them. I have had amazing women in my life. I am never happy without a close relationship with a woman I love. And I prefer to be desperately monogamous.

    Man and woman are compatible. We are, in my experience, incomplete without each other. And if we can add to one another’s lives we can make each other more than we could be otherwise.

    But if a woman wants to compete with me as men do, then i’m gonna treat you as a man: first with demonstrated superiority in achievement, second with demonstrated superiority in rational and scientific argument, and thirdly with demonstrated superiority in physical violence.

    Why? Because men are happy knowing ‘their place in the pack’. And all our conflict evolved to produce a pack where ‘everyone does his duty’. Women evolved like chickens, to peck the hell out of each other. Women destroy each other, and destroy society if they get the opportunity.

    So don’t bring a chicken to a dogfight.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 08:37:00 UTC

  • INTERNATIONAL ETHICS: I’M A SCIENTIST: NOT A RACIST, I’M A CLASSIST, AND A NATIO

    INTERNATIONAL ETHICS: I’M A SCIENTIST: NOT A RACIST, I’M A CLASSIST, AND A NATIONALIST. HERE IS WHY….

    I just want to respond to this: I don’t do racism. The problem for all races, and subraces as far as I can tell, is that we have all specialized in some form of extreme. East in industriousness and Neoteny and West in creativity and Neoteny. Africa in hostile-environment resistance and sociability and deep maturity. South Asians in warm weather survival and sociability. Desert (semitic) and steppe (all others) people in masculine features (small brains) and aggression. And the ashkenazi – the strangest of all – reversing sexual dimorphism and transferring female verbal skills to males.

    So given our specializations, the people one standard deviation above the white mean are all fine with each other. The problem is that the more of your population that is below a mean of 112/115, the more burden it places on adaptation to modernity because the cost of education and training is too high, and the cost of developing high trust norms is either too high or impossible, given the *incentives available by commercial means*.

    Hence why lower trust lower IQ populations do not rely on commercial incentives, and instead rely on religious, social, and physical incentives. In other words the old problem of the tripartite aristocracy remains: the lower class must be culled consistently and the middle class maximized, because it is this single issue that determines rates of progress. All the rest is merely institutions that assist us in cooperation.

    For these reasons I’m pro nationalism because the only moral means by which an underclass can be minimized is by its own kin, who do so in the interest of kin’s transcendence.

    That last sentence constitutes my standing on global political morality: domesticate your kin, and do not force others do domesticate your kin. If others are domesticating your kin, they are just in doing so, because your failure to domesticate your kin is the reason, and only reason, we are in conflict.

    Do not export your failures to others.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 07:43:00 UTC

  • PROFESSIONALIZING BANKING AND FINANCE It’s really not complicated. Privately fun

    PROFESSIONALIZING BANKING AND FINANCE

    It’s really not complicated.

    Privately funded Loans used as input for production distribution trade and profit can accrue interest, paid symmetrically, rather than front loaded.

    You can sell a fractional interest in a loan, but you cannot convey responsibility for a loan beyond the individual who ‘measured’ it (originated it.) ( This is one of the most important applications of blockchain technology: the fractional shares of interest. )

    The originator must take full losses on each and every loan he originates before the losses are transferred to those those that have purchased factional interest.

    Originated loans may not be bundled or attached as a criteria of fractional sale in any way as each is unique and it is impossible to aggregate them.

    All originated loans must be traceable to an individual originator.

    All originators must possess a Series Seven or equivalent license thereof. All such holders must possess insurance.

    CONSUMER LOANS

    Consumers may borrow directly from the treasury, through an agent, and no interest may be charged directly or indirectly for consumer purchase, possession, use, and non-transfer of a consumable good.

    The only fees for this consumer borrowing from the treasury shall be commission fees, which will consist of costs plus a percentage of costs.

    The maximum duration of a consumer loan is the half life of the replacement life of portable property, and fifteen years for primary residency.

    PURPOSE

    To elminate interest on consumer loans.

    To redirect all consumer interest to the commons (end privatization of profits from fiat currency).

    To end the impossibilty of transferring prices for unique objects to others.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 15:12:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK) Interesting. Was searching for c

    THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)

    Interesting. Was searching for colloquial opinions on “legislating from the bench” and found this page.

    DECIDABILITY (LOGIC) VS JUDGEMENT (OPINION)

    1) If the Natural Law of reciprocity exists, all questions of law should be decidable by a test of reciprocity. (They are.)

    2) If the constitution was intended as an implementation of Natural Law, then all question of law under natural law should be decidable. (It was, They are).

    3) In those cases of contracts of the commons (legislation, and regulation) that consist of contract provisions (trades) constructed under Natural Law, the terms of the contract may be undecidable given the terms specified in the contract. (painfully common)

    4) In those cases that are undecidable by the Court, because of the insufficiency of the terms of the Contract of the Commons (legislation and regulation) the court has the obligation, (as was intended by the constitution) to return the decision to the legislature rather than to ARBITRARILY provide decidability by subjective preference.

    5) In those cases that are undecidable by the court because the terms of the Contract of the Commons conflict with Natural Law, then the Court has the OBLIGATION to return the decision to the Legislature to correct the contract of the commons (legislation, and regulation) so that conflicts under the contract are decidable.

    6) In those cases that the legislature cannot construct legislation that is decidable by the judiciary because the terms of the contract for the commons is undecidable under the terms of the constitution, the legislature may propose to the legislature of the states (Congress) an amendment to the constitution that would permit decidability of such matters as cannot be decided under natural law, and the contracts of the commons we call legislation and regulation.

    FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS

    1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it.

    But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms.

    2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation.

    3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition.

    THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT

    The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient.

    1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created.

    2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it.

    3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law.

    4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights).

    5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, *despite* lack of reciprocity by foreign states.

    THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW

    Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem.

    The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here).

    The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions?

    The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 14:53:00 UTC

  • LITERATURE AND LAW ARE ENOUGH: (DEVOTEES OF THE CULTS OF IDEALISM, SUPERNATURALI

    LITERATURE AND LAW ARE ENOUGH: (DEVOTEES OF THE CULTS OF IDEALISM, SUPERNATURALISM AND SUPERNORMALISM.)

    The via positiva myth and literature, via negativa law.

    You want to achieve good, and I want to achieve the eradication of the false and the bad.

    You want to achieve consensus on the good, and I want to eliminate consensus on the false and the bad, by providing incentives to prosecute the false and the bad, even if some well meaning fools think it is a good.

    You want to find a means of education, and I want to find a means of conflict resolution.

    You want to find a means of INDOCTRINATION of a monopoly and I want to find a means of REGULATION a market, without the need for indoctrination, so that people can develop whatever good and true narratives they desire, as long as they are not bad.

    You want to do something expensive: education, and I want to do something cheap: law.

    You want to do something that provides people with opportunities, and I want to do something that deprives them of opportunities.

    You want something that you can convince people of, and I want something that they needn’t be.

    Science (measurement and decidability) can only exist as a via-negativa process (eliminating of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit), but it requires a great deal of knowledge to employ – principally because it is impossible to attach values to statements.

    While it is something quite different to teach and rally, and much easier to rely upon fictionalisms, idealisms, myths, narratives, that contain more experiential information so that values can be attached to statements.

    In other words, it is very hard to load, frame, and suggest using science and law, and it is very easy to load, frame, and suggest using narratives.

    And my position is, that if we deny people fictionalisms and idealisms, that have sufficient Supernormalism in myth, heroes, and histories, that the lies of Supernaturalism, Idealism, conflationism, need not be employed in education and communication, any more than they need be employed in any other aspect of life.

    Or at least, those ‘techniques’ produce externalities that are demonstrably harmful as hell, and that such people employing such techniques may have no dominion over others in the construction of commons, legislation, and law.

    Ying and Yang was a prison. Good and Evil a prison. Deflationary Truth and Falsehood the method of transcendence.

    And as far as I know, Literature and Law are all that is necessary for pedagogy. It is that people who have learned to ‘lie’ by idealism and supernaturalism are unable to exit the programming of the cults just as those who argue by theological means are unable to exit the programming of the cult.

    We can exit falsehood. Literature and history make no claims of the ideal the supernatural, albeit they educate us through supernormalism (hyperbole).

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:55:00 UTC

  • WHY CHINA IS RIGHT. (important)(revise your values) China will dominate the futu

    WHY CHINA IS RIGHT.

    (important)(revise your values)

    China will dominate the future for the simple reasons that they have succeeded at juvenilization, succeeded at culling the lower classes, have succeeded at building an intolerant, militial ‘national’ (kinship) army, have succeeded at both building a wall AND not venturing outside of it, and succeeded at prohibiting incursion by any variation of Abrahamism, and succeeded at adopting aristotelianism, and consumer capitalism – all of that despite being UNABLE to adopt western truth, high trust, and rule of law, because it is contrary to the confucian teaching that one must preserve harmony rather than disrupt the dominance hierarchy through truthful speech.

    Conversely the west COULD dominate the future by replicating the chinese strategy of:

    (a) preserving our juvenilization,

    (b) preserving (and expanding) our culling of the underclasses

    (c) restoring our militial (kinship) National army.

    (d) building a wall between the european and non european peoples.

    (e) withdrawing from adventurism outside the wall.

    (f) suppressing, and eliminating all versions of abrahamism, and all forms of supernaturalism.

    (g) preserving our truth, high trust, and rule of law.

    In Addition

    (g) protecting our intellectual property from distribution.

    Otherwise we will, for purely genetic reasons, experience another dark age, and there exist no remaining isolated white peoples to rescue us from it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 07:57:00 UTC

  • I can say that we consider ourselves (rightfully) as possessing a superior civil

    I can say that we consider ourselves (rightfully) as possessing a superior civilization that has dragged mankind out of ignorance, poverty, superstition, tyranny, and disease in both the ancient and modern worlds. And I can say we finally know why that is true.

    I can say that some of us consider white people more attractive than people with less success at Juvenilization through reproductive selection.

    I can say that aside from attractiveness, it is hard to say one is superior to the Han/Korean/Japanese – although what they have gained in health and memory we have gained in language and creativity. And this tradeoff is worth studying.

    I can say that whites were disproportionately responsible for civilizations, and that non-whites have disproportionately been responsible for the Dark Ages – in particular, Abrahamism, whether Jewish/Marxist/Socialist/Libertarian, Christian/Postmodern, or Islamic/Islamist appears to be the worst thing that has every happened to mankind – it’s been more deadly than the plague.

    As the center of history, I think that the center of history is the war between white/chinese ‘aristocracy’ and everyone else’s underclass. And that an analysis of history is reducible to the see saw of that conflict.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-07 20:23:00 UTC

  • THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE FEMININE: THE FRENCH AND THE JEWISH The the French court e

    THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE FEMININE: THE FRENCH AND THE JEWISH

    The the French court embraced effeminacy. The French language is grammatically effeminate. Rousseau’s French enlightenment was effeminate, obsessively sexual, and was the origin of Freud’s pseudoscience of psychology, and Marx’s sociology. What remained of French martial sentiments survived while the napoleonic generation lived, but the French gossiped and fought like women as soon as the industrial revolution began, and submitted to defeat like women. Today’s French men remain the most effeminate on earth other than the more flamboyant homosexuals. We do not grasp that jewish dress is effeminate and submissive, nor that their strategy is feminine.

    So is it any wonder that the French produced the revolution, the jews produced marxism, and the french produced postmodernism?

    We are born with reproductive strategies out of necessity. We choose our reproductive strategies if we can. We signal with them if it’s advantageous.

    But there are only two ends of the spectrum: The masculine meritocratic and eugenic, and the feminine equalitarian and dysgenic.

    And there are only two ends of the speech spectrum: the truthful and the untruthful.

    The west chose truthful and masculine.

    The french did not. The jews did not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-07 17:10:00 UTC