Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. ELI ON THE FIFTH ABRAHAMIC REVOLT AGAINST CIV

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    ELI ON THE FIFTH ABRAHAMIC REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION

    —“Postmodernism is the 5th Abrahamic revolt against Western Reason, Empiricism, Aristocracy, and Eugenia – their ongoing struggle to drag humanity back into ignorance, poverty, disease, filth, parasitism and superstition:. The 1st, Judaism; 2nd Christianity; 3rd, Islam; 4th, classical, Marxist, pseudoscientific, Socialism; 5th, Postmodern, cultural Marxist, critical theory and intersectional socialism.” — Eli Harman

    (perfect)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:41:09 UTC

  • “People spin great webs of complexity in efforts to entangle producers in a web

    —“People spin great webs of complexity in efforts to entangle producers in a web of parasitism.”— Austyn Pember

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:37:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024031323290259456

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“People spin great webs of complexity in e

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —“People spin great webs of complexity in efforts to entangle producers in a web of parasitism.”— Austyn Pember

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:37:36 UTC

  • They cannot be made commensurable.

    —“The West’s egalitarianism and loss of noblesse oblige: Atheists amongst the elite will attack the concept of religion on a whim, because they don’t need it, not considering they have a duty to society by virtue of their position, and different people have different needs to function optimally.”—Graham Davies my only comment is that once you open up democracy you are forced into the problem of the different needs of the classes. The necessary law of the aristocracy, the fanciful philosophy of the middle, and the supernatural religion of the bottom all must somehow compete – but they cannot be made commensurable.

  • They cannot be made commensurable.

    —“The West’s egalitarianism and loss of noblesse oblige: Atheists amongst the elite will attack the concept of religion on a whim, because they don’t need it, not considering they have a duty to society by virtue of their position, and different people have different needs to function optimally.”—Graham Davies my only comment is that once you open up democracy you are forced into the problem of the different needs of the classes. The necessary law of the aristocracy, the fanciful philosophy of the middle, and the supernatural religion of the bottom all must somehow compete – but they cannot be made commensurable.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. JOHN MARK ON MARKETING MARKET FASCISM AS THE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    JOHN MARK ON MARKETING MARKET FASCISM AS THE NEXT STEP IN DEMOCRACY

    —“As we market/promote a new and improved governmental system with propertarian/natural law tenets etc, is it wiser to speak of it (market/promote/educate) as “a new form of democracy” (and explain the part about houses/markets etc), or to call it something else (because obviously full franchise democracy doesn’t work, and we don’t want people thinking it will be full franchise direct democracy).”— John Mark

    Well I think of it as market democracy rather than monopoly democracy and if we explain that it solves the problem of either side winning only the moral will agree and only the immoral disagree.

    And then we know who to exit from the polity: the immoral.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:15:14 UTC

  • John Mark on Marketing Market Fascism as The Next Step in Democracy

    —“As we market/promote a new and improved governmental system with propertarian/natural law tenets etc, is it wiser to speak of it (market/promote/educate) as “a new form of democracy” (and explain the part about houses/markets etc), or to call it something else (because obviously full franchise democracy doesn’t work, and we don’t want people thinking it will be full franchise direct democracy).”— John Mark Well I think of it as market democracy rather than monopoly democracy and if we explain that it solves the problem of either side winning only the moral will agree and only the immoral disagree. And then we know who to exit from the polity: the immoral.

  • John Mark on Marketing Market Fascism as The Next Step in Democracy

    —“As we market/promote a new and improved governmental system with propertarian/natural law tenets etc, is it wiser to speak of it (market/promote/educate) as “a new form of democracy” (and explain the part about houses/markets etc), or to call it something else (because obviously full franchise democracy doesn’t work, and we don’t want people thinking it will be full franchise direct democracy).”— John Mark Well I think of it as market democracy rather than monopoly democracy and if we explain that it solves the problem of either side winning only the moral will agree and only the immoral disagree. And then we know who to exit from the polity: the immoral.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FREED

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FREEDOM
    by Steve Pender

    The founders accepted democracy only because they had set what they thought were sufficient restrictions to prevent past problems of democracy.

    Only white (the same stock as the founders), male (those who bear the cost of land ownership/defense), landowners (skin in the game, proven interest in long-term settlement, majority of taxpayers) could vote in the American “democracy”.

    Universal suffrage is provably incompatible with long-term freedom since varying levels of skin in the game create voting arbitrage opportunities for the free-riding side (vote for something that benefits you, at the expense of others who pay higher cost).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 19:31:10 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post. by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA.

    I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger).

    The text in a previous post here:

    [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ]

    is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect).

    Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933.

    In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 19:28:14 UTC