Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:42:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
“Genetic deviation between groups is smaller than between individuals in the gro
—“Genetic deviation between groups is smaller than between individuals in the group.”—
That is a meaningless truism that easily fools the innumerate.
– ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.
– markets the optimum economic strategy.
– eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.
– neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.
Very minor variations in group genes produce very profound group outcomes.
It appears that a relatively small number of genes (in the thousands) produces 100% of the competitive variation between groups (symmetry, neoteny, dimorphism).
Meanwhile we have no idea how much of the genome is used (functional), which expressed (conditional), which unused (reserve) or noise (dead).
As such, “deviation between groups vs individuals” is in itself true but by implication a profound deception (fraud).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:11:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. UM. NO. IT’S FOR THE STRONG. Let me help you.
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
UM. NO. IT’S FOR THE STRONG.
Let me help you. The reason for natural law of reciprocity is that it is the only reason under which the strong and able have a greater interest in cooperation than predation.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:06:49 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT John Mark “Xy
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
NATURAL LAW VS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
John Mark
“Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.”
Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement.
As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:05:54 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE NATURAL LAW —“When we hear the sophist
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MORE NATURAL LAW
—“When we hear the sophists claim that law is a social construct, they should be saying that legislation is a social construct?”— Steven Jackson
Yes. Natural Law (Reciprocity). Law (judicial findings of irreciprocity), Legislation( Commands of Representatives given force of law), Regulation ( Commands of Bureaucracy), Discretion (Commands of Individuals).
—“Natural law is not a construct but a reality that adapts to social conditions?”— Steven Jackson
Natural law was ‘discovered’ as the universal method of decidability independent of individual and group differences in judgements, and from which there is no incentive for retaliation.
Natural law (reciprocity) is the only condition under which both (a) cooperation is the necessary means of survival, reproduction, and flourishing, and (b) individuals cannot prey upon one another, and (c) it is in the self interest of the strong (and sovereign) to adhere to instead of predation, parasitism, and coercion.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 20:01:01 UTC
-
THE COMPLETE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS 1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natur
THE COMPLETE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natural Law as justification for secession(independence).
2 – The Bill of Rights codifies the natural law as they enumerated those rights at the time.
3 – The Constitution describes the organization and processes of the government.
I tend to tell people to read them in that order: Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution: from the reason for the secession: violation of natural law, to the articulation of the specific defenses of it, to the institutions that protect it yet still allow for the production of commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 19:30:00 UTC
-
TWO IMPORTANT POSTS ON RULE OF LAW 1) RULE OF LAW – THE SPECTRUM OF WHAT IS AND
TWO IMPORTANT POSTS ON RULE OF LAW
1) RULE OF LAW – THE SPECTRUM OF WHAT IS AND ISN’T
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156509147362264
2) THE WEAKNESS IN THE RULE OF LAW: THE SUPREME COURT
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156510056397264
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 19:30:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 19:16:00 UTC
-
WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM ISN’T When say that you are a White
WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM ISN’T
When say that you are a White Nationalist your not solving the problem: building a worldwide movement, exiting leftists (defectors) from the gene pool, and saving another 5000 years of costly eugenics. We know we’ve spent 3500 years or more on eugenic evolution by cultural design, and it’s possible much more than that by accident. There is no need for a monopoly and to dominate. It’s not helpful. So voluntary separation is all that is necessary. And race is an insufficient criteria.
The only thing that matters is voluntary association and disassociation. The markets for polities will solve everything for us just as all markets solve all other issues for us.
Why? We can afford to produce commons that suit the genetic interests of different groups. So rather than fight an impossible fight, lets just serve one another’s interests.
Serve EVERYONE’s political interests.
Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.
====== UPDATE ======
Funny that some people understand propaganda and some don’t. I have this suspicion that what makes our people fragile, is that we have been performing truth to power for so many thousands of years that it’s in our genes, and that is why we are both susceptible to propaganda and bad at making it.
WN is Bad Prop. Nationalism and commons preferred by each group is GOOD prop. Good prop makes allies. Bad prop creates resistance.
The simple and direct route is the one that is predictable. Great generals maneuver: they let the opponent take the direct route and take the indirect route to defeat them.
The psychological drive for directness is male aggression. This is why some people fight physically, others legally, others politically, and others informationally.
WN is bad Prop. Universal Nationalism to foster group flourishing is Good Prop.
Help everyone to help ourselves.
The bigger ambition provides the shortest distance and duration.
===== UPDATE ====
NATIONALISM
– ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.
– markets the optimum economic strategy.
– eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.
– neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.
===== UPDATE ====
THE DEAD END RIGHT: WN
W.N. is a dead end. Nationalism is not.
National Socialism is a dead end. Redistribution is not.
Religion is Dead End. Institutional models are not.
Takeover is a dead end. Separatism is not.
Demonstrations are a dead end. Direct action is not.
Solving your problem is a dead end. Solving everyone’s is not.
Ideology is a dead end. Economics Incentives Are Not.
THE SOLUTIONS MOVEMENTS NEED
All revolutions occur because of a convergence between:
(a) the state’s inability to modify it’s behavior to serve the diverging interests of the public.
(b) a common knowledge of an alternative condition (order) that would be preferable,
(c) a surplus of males that are agitated by this condition,
(d) an economic or political event that provides opportunity for collective action that can ‘spiral’ (increase in momentum).
REALITIES OF MOVEMENTS
The early adopters seek the fringe. The population seeks an Overton Window. As movements age, they upgrade members from the fringe to the Overton Window: Fringe personalities perform research for talented personalities that perform research for mainstream personalities.
We have better followers this year than last.
We had better followers last year than the year before.
We had better followers the year before last, than the year before … and so on.
I don’t want to associate with the fringe that hinders capture of the Overton Window. They are a dead end. All that matters is the people who will fight, resist, advocate, or not get in the way. And those people will be captured by economic and cultural incentives – not ideology.
REVOLUTION
A moral License.
A set of Demands.
A plan of Transition.
A means of raising the cost of the status quo.
Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 18:58:00 UTC
-
THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS —” the constitutional doct
THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS
—” the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers mandates that judges anchor their analysis to the text as reasonably understood by the people of the time. If that leads to a violation of Reciprocity (Natural Law), then the proper avenue for redress is to amend the constitution so the text better and better codifies Reciprocity (Natural Law).”—
I assume, and the minority of strict jurists assume that the founding documents consist of The Declaration, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. And if clarity of original intent is required then we resort to The Federalist Papers, or notes on the proceeds of the debate. Once the bill of rights was ratified, then the founding documents were complete.
1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natural Law as justification for secession(independence).
2 – The Bill of Rights codifies the natural law as they enumerated those rights at the time.
3 – The Constitution describes the organization and processes of the government.
I tend to tell people to read them in that order: Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution: from the reason for the secession: violation of natural law, to the articulation of the specific defenses of it, to the institutions that protect it yet still allow for the production of commons.
Unfortunately, first, reciprocity is not specifically stated as the first rule of natural law. Second, there is no requirement that the judiciary certify the constitutionality of legislation, and instead, all legislation ascends until falsified by the court. In other words, the market tests the legislation, and if conflicts arise the court corrects legislation.
This approach continues the no-prior-restraint of the Anglo Saxon (Germanic) law versus the prior-restraint of continental (french and roman) law. And this is yet another example of ‘markets in everything’.
Worse, without specifying Reciprocity, there is no means by which the initial rights can be limited, and therefore no means by which the court can limit the grant of rights rather than permissions and obligations.
Worse, there are no means by which the court can return the legislation to the legislature and demand correction. Nor are there means by which the court can suggest corrections or amendments to rectify the deficiency, and return to the legislature.
As such the court must, as the president must, choose ‘line item veto’ so to speak, or to veto the entire piece of legislation. So that is what the court does.
And the court members use different criteria for determining the power of the legislature:
1- Rule of Law (Substantive) in which the legislature and the people may only act in concert with natural law (reciprocity), or ;
2-Rule by Law (Formalist) in which the legislature can do what it wants;
3-Rule by Law (Majoritarian), in which the people can do whatever they want.
In other words, there are always at least THREE parties to a matter before the court: Plaintiff, Defendant, and Legislature. And the court cannot demand remedy of the legislature. And that is the oversight.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 18:52:00 UTC