Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • 1/3 of our budget is for social security, medicare, and medicaid. 1/3 of the bud

    1/3 of our budget is for social security, medicare, and medicaid.

    1/3 of the budget goes to the military.

    1/3 of our budget is called ‘discretionary’ and that means ‘everything else’.

    We don’t pay for our military of the budget, we inflate it away through the world’s dependence on the dollar as a reserve currency. (really. I know it’s hard to imagine but it is what it is).

    The majority of the military costs go to wages and retirement. It is actually our largest means of redistribution in the economy, absorbing millions. So much so that in Washington it is sometimes referred to as a middle and lower middle class welfare program.

    While we might want to think we can save money on the military, we can only save it by transferring costs to other Nato countries. Without the military and the demand for the dollar for oil and reserve functions worldwide, americans would lose the marginal difference in consumption. If you understand world oil markets you will understand why Iran and Russia act as they do. If Iran can create a bourse and dominate the region, it can replace the USA as an oil backed reserve currency. This would destroy the US ability to fund the military, and cause somewhere between a 30-50% decrease in the american household’s standard of living. Oil is to the current world as tin and copper were to the bronze age, and silver and copper were to the ancient mediterranean.

    Since the military costs us nothing (really), and we can’t really see social security, medicare, and medicaid decreasing, then the only alterable cost are discretionary costs.

    Since it is the interference in the traditional european (admittedly eugenic) social order, that conservatives and the middle class object to (but the six major immigrant cities that have the high populations depend upon) then it is going to be (sort of has to be) the discretionary spending that declines.

    The general theory is that we can break violently into regions and lose our economic and strategic position in the world, or we can devolve the high-conflict properties of the federal government to the states and regions and maintain our economic advantages.

    That’s the thinking anyway.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 17:18:00 UTC

  • I am on my side. I am on my kin’s side I am on my extended kin’s side I am on my

    I am on my side.

    I am on my kin’s side

    I am on my extended kin’s side

    I am on my civilization’s side.

    Truth happens to be the weapon of choice in this battle, because it lets us build commons and compete via commons against those that cannot compete via commons. And because it is by cunning deceits sold to women and the underclass that we have been defeated in the ancient and modern worlds.

    I considered myself a classical liberal. I had the constitution and declaration and a map of the world on my bedroom walls, and a set of encyclopedias under that map. I stared at them a lot. Not romantically, and not ideologically, but in the context of what I learned from those and other encyclopedias.

    I considered my self a libertarian (a hayekian classical liberal) when I believed in the potential of mankind..

    And current events have made me understand that such a fantasy was the product of european eugenics, and that the rest of humanity except for perhaps the Japanese and koreans is are still but animals, and we we must protect ourselves and our generations from them.

    I love sovereignty and will pay for it with my life.

    I love liberty for those who can pay for it.

    I love freedom for those who can wield it.

    For the rest, the best we can do is prevent them from harming us, our people, our civilization, and this planet.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 15:39:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:55:00 UTC

  • KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. We use law (common law of torts) to decide ma

    KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

    We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it)

    The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z

    The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations.

    Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals.

    While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law.

    Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place.

    WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy.

    Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony).

    From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined.

    But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit.

    The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’

    So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it.

    It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:48:00 UTC

  • ( We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors

    ( We end copyright, we require truthful speech, we extend liability to sponsors of speech, and we end cultural marxism and the industrialization of lying. In just one generation. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 10:25:00 UTC

  • CRAIG ROBERTS ON THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/from-nuisance-to-threat-the-high-cost-of-truth/PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS ON THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 20:26:00 UTC

  • Mr President you need to use us. If you do not, you will lose the battle. #Trump

    Mr President you need to use us. If you do not, you will lose the battle. #Trump You are not “managing your base”.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 20:23:00 UTC

  • Yep. —“We still think of tech and high growth as interchangeable,” Damodaran s

    Yep.

    —“We still think of tech and high growth as interchangeable,” Damodaran said. “But there’s old tech and new tech. It’s new tech that’s overpriced.”— Aswath Damodaran, Professor, Stern School of Business.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 20:09:00 UTC

  • The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences (

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries.

    “The People Who Lie and Defraud.”

    yeah, we arent exactly saints and teh british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial.

    Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law.

    Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man.

    The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency.

    We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered.

    Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 17:19:00 UTC

  • I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and

    I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy.

    Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input).

    I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence.

    But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 16:27:00 UTC