Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The time has come once again to set limits.

    Feb 2, 2020, 9:14 AM (re-post from ban) Imitate Jesus. There wasn’t much better advice. I’ve harped on it here for a while, but this requires re-telling. Jesus imitation offers the best strategy for those that lack agency. And in his time; that was damn near every soul. The low/no-agency Jesus strategy works in low-trust and high-trust systems/situations. But, please understand at the time of emergence it was ONLY patriarchal systems of order in which to navigate. The foundation for an agency-less ethic to disperse to an underclass was sorely lacking. When there is proper order, acceptance and maintenance of that order is needed. With the Jesus trick one is sure not to run afoul of those with more power (specifically in ways that could get you picked out of the herd and culled). This allows one to stick around long enough to develop agency of their own. But, in a landscape of chaos (currently caused by over-order and over-abundance of information lacking coherence and salience) the Jesus trick only allows for further entropy. In times where order needs to be created the creator’s son falls short of the mark [his trick doesn’t multiply/no breeding]: By: James Thomson (d. 1882)

    “This poor sexless Jew, with a noble feminine heart, and a magnificent though uncultivated and crazy brain, did no work to earn his bread; evaded all social and political responsibilities, took no wife and contemned his own family; lived [as] a vagabond, fed and housed by charity (if by miracle, it is clear that we cannot imitate him: would that we could!); uttered many beautiful and even sublime moral truths and more impracticable precepts; preached continually himself, and faith in himself alone as the one thing necessary; and died with the lamentable cry of womanish desperation, perhaps the most significant confession in history of a life of supreme self-illusion laid bare to itself at the point of death. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He founded a sect which holds him up as the Great Exemplar of mankind, and scarcely one member of which even tries to tread in his footsteps. I have much love and reverence for him as a man; but am quite certain that if everyone really set about following his example, the world (which is surely mad enough already) would soon be one vast Bedlam broken loose.”

    Jesus provides an imitation model for the ideal under-class citizen {That is ANY dependent: men/women that lack agency, disabled, children, etc.} but, doesn’t set up an iterative, imitable, image for those needing to create order. See, in order creation, what IS isn’t enough. If it were, we wouldn’t be driven to produce. In a situation that needs order more of those able to unfurl order in the cosmic space are necessary one must be able to produce. We ought not have incentives that favor consumers but producers. It is irresponsible to imitate Jesus as you ought to do more than sacrifice yourself to the greater “good”{as right now it’s the greater BAD} of humanity. As humanity isn’t what it was; and to sacrifice yourself to it (for their sins) isn’t heroic anymore but moronic; they’re undeserving and spoiled {NOT oppressed}. They know EXACTLY what they do; and if they don’t it’s a failure on their behalf to correct for the error {you have the internet and the worlds information at your finger-tips; ignoramus}[if you’d like to place the blame on the system, fine, but you best not be a part of it]. We are now at a point in time where we ought to be saying do as Jesus said; not as he did [calculate like Jesus]. And we ought to be picking out specific instances to pull from: We need the Jesus that flipped over tables and scolded the higher-ups of the day; we need the Jesus that proclaimed “go forth and multiple,” we need the Jesus that spat out the lukewarm, we need the Jesus that warns us of God coming back with that flaming sword of Truth to do some swift re-ordering… the tolerance isn’t (for)bearable any longer! It’s irresponsible to act in this naive manner: forbearing for those that will surely act irreciprocal when given the chance. Irreciprocity IS immoral and to roll out the red carpet for its manifestation is suicide. To extend tolerance to those that will use tolerance against you to undermine and usurp your position is not kind, it isn’t Jesus like; it’s immoral, an insane display of ineptness and it’s no better if it’s innate {your instinct to allow others to walk all over you; agreeable; feminine}. The time has come once again to set limits. And as man is the measure of all things; it is he that ought to set those limits. And those limits ought to lead to the form and function of a flourishing culture. One that preserves its landscape of Jesus-like emergence as opposed to dismantling that very landscape in His name.’  

  • Testimony

    Feb 2, 2020, 9:19 AM

    —“When I was first exposed to propertarianism my jaw hit the floor. I love history. The context changes everything. It’s like seeing color for the first time. Few things in this world are truly simple, but it all is intuitive once you understand.”—Rick Tavi

  • Testimony

    Feb 2, 2020, 9:19 AM

    —“When I was first exposed to propertarianism my jaw hit the floor. I love history. The context changes everything. It’s like seeing color for the first time. Few things in this world are truly simple, but it all is intuitive once you understand.”—Rick Tavi

  • Yes, Race Is Not the Problem to Solve – It Is the Asset to Manage.

    Feb 2, 2020, 10:24 AM (important) it is very unlikely that race can be overcome for anyone who must live in proximity to blacks and hispanics and sees the consequences. It is true that good people are in every group, and that our tribes (races) can work together to common ends if we do not force one another into continuing the demonstrated failure of integration – particularly in business, schools, and neighborhoods – and let people continue to naturally sort into communities. We have common commercial interests. We have common defense interests. But we do not have common social (normative) interests because of the harsh reality of our substantial differences in genetics, temperament, ability, culture, and history. Instead, while differences in demand for commons is the cause of our conflict – race is not the cause of our conflict but the political order in which races and mixed peoples cooperate. The current organization of the polity by winner takes all, and the possibility of obtaining political power to interfere in one another’s communities that is the problem. So, yes, the problem can be overcome. But it can only be overcome by grasping where we have common and uncommon interests. You cannot change sexual, social, economic, political, and military differences between the races and subraces, nor can you change the kinship advantage to association, residency, economic and political cooperation with people of those intersets. Our military and our markets don’t care about our color. every other aspect of life does. Hence my solution depriving us of possibility of power over one another – and the ability to determine our futures independent of what others think, by sorting into groups that are heterogeneous or homogenous. I want desperately to live in a northern european homogenous polity – and I want others of my people to do inherit that which I have inherited. I know what will happen to every other known political order and I am happy if they want to do so – that does not mean it is good or will end up as anything other than a small number of wealthy elites surrounded by urban rings of poverty, favellas and ghettos. It won’t. But these are our choices to make. They are not others’ choices to make.

  • Yes, Race Is Not the Problem to Solve – It Is the Asset to Manage.

    Feb 2, 2020, 10:24 AM (important) it is very unlikely that race can be overcome for anyone who must live in proximity to blacks and hispanics and sees the consequences. It is true that good people are in every group, and that our tribes (races) can work together to common ends if we do not force one another into continuing the demonstrated failure of integration – particularly in business, schools, and neighborhoods – and let people continue to naturally sort into communities. We have common commercial interests. We have common defense interests. But we do not have common social (normative) interests because of the harsh reality of our substantial differences in genetics, temperament, ability, culture, and history. Instead, while differences in demand for commons is the cause of our conflict – race is not the cause of our conflict but the political order in which races and mixed peoples cooperate. The current organization of the polity by winner takes all, and the possibility of obtaining political power to interfere in one another’s communities that is the problem. So, yes, the problem can be overcome. But it can only be overcome by grasping where we have common and uncommon interests. You cannot change sexual, social, economic, political, and military differences between the races and subraces, nor can you change the kinship advantage to association, residency, economic and political cooperation with people of those intersets. Our military and our markets don’t care about our color. every other aspect of life does. Hence my solution depriving us of possibility of power over one another – and the ability to determine our futures independent of what others think, by sorting into groups that are heterogeneous or homogenous. I want desperately to live in a northern european homogenous polity – and I want others of my people to do inherit that which I have inherited. I know what will happen to every other known political order and I am happy if they want to do so – that does not mean it is good or will end up as anything other than a small number of wealthy elites surrounded by urban rings of poverty, favellas and ghettos. It won’t. But these are our choices to make. They are not others’ choices to make.

  • Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism

    Feb 2, 2020, 10:49 AM

    —-“Where do you stand on imperialism?”—

    I stand as always on empirical evidence and operational possibility. Depends on what we define as imperial. The holy roman empire or the han chinese empire, or the roman empire or the middle eastern empires? DIMENSION ONE – HOMOGENEITY VS HETEROGENEITY The holy roman (german continental) was homogenous; the chinese made theirs homogenous through slow forcible integration; the roman empire failed when insufficiently homogenous; the greek empire never could consilidate becasue it was heterogeneous; and the middle eastern empires were pretty totalitarian and continuously in termoil because they existed to resist heterogeneity. Now what about an empire of rule of law over teh english speaking or germanic speaking peoples? Well that is just a federation with a judge of last resort between that resolves differences between the princes (monarchs) of different poliites. What about an empire of rule by degree over a forcibly integrated and relatively homogenous empire of limited mobility like china? Well, that is just a way to manage primitive people by bureaucratic corporatism and corporate accountability(via positiva) rather than european sovereignty and rule of law (via negativa). What about the roman empire under roman law? Well, that is a way of suppressing parasitism and facilitating trade so that the upper classes can profit and the lower classes live better than they would otherwise. What about the middle eastern empires? Well that is little more than preventing any of the other tribes from rising up and profiting at the expense of the suppressed tribes. DIMENSION TWO – RULE VS REPLACEMENT Now, let’s ask about conquest and rule (europe); vs conquest, colonization and rule (africa); vs conquest, colonization, and integration; vs conquest, colonization and replacement? (Americas). DIMENSION THREE – INCENTIVES And whether you’re doing so in defense or for assets or for taxation and plunder. ANSWER We can make a table of what works and does’t work. 

    .................Homogenous <-----------Limited-----> Heterogeneous
Rule
|................Yes.......................No....................No
|................Yes.......................Yes...................No
|................N/A.......................Yes...................Yes
v
Replacement

    And we can make a simple statement out of incentives.

    Defense : Yes regardless Markets : Yes and integrate Assets:….Yes and only if you Rule Plunder:…No … only to raid to conquer. malincentives build. So that is my answer on Imperialism.

    Homogeneous populations only. Rule only in exchange for returns. Exploit only to further replacement. Conquest and Genocide are the most consequential and successful entrepreneurial ventures in human history.

  • Q: Where Do You Stand on Imperialism

    Feb 2, 2020, 10:49 AM

    —-“Where do you stand on imperialism?”—

    I stand as always on empirical evidence and operational possibility. Depends on what we define as imperial. The holy roman empire or the han chinese empire, or the roman empire or the middle eastern empires? DIMENSION ONE – HOMOGENEITY VS HETEROGENEITY The holy roman (german continental) was homogenous; the chinese made theirs homogenous through slow forcible integration; the roman empire failed when insufficiently homogenous; the greek empire never could consilidate becasue it was heterogeneous; and the middle eastern empires were pretty totalitarian and continuously in termoil because they existed to resist heterogeneity. Now what about an empire of rule of law over teh english speaking or germanic speaking peoples? Well that is just a federation with a judge of last resort between that resolves differences between the princes (monarchs) of different poliites. What about an empire of rule by degree over a forcibly integrated and relatively homogenous empire of limited mobility like china? Well, that is just a way to manage primitive people by bureaucratic corporatism and corporate accountability(via positiva) rather than european sovereignty and rule of law (via negativa). What about the roman empire under roman law? Well, that is a way of suppressing parasitism and facilitating trade so that the upper classes can profit and the lower classes live better than they would otherwise. What about the middle eastern empires? Well that is little more than preventing any of the other tribes from rising up and profiting at the expense of the suppressed tribes. DIMENSION TWO – RULE VS REPLACEMENT Now, let’s ask about conquest and rule (europe); vs conquest, colonization and rule (africa); vs conquest, colonization, and integration; vs conquest, colonization and replacement? (Americas). DIMENSION THREE – INCENTIVES And whether you’re doing so in defense or for assets or for taxation and plunder. ANSWER We can make a table of what works and does’t work. 

    .................Homogenous <-----------Limited-----> Heterogeneous
Rule
|................Yes.......................No....................No
|................Yes.......................Yes...................No
|................N/A.......................Yes...................Yes
v
Replacement

    And we can make a simple statement out of incentives.

    Defense : Yes regardless Markets : Yes and integrate Assets:….Yes and only if you Rule Plunder:…No … only to raid to conquer. malincentives build. So that is my answer on Imperialism.

    Homogeneous populations only. Rule only in exchange for returns. Exploit only to further replacement. Conquest and Genocide are the most consequential and successful entrepreneurial ventures in human history.

  • China’s Fascism Shows Its Ends

    Feb 2, 2020, 11:14 AM China’s Response to disaster vs America’s: This is the value of a Fascist State (Where fascist means Ethnonationalist, Authoritarian, State Capitalist, Mandatory Conformist.) And people prefer it. China demonstrated that Fascism won the 20th. Heterogeneous Immigration demonstrated that Democracy lost the 20th.

    — REGARDING THIS ARTICLE FROM CHINA—- Huoshenshan Hospital has been completed in #Wuhan on Sunday. Only 10 days to build. 4,000+ workers. 1000s of equipment. days and nights of work. 34,000-square-meter. 1000 beds available on Monday. —-END—

    —“Fascism isn’t state capitalist. it doesn’t take sides on economics, it applies pressure on markets as the situation demands. If you want to read anything about Fascist Economics, I’d recommend, The Economic Foundations of Fascism by Paul Enzig And Hitler’s Revolution by R. Tedor”– A ( Intelligent and Informed) Friend

    Hitler wasn’t the only fascist – he was just the last. So yes, the state:

    (a) prevents contra-autarkic arbitrage for profit and exploitation of state resources (the same thing); (b) biases production to commons by use of state financing; (c) overrides market incentives when needed. So we can fuss around with terms. But the bias in private capitalism is non interference in markets except by treating the state as just another customer, while state capitalism places higher priority on state as a customer than the market – particularly international market.

    —“A fascist wouldn’t consider the state as anything as reductive as a customer. Or anything of the sort. The state is the arbiter of the people, it IS the people. “All within the state, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State” the state comes before all else.”—Hauptgefreitersiege @Hauptgefreiter1

    This is a secular theological, or philosophical, rather than scientific or operational description. I understand the “strange’ continental obsession with restoring the theology of the church with some secular theology – from Rousseau to Kant to Marx to present – Europe is ‘stuck’. But this point of view is one of an anglo who descends from the minor aristocracy, and the puritanical, empirical, common law tradition. We can understand the continent but the continent cannot understand us. We escaped even secular theology – I just don’t know if it was good. Hugs brother. Thanks for letting me riff on your comment.

  • China’s Fascism Shows Its Ends

    Feb 2, 2020, 11:14 AM China’s Response to disaster vs America’s: This is the value of a Fascist State (Where fascist means Ethnonationalist, Authoritarian, State Capitalist, Mandatory Conformist.) And people prefer it. China demonstrated that Fascism won the 20th. Heterogeneous Immigration demonstrated that Democracy lost the 20th.

    — REGARDING THIS ARTICLE FROM CHINA—- Huoshenshan Hospital has been completed in #Wuhan on Sunday. Only 10 days to build. 4,000+ workers. 1000s of equipment. days and nights of work. 34,000-square-meter. 1000 beds available on Monday. —-END—

    —“Fascism isn’t state capitalist. it doesn’t take sides on economics, it applies pressure on markets as the situation demands. If you want to read anything about Fascist Economics, I’d recommend, The Economic Foundations of Fascism by Paul Enzig And Hitler’s Revolution by R. Tedor”– A ( Intelligent and Informed) Friend

    Hitler wasn’t the only fascist – he was just the last. So yes, the state:

    (a) prevents contra-autarkic arbitrage for profit and exploitation of state resources (the same thing); (b) biases production to commons by use of state financing; (c) overrides market incentives when needed. So we can fuss around with terms. But the bias in private capitalism is non interference in markets except by treating the state as just another customer, while state capitalism places higher priority on state as a customer than the market – particularly international market.

    —“A fascist wouldn’t consider the state as anything as reductive as a customer. Or anything of the sort. The state is the arbiter of the people, it IS the people. “All within the state, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State” the state comes before all else.”—Hauptgefreitersiege @Hauptgefreiter1

    This is a secular theological, or philosophical, rather than scientific or operational description. I understand the “strange’ continental obsession with restoring the theology of the church with some secular theology – from Rousseau to Kant to Marx to present – Europe is ‘stuck’. But this point of view is one of an anglo who descends from the minor aristocracy, and the puritanical, empirical, common law tradition. We can understand the continent but the continent cannot understand us. We escaped even secular theology – I just don’t know if it was good. Hugs brother. Thanks for letting me riff on your comment.

  • Feb 2, 2020, 11:16 AM Another of my favorite CEO tactics: —“Curt, we should do

    Feb 2, 2020, 11:16 AM Another of my favorite CEO tactics:

    —“Curt, we should do this…”—

    OK. How would we do that? What would we not do in order to do that instead? Who will do it and be responsible for doing it? I’m willing to do it if you can make it happen. Teaching moment. I save up those ideas and sort of auction them off during the next strategy session. 😉 People make sh-t happen if they commit to it in public.