Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • People Are *Very* Different from Each Other

    by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.

    • Many Christians say “If you’re not Christian you’re not good enough.” (While Christian pastors/priests refuse to say what is necessary to save the West. Why would we follow or submit to them? It’s ludicrous. Don’t worry, Christians don’t follow through on this threat – 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. They’ll always end up following the best leaders they can get which rarely come from their own ranks.)
    • The “alt-right” says “Talk about joos in every conversation/video, and tell everyone how Hitler was right, and provide me a sentimental religion around the wonderfulness of the white race, or you’re not good enough.”

    • Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”

    The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.

  • Define: Cellular Damage

    —“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson

    XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.

  • Define: Cellular Damage

    —“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson

    XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.

  • Our Purpose, Our Control

    OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. The men who can defend or destroy, always own and control things. The question is only whether they act to control things they own. This is why a universal militia is required to produce rule of law – the power to deny power. And this is why only western man has rule of law – individual sovereignty. And with the introduction of metal, the spear, then the sword, then the bow, then the rifle, the militia increasingly obtained power, to deny power. The purpose of the militia is to create the power to deny power, so that no one else has the power to control things or destroy things – leaving only sovereignty and reciprocity under the natural law as means of survival. Therefore the host of men must exercise control of things in order to prevent control of things, leaving only the natural law, and and the markets for reciprocity within them.

  • Our Purpose, Our Control

    OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. The men who can defend or destroy, always own and control things. The question is only whether they act to control things they own. This is why a universal militia is required to produce rule of law – the power to deny power. And this is why only western man has rule of law – individual sovereignty. And with the introduction of metal, the spear, then the sword, then the bow, then the rifle, the militia increasingly obtained power, to deny power. The purpose of the militia is to create the power to deny power, so that no one else has the power to control things or destroy things – leaving only sovereignty and reciprocity under the natural law as means of survival. Therefore the host of men must exercise control of things in order to prevent control of things, leaving only the natural law, and and the markets for reciprocity within them.

  • Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent

    —“Maybe I’m unclear on what you mean by intent. It seems to me incentives and intent are interlinked.”—Scott Strong

    CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS: Passively follow incentives to seize existing opportunity – and fail to not seize opportunity that is immoral. CONSPIRACY OF INTENT: Actively work to create opportunities to seize because they are immoral. CONSPIRACY OF IDIOCY: Actively work to crate opportunities to seize that are immoral because you falsely believe that they are moral (you justify them) CONSPIRACY TO BAIT INTO HAZARD: Actively work to create opportunities for others to seize that produce immoral consequences.

  • Conspiracy of Common Interests vs Of Intent

    —“Maybe I’m unclear on what you mean by intent. It seems to me incentives and intent are interlinked.”—Scott Strong

    CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS: Passively follow incentives to seize existing opportunity – and fail to not seize opportunity that is immoral. CONSPIRACY OF INTENT: Actively work to create opportunities to seize because they are immoral. CONSPIRACY OF IDIOCY: Actively work to crate opportunities to seize that are immoral because you falsely believe that they are moral (you justify them) CONSPIRACY TO BAIT INTO HAZARD: Actively work to create opportunities for others to seize that produce immoral consequences.

  • Government Under P-Law

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution. A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments. But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests. So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today. We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors. The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house). The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law. The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators. The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model. This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.

  • Government Under P-Law

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution. A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments. But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests. So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today. We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors. The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house). The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law. The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators. The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model. This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.

  • The Hierarchy of Possibilities Prevents Error

    THE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBILITIES PREVENTS ERROR By Lucas Cort SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINANT MALE The male strategy creates sovereignty IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers. FREEDOM – ALL Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. If FREEDOM is used as the starting point without understanding the necessity for sovereignty that makes freedom possible, then men will not pay the cost of defending the sovereigns who create freedom. LIBERTY – ASCENDANT MALE The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). If LIBERTY is used the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures of permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). REDISTRIBUTION – FEMALE This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If REDISTRIBUTION is used as the starting point, first entitlement devoid merit, then hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.