Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • —“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • Is The Right Too Apathetic To Fight?

    by John MarkSeptember 25 at 1:58 PMSome Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”(false – Changing Circumstances Change the Risk/reward Equation) [T]he grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged right-wingers can bring America to its knees easily.

  • Is The Right Too Apathetic To Fight?

    by John MarkSeptember 25 at 1:58 PMSome Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”(false – Changing Circumstances Change the Risk/reward Equation) [T]he grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged right-wingers can bring America to its knees easily.

  • Engaging with Civnats

    STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTSby John MarkSeptember 26 at 3:49 PM [C]ivic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.

  • Engaging with Civnats

    STRATEGY FOR ENGAGING WITH CIVIC NATIONALISTSby John MarkSeptember 26 at 3:49 PM [C]ivic nationalists are instinctive conservatives who are “on our team” but due to ignorance of how racially tribal/ethnocentric nonwhites are (western whites are unique in our relative lack of ethnocentrism/racial tribalism), decades of “equality” propaganda and lies, coupled with sincere lack of ill-will toward nonwhites (niceness/generosity), advocate/support legal nonwhite immigration. We are running into interactions with these folks quite a bit obviously as our reach spreads. Some of them learn essentially instantly, some learn more slowly or get “turned off” by any talk of race. So how do we deal with “the civnat problem”? My take is that our initial goal is we must get the majority of the grassroots Right one step over the line from losing right to winning right – “no more nonwhite immigration, cuz nonwhites vote 70% Left”. (Not cuz “all nonwhites are bad” or “hate” or whatnot.) (Step 1 of redpill on race.) Then, getting past the inevitable “but maybe we can reach nonwhites” requires explaining why that won’t work (they are racially tribal like the whole world except western whites, and are very susceptible to the “our problems are whitey’s fault” narrative which trumps all other logical/factual voting considerations in their psychology), which is Step 2 of redpilling on race. If we avoid these 2 bare-minimum messages, we risk going thru a civil war only to set up civnat policies again afterwards. This would be utterly tragic and would mean our descendants would eventually have to fight the same battle again. On the other hand, the time will never be more ripe for us to teach civnats this essential lesson and collectively as the grassroots Right shed the lie of group equality, than right now and as TX turns purple then blue and we find ourselves electorally powerless due to immigration. The pain of losing electoral power combined with the visciousness and obvious ir-reciprocity of the anti-white narrative and the left’s other craziness shifting into hyperdrive and communism 2.0 (all of which is only a problem because nonwhite voting is empowering it, most whites vote right and consider it silly) – all of this creates the perfect storm for our people to learn this essential lesson. So there is no better time to preach and teach “race redpill steps 1 & 2” than now and the near future. And we propertarians are positioned perfectly to do it in a way that can achieve maximum effectiveness with minimum possible “turn off”/rejection, because a) we have powerful, interesting, truly innovative solutions that are attractive to any instinctive rightwinger (evidences to people that we are not “simple/dumb racists”), and b) we do not have a “hate” or “ill-will” or “mockery” vibe. We can’t pass up this oppurtunity. If we avoid steps 1 & 2 of race redpilling for broader reach, our broader reach will accomplish little in the long run. The grassroots Right has to learn. And now is the perfect time to teach them.

  • Do We Need to Be United?

    DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):

    1. Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.)
    2. Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.)

    This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).

  • Do We Need to Be United?

    DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):

    1. Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.)
    2. Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.)

    This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).

  • Outrage.

    “Overproduction of Outrage has decreased its purchasing power.”

  • Outrage.

    “Overproduction of Outrage has decreased its purchasing power.”