Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE — “we need t

    THE ORIGIN AND REASON FOR MARRIAGE – POLITICAL ECONOMY OF MARRIAGE

    — “we need to restore legal fault to (the mating) market. The entire courtship market was highly protected in the west until we “liberated” ourselves from law and men no longer can sue for crimes against their family.” —

    As you say, this is the primary institutional harm. However we also demand disclosure of the number and names of previous partners for marriage, must repair the economy so that it’s in favor of the working and middle classes, and provide basic education in human behavior.

    Family = Assets in a Private Corporation

    Just in case anyone tries to argue with me, the origin of the family is as a corporation of shared assets and liabilities, and marriage ritual as public insurance those assets from interference (theft) as commons are insured against interference. That’s the economy of marriage.

    So the idea that we invented the corporation for capitalism is just another leftist fraud. We can ONLY produce commons by reciprocal insurance of demonstrated interests (investments, assets, property), and the family, the tribe, the polity, the state, were all corporations.

    That’s what a corporation means: a collection of assets protected by limited liability and insured by the polity against the imposition of costs, whether by harm or privatization, by others. The family is the first corporation we insure. Because it’s the first reason men kill.

    And destruction of the MARRIGAGE MARKET IS THE PRIMARY REASON MEN REVOLT. Yep. it’s an evolutionary necessity. It can’t be otherwise. It’s the most common reason for revolution in history. Becaues it’s an existential threat to the reason we exist: reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:26:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134321297810820

  • @neofugue1 @newspeaktranny @r7booster (a) you’re fantasizing. (b) why wouldn’t w

    @neofugue1@newspeaktranny@r7booster
    (a) you’re fantasizing.
    (b) why wouldn’t women do what they always do which is ally with men more desirable than you to bring about conditions favorable to those women and the men they attract? They would. They have.
    (c) If you can’t construct a step by step plan to bring about a given condition then you’re just larping.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 23:01:37 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107130683203664340

  • @neofugue1 @newspeaktranny @r7booster The right can’t organize enough ‘violence’

    @neofugue1@newspeaktranny@r7booster The right can’t organize enough ‘violence’ to put on a decent protest without getting owned by the opposition and humiliated beause they’re baited you into hazard.
    Or in our case chastized by the right because we won’t be baited into hazard. What makes you think it’s possible to accumulate he political power to pay for and arm a group of men, and for those men to impose will upon those who disagree with it? Pure force is expensive. Eventually you have to produce incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 21:50:09 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107130402174576090

  • @ChrisLangan @PatByrnes (Correct)

    @ChrisLangan@PatByrnes (Correct)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 20:35:58 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107130110485713824

  • @neofugue1 Assertions without evidence. Women are just as capable as men in most

    @neofugue1 Assertions without evidence. Women are just as capable as men in most of life, at least within class boundaries. It’s just that men are superior at the intellectual, emotional, and physical extremes. but we have eliminted most of the physical extremes, and we’ve even eliminated most of the emotional extremes. The primary deciding factor is economics, and given long term credit expansion, it has increased the market value of emale consumption, and decrease the market for male income and capital accumulation for the under, laboring, working, ower middle, and even most of the middle class. Why? Because most middle income jobs are now administrative, facillitative, and servile (customer service), and immigration has depreciated dramatically the ability of men to drive up the prie of their labor to compete. That said, there is zero evidence that you’re right. In fact, there is universal evidence, increasing in rate at every year, that you’re wrong. Women are displacing men out of work, and machinery is displacing men out of work, and AI is going to displace more men out of work, and women will continue to find fewer and fewer reasons to pay the cost of consumptoin and attention that men require. The only way for this to change is political and legislative and it will never happen that we can ‘contain’ women by other than incentives. Never. Ever., Sorry.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 20:27:33 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107130077391953589

  • @TheZBlog DUPLICITY

    @TheZBlog DUPLICITY

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 18:09:53 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107129536103460279

  • @neofugue1 it is an impossibility. you can want it. you can advocate for it, you

    @neofugue1 it is an impossibility. you can want it. you can advocate for it, you can support it. you can dream about it. but it cannot happen because the forces and incentives and economies that existed in the ancient world are as dead and gone as those people.

    The reason rome started to decline is because their reach was greater than the genetic pool of men who could defend the state on one hand, the the low productivity and relative poverty of the state on the other hand.

    We have far less advantage over others than the ancient world did. The coercive power was almost eliminated by the rifle, and it was econmically evicerated by the industrial revolution, and there are no assymetries of power sufficient to produce such an aristocratic minority.

    And people of sufficient competency to govern at this scale of complexity can no longer be sold the false promises of religion (although you claerly have been) and the secularization of religoin into humanism continues apace with no evidence it can or will be halted.

    Worse the agrarian age, it’s values, its ethics, it’s morals, its marriages, it’s properties, are as dead as the agrarian gods, who in turn were the funerary results of the thousands of dead pre-agarian gods.

    There is no looking backward. Instead, we must produce incentives that craete the optimum order. And this is increasingly looking like males are screwed unless we rebalance the order.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 18:09:13 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107129533443224912

  • @Lil_Aspiring_Rapper This is normal destructive behavior that results in any sta

    @Lil_Aspiring_Rapper This is normal destructive behavior that results in any state or empire that expands credit such that returns on men’s productivity is reducded.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 08:59:45 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107127372856417354

  • @Hold_Back_The_Night @Arcology_Research @RadioFreeNorthwest It was a lot of work

    @Hold_Back_The_Night@Arcology_Research@RadioFreeNorthwest It was a lot of work to solve that problem. But once understood it’s solvable. And not that difficult. The only difficulty is the political power to implement it.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 08:57:55 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107127365632506887

  • @hankbmartin Sure. But this is equally true for men. It’s just an asymmetric dis

    @hankbmartin Sure. But this is equally true for men. It’s just an asymmetric distribution when many women have an intrinsic sex value, and fewer men have an extrinsic (developed) value, and even fewer men the combination of extrinsic and intrinsic value. So men have a few chads and women a near endless supply of the equivalent. Women have always been expensive. But now, compared to all of history, women are really, really, expensive. In other words, marriage is the first form of redistribution.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-19 08:43:51 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107127310378043209