Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545488904 Timestamp) (Revised Intro To Propertarianism) THE NATURAL LAW PROPERTARIANISM IS TO NATURAL LAW AS PHYSICS IS TO THE LAWS OF NATURE But what are we more precisely referring to when we use the term “Propertarianism”? 1) The completion of the scientific method and its application to social science. The completion of the scientific method is the core achievement of the work, and in retrospect it explains the reason for the rise of social pseudoscience from Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Mainstream Economics, The Frankfurt School, The Success in circumventing the Constitution, the libertarianism of Rothbard/Rand, and the Neoconservatism of Strauss. The Postmodernists and the rise of postmodernism in the academy. And the Feminists, and the feminization of markets, the workplace, norms, educations, and institutions, and the infantilization of the population as a consequence. 2) The Natural Law of Human Cooperation However we focus our application of the completed scientific method on Economics, Ethics, Law Politics, and Group Evolutionary Strategy, and we use demonstrated property in its totality as a unit of measure – in not only economic, but ethical, moral, legal, and political commensurability. So the word ‘propertarianism’ refers to the use of demonstrated interests, and the defense of those interests, as a unit of measure providing commensurability, and the test of reciprocity as truth or falsehood, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, and legal or illegal. And in fact, this is how all law is constructed today in one way or another, and to one degree or another. So, the correct name for the work we call ‘propertarianism’ would be The Natural Law. We just can’t use it because the term has been so loaded throughout history, on the one hand, and because it’s not an identifiable ‘brand’ on the other. So the simple version is: Laws of Nature = The Physical Sciences. Natural Law = The Social Sciences. Sorry but it’s a paradigm shift that we just have to pay the cost of learning. 3) A Set of Related and Dependent Ideas We use the ‘brand name’ Propertarianism to refer collectively to three different sets of ideas:

    • Methodology: The Natural Law including restatements of metaphysics, psychology, sociology, epistemology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy (the cooperation, competition, and conflict of civilizations).

    • Application: The Use of the Natural Law to Produce Constitutions, and therefore Societies, Nations, and Civilizations, in Accordance with Natural Law.

    • Explanation: The reason for the disproportionate contribution an success of the west in the ancient and modern worlds. And The history of the cycles of conflict between western(european) and eastern(asian) masculine civilizations against and central(semitic) feminine civilizations.

    Counsel: Given that we are now in the post subsistence-agrarian era, we are wealthy enough to express our genetic differences, and as such are entering into political conflict between the ancient female herd reproductive strategy and civilizations, and the male pack reproductive strategy and civilizations. It appears we can no longer compromise, and neither interest can be pursued without some sort of oppression or genocide. So we can no longer assume we will create a one-world-government and a uniformity among peoples, but instead, we must separate, prospert, and speciate according to our genetic interests, and our differences in moral intuition because of those interests. As such the constitutions we recommend, are those that facilitate ‘letting a thousand nations bloom’ and returning to the speciation that we were in the process of achieving prior to both the anglo conquest of the world by sea, and the gradual transformation of our means of production from hunter-gathering and speciation, to agrarianism and unification. The future is very different from that under which the majority of our history was written down. It is often challenging to understand which of these things we are discussing in at any given moment even if they are independent, because we use them in concert in most of our discussions. The reason is that we tend to be working on Counsel, because we already understand Methodology, Application, and Explanation. Summary: Only europeans could invent The Laws of Nature and the Natural Laws – but EVERY people can use them to prosper. And to some degree, our future prosperity, is dependent upon doing so.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545485176 Timestamp) —“Declawed cats are usually like disarmed humans, more prone to being weasley, timid, violent and vicious.”—Anne Summers This is not so much a statement about cats, as about humans. 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545485322 Timestamp) —“Virtually no human action occurs in a vacuum – what they really mean is that “we do not agree, but you are wrong because I am complaining”— Micah Pezdirtz

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545484984 Timestamp) UNDERSTAND THE ENEMY’S GENETIC AND NON-RATIONAL WAY OF WAR

    1. GENETICS: The Female Way of War(Undermining)
    2. OLD WORLD: Abrahamism(Sophisms of false Promise, Pilpul and Critique)
    3. MODERN WORLD: Marxism (Pseudoscience) -> Postmodernism (Pseudorealism) -> Feminism (Denialism).

    The Laws of Nature, and the Natural Law and the Organized application of science, law, and violence to force correspondence with them, in order to complete the transformation of man in to the immortal gods mastering nature that he imagined. LAW OF WAR: You must fight wars on your terms, not the enemy’s but you must defeat the enemy on his terms not yours.

    • Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1545541826 Timestamp) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXiFcOozypc

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545531996 Timestamp) —“Well, what’s the difference between NS and propertarianism?”— The similarity is nationalism, intolerance, emphasis on commons rather than consumption, and identity. The difference is the monarchy and the traditional government, with extremely limited (and strict) constraints on the government, and liability for anyone who serves in government. —“I haven’t really seen how a future Propertarian government would anoint their ruler.”– Its because aside from monarchy, I simply list the choices of government and leadership available, and tell people to make the choice most relative for their population and its demographics. In other words, it’s under rule of law the means of producing commons (‘ruler’) varies by condition (war, normalcy, windfalls), size of the population (small, medium, large), and the demographics (high quality, medium, low quality) . That said everything else is the same. —” is Propertarianism traditionalist Libertarianism with teeth and logic? And an emphasis on spiritualism and identity?”– It’s the western tradition of sovereign men, updated to be pessimistic about the left.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545534356 Timestamp) –“Yes please but when is the book coming!?”— Vladyslav Romanyuk IMO: just the constitution is probably the most practical. classes will be easier than the book. book still feels extremely difficult to me as i edit it. constitution widest reach. classes easiest to really learn it. online material using the outline, videos, selected posts, reading list, a bit less easy, but certainly accessible. book very technical and thorough, and pretty hard in my opinion. no way around it. going to need all of those methods. core is epistemology/grammars/operational language, defeating fictionalisms. everything built on it. but total scope and application is huge. ) i mean what bill keeps saying is that general knowledge is required. in that sense you sort of need the classes. i mean we are teaching western civ…. all of it … in scientific language. we are teaching the school and college education people did not receive. its big. its a degree in the science of civilization

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545531563 Timestamp) (FYI: The site now uses Elastic Search, so results are much faster.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545532558 Timestamp) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND SOVEREIGNTY —“Are you a conservative or a libertarian?”– Well, technically I’m a “Sovereigntarian”. One has liberty by permission. One has Sovereignty because he and his allies possess a quality and quantity of violence to deny any and all alternatives to sovereignty and rule of the common law of tort. Jewish Libertarians (common property marxists), Anglo Libertarians (anglo saxon rule of law, with economic tolerance), conservatives (rule of law with normative intolerance). I’m pretty Jeffersonian in my world view and pretty much a Tory in my understanding of government, and particularly tripartite government: Monarchy and Nobility for war and rule, Burghers for the commons, with the Church responsible for Labor and Family. It has been our tradition since we invented western civilization 4000-3500 years ago. And has remained constant across every era of recorded history. However, as a conservative I am UNABASHEDLY a eugenicist, and it is the failure to openly discuss the success of western civilization due to the organization of the polity to produce eugenic evolution and thereby the continuous production of agency. So cognitively jeffersonian makes me libertarian, politically a tory makes me conservative, and honestly about the eugenic basis of our success makes me ultra-conservative. Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545531036 Timestamp) NIT: English has 470k words in the OED, and estimates of 1M, if we account for synonyms and references rather than just spellings, with 1.2-1.5M if we account for what are two and three word terms in english but one word in a compound language like german, and then there is scientific terminology. English is a very low context high precision language especially suited for science and law. (Although german appears to be better for engineering because it evolved to be.)