Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre-Civil War Terms, as A Federal Government Limited to The Defense of The States, and To the Adjudication of Differences in Material Property Between the States,

    Oct 22, 2019, 12:39 PM

    —“I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-postmodern, pre-marxist, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the defense of the states, and to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, and where hostile cities are involuntarily converted to city states, and where all local norm, custom, and tradition is determined by at the local level, and only investment at the state. … And I absolutely positively without question know how to do it – because the alternative for the “Left” is so terrible they will agree rather than risk it. That is why have confidence – I am very slow and deliberate and thorough, but I am very, very, good at what I do. It will take 1/3 of 1% of our males to make it happen, and it will happen quickly. And frankly we will hope the enemy resists – because …. “— Curt

    (worth repeating)

  • What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Be

    What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders. https://t.co/EK8i19Htm5

  • What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS. Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

  • What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS. Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

  • Need for A Video Explaining P to School Age Audience

    Need for A Video Explaining P to School Age Audience. https://t.co/RyEiDFrebA

  • Need for A Video Explaining P to School Age Audience.

    NEED FOR A VIDEO EXPLAINING P TO SCHOOL AGE AUDIENCE. To: John Mark (P-Teachers) Just rec’d a phone call on at the Institute asking for a john mark style video targeted to home school, middle school, and high schoolers who are exasperated by the current climate and are looking for answers. I explained that yes, most talk is radical because that is how all reform movements begin: at the fringes with people who are very angry, and they slowly ‘domesticate’ as they evolve into more mainstream acceptance where people are merely frustrated. I think that if we were to state the problems we’re trying to solve in simple terms: de-deception, de-politicization, de-financialization, de-‘individualism’, and re-familialism, the restoration of reciprocity, and restoration of local control over manner, norm, custom, and tradition – at the cost of restoring voluntary disassociation (city-states, and county-states), that we might be able to reach this demographic … and I was wondering if that isn’t the way to reach the majority. I might take a cut at it but I don’t want to do much before getting thoughts.

  • Need for A Video Explaining P to School Age Audience.

    NEED FOR A VIDEO EXPLAINING P TO SCHOOL AGE AUDIENCE. To: John Mark (P-Teachers) Just rec’d a phone call on at the Institute asking for a john mark style video targeted to home school, middle school, and high schoolers who are exasperated by the current climate and are looking for answers. I explained that yes, most talk is radical because that is how all reform movements begin: at the fringes with people who are very angry, and they slowly ‘domesticate’ as they evolve into more mainstream acceptance where people are merely frustrated. I think that if we were to state the problems we’re trying to solve in simple terms: de-deception, de-politicization, de-financialization, de-‘individualism’, and re-familialism, the restoration of reciprocity, and restoration of local control over manner, norm, custom, and tradition – at the cost of restoring voluntary disassociation (city-states, and county-states), that we might be able to reach this demographic … and I was wondering if that isn’t the way to reach the majority. I might take a cut at it but I don’t want to do much before getting thoughts.

  • Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?

    Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data? https://t.co/iQiwbrZLni

  • Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?

    WHY DO CHILDREN GO WITH THE MOTHER GIVEN THE DATA?

    —-“immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce.” What is the empirical basis for this? Is there a scientific literature showing that when post-breastfeeding prepubescent children are made ward of their fathers, rather than their mothers, they have developmental failures?”—Asab Karpuz

    ^No. It’s just the evidence from every law code throughout history, that whenever there is a divorce the mother is returned to her father with her children and those assets the father contributed to the marriage.” Traditionally men take charge of boys during a ritual of some sort (coming of age) where they leave the mother gradually or rapidly and join the world of men. Girls are not treated the same because there is endless demand for them, whether helping mother and siblings, or for sex and fertility, or for assistance in the operation of a household whether single or multi-generational. The evidence is somewhat the opposite in that single women are deleterious to the development of their children, mostly because they will not accept a male who has influence over her children, where as the opposite is true in that men quickly reform stable households. So (a) is the mother emotionally stable and not exposing her children to psychological chaos (b) is she sufficiently conscientious to run a household and govern children (c) is she financially stable in and possessed of enough income to run a household, and (d) is she stable enough to restore a two-parent family. Conversely is the man (a) not anti-social, abusive, addictive, or criminal (c) desirable enough and conscientious enough to attract a woman who can maintain a household, (c) capable of producing sufficient income to afford doing so. In other words, it simply more beneficial to hold a two parent household and men are more likely to rapidly construct one.

  • Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?

    WHY DO CHILDREN GO WITH THE MOTHER GIVEN THE DATA?

    —-“immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce.” What is the empirical basis for this? Is there a scientific literature showing that when post-breastfeeding prepubescent children are made ward of their fathers, rather than their mothers, they have developmental failures?”—Asab Karpuz

    ^No. It’s just the evidence from every law code throughout history, that whenever there is a divorce the mother is returned to her father with her children and those assets the father contributed to the marriage.” Traditionally men take charge of boys during a ritual of some sort (coming of age) where they leave the mother gradually or rapidly and join the world of men. Girls are not treated the same because there is endless demand for them, whether helping mother and siblings, or for sex and fertility, or for assistance in the operation of a household whether single or multi-generational. The evidence is somewhat the opposite in that single women are deleterious to the development of their children, mostly because they will not accept a male who has influence over her children, where as the opposite is true in that men quickly reform stable households. So (a) is the mother emotionally stable and not exposing her children to psychological chaos (b) is she sufficiently conscientious to run a household and govern children (c) is she financially stable in and possessed of enough income to run a household, and (d) is she stable enough to restore a two-parent family. Conversely is the man (a) not anti-social, abusive, addictive, or criminal (c) desirable enough and conscientious enough to attract a woman who can maintain a household, (c) capable of producing sufficient income to afford doing so. In other words, it simply more beneficial to hold a two parent household and men are more likely to rapidly construct one.