Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • (venting) I will be happy when all these 60’s scions are settled in the earth, a

    (venting)

    I will be happy when all these 60’s scions are settled in the earth, and I don’t have to hear one more time how great the sixties were. I was there. They sucked. It was the proletarian generation. The first chance the proles had at participating in higher education and consumer society, and look what they did with it. … Yeah, I’m sure you’re impressed by the rapid expansion of folk, prole, and dance music. Sorry. It’s the hot-dog of the artistic diet. Dished up in heaping piles for the bread and circus of the half human beasts that destroyed our great artistic civilization. Thankfully, your forgettable audio and visual dysentery will be forgotten, and dismissed as another product of the second attempted conversion of the west, and the century of pseudoscience, propaganda, outrightlying, and neo-mysticism. So die already. Thanks.

    Signed

    The Future

    (vent off)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-23 05:05:00 UTC

  • From Jim’s Blog: “Yes, we are at war with Islam”

    [A]nd always have been. For over a thousand years, a multitude of nations, states, peoples, cultures, religions, and empires have attempted to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first. If you have a few percent of Muslims, you have what you can pretend is a major crime problem. If you have ten to thirty percent, you have a low level civil war, which intermittently becomes a high level civil war whenever you relax or show signs of weakness. If you have thirty percent, you can have a fairly tense peace, like the not-quite-war in Mindanao if you have a large well disciplined military, guards and soldiers everywhere, and regularly and routinely deploy death squads, but you cannot afford rule of law – you can have peace only by ruthlessly and unhesitatingly applying the laws of war. With a large Muslim minority you need death squads and the routine and frequent application of torture to keep the almost-peace, the not-quite-war. France has five or ten percent Muslims, regular car burnings, Calais has been burning for some time, and the French state has no power over substantial areas that have been successfully seized by Islam. France has taken pretend measures – checking passports at major entry points. This is security theater. Calais continues to burn, and the French authorities avert their eyes. Muslim illegal immigrants continue to flood over the borders unopposed. Rapes by Muslims are piously ignored. Preachers continue to preach terror, and while Muslim preachers preach terror, the French authorities arrest and prosecute Marine LePen and Eric Zemmour for incitement. A Muslim that gets over the border cannot be deported. Far from France getting serious about stopping terror, it remains a criminal offense to advocate getting serious about the problem. Under recent international law you cannot return people unless their country of origin agrees to accept them, or at least that is how international law has recently come to be interpreted. And the countries of origin never agree. Australia and Israel have been cheerfully breaking this law, and New Zealand has been furtively breaking it. Burma has been dumping Muslims into boats and telling them that if they want to live under Islam, start sailing to a Muslim country. When France rounds up illegals and dumps them in Africa or the Middle East, then France will be beginning to get serious. But no one can imagine such a thing, let alone propose it, for to imagine such a thing is a thought crime. France is absolutely unserious about dealing with terrorism, and to even think seriously about dealing with terrorism is a crime no Frenchman will admit to committing. The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim. If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he does not take his religion seriously.

  • From Jim’s Blog: “Yes, we are at war with Islam”

    [A]nd always have been. For over a thousand years, a multitude of nations, states, peoples, cultures, religions, and empires have attempted to coexist with Islam. None have succeeded. We will not be the first. If you have a few percent of Muslims, you have what you can pretend is a major crime problem. If you have ten to thirty percent, you have a low level civil war, which intermittently becomes a high level civil war whenever you relax or show signs of weakness. If you have thirty percent, you can have a fairly tense peace, like the not-quite-war in Mindanao if you have a large well disciplined military, guards and soldiers everywhere, and regularly and routinely deploy death squads, but you cannot afford rule of law – you can have peace only by ruthlessly and unhesitatingly applying the laws of war. With a large Muslim minority you need death squads and the routine and frequent application of torture to keep the almost-peace, the not-quite-war. France has five or ten percent Muslims, regular car burnings, Calais has been burning for some time, and the French state has no power over substantial areas that have been successfully seized by Islam. France has taken pretend measures – checking passports at major entry points. This is security theater. Calais continues to burn, and the French authorities avert their eyes. Muslim illegal immigrants continue to flood over the borders unopposed. Rapes by Muslims are piously ignored. Preachers continue to preach terror, and while Muslim preachers preach terror, the French authorities arrest and prosecute Marine LePen and Eric Zemmour for incitement. A Muslim that gets over the border cannot be deported. Far from France getting serious about stopping terror, it remains a criminal offense to advocate getting serious about the problem. Under recent international law you cannot return people unless their country of origin agrees to accept them, or at least that is how international law has recently come to be interpreted. And the countries of origin never agree. Australia and Israel have been cheerfully breaking this law, and New Zealand has been furtively breaking it. Burma has been dumping Muslims into boats and telling them that if they want to live under Islam, start sailing to a Muslim country. When France rounds up illegals and dumps them in Africa or the Middle East, then France will be beginning to get serious. But no one can imagine such a thing, let alone propose it, for to imagine such a thing is a thought crime. France is absolutely unserious about dealing with terrorism, and to even think seriously about dealing with terrorism is a crime no Frenchman will admit to committing. The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim. If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he does not take his religion seriously.

  • Reframe Developed and Developing Nations as High Trust and Low Trust Nations.

    Reframe: DEVELOPING/DEVELOPED Should be restated as High Trust vs High Corruption. This would more clearly address the cause of differences. WORDS MATTER: “The High Trust World vs the Low Trust World.” We can implement fiat money and credit but not high trust. (ie: common law)

  • Reframe Developed and Developing Nations as High Trust and Low Trust Nations.

    Reframe: DEVELOPING/DEVELOPED Should be restated as High Trust vs High Corruption. This would more clearly address the cause of differences. WORDS MATTER: “The High Trust World vs the Low Trust World.” We can implement fiat money and credit but not high trust. (ie: common law)

  • The Shift In Violence

    1) Violence is not less. It shifts from violent to indirect, and transfers from destructive to constructive use. War. Religion. Law. Credit. 2) Violence. Theft shifts from territory and women, to things, to money, to taxation, to credit, to fraud, to free riding, to conspiracy. 3) Much of the world is less violent because of prosperity. The rest is because most thefts like most property is of non-physical things. 4) If I respect life, property, norm, and tradition with expectation of purchasing a future, yet policy steals it from me – why respect it? 5) Much of postmodern theft depends on the perpetuation of habits without the incentive to produce them. We have run out of both. 6)If we no longer have the incentive to respect life, property, norm, and tradition, then why not instead construct an order in which we do? 7) Rule of Law. Strict Construction. Textualism. Property-en-toto. Informational commons. Universal standing. Class Houses. Market Gov’t.

  • The Shift In Violence

    1) Violence is not less. It shifts from violent to indirect, and transfers from destructive to constructive use. War. Religion. Law. Credit. 2) Violence. Theft shifts from territory and women, to things, to money, to taxation, to credit, to fraud, to free riding, to conspiracy. 3) Much of the world is less violent because of prosperity. The rest is because most thefts like most property is of non-physical things. 4) If I respect life, property, norm, and tradition with expectation of purchasing a future, yet policy steals it from me – why respect it? 5) Much of postmodern theft depends on the perpetuation of habits without the incentive to produce them. We have run out of both. 6)If we no longer have the incentive to respect life, property, norm, and tradition, then why not instead construct an order in which we do? 7) Rule of Law. Strict Construction. Textualism. Property-en-toto. Informational commons. Universal standing. Class Houses. Market Gov’t.

  • We All Weaponize Something Or Other…

    [I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.

  • We All Weaponize Something Or Other…

    [I] suppose that weaponizing truth and commons is our strategy. From the rest of the world’s position, weaponizing testimony has produced all our technological advantages (christians), and we use that technological advantage to out compete others – and to colonize them. Some groups are very very good at fighting (Russians). Some other groups are just really, really, really good liars – they have weaponized lying in order to take advantage of altruism (Jews). Some have weaponized conquest, bureaucracy, and rule (china). Some other groups just steal great treasures from the weakened (Arabs). Some other groups just steal small amounts from the strong. (gypsies). I mean, in any distribution of verbally talented people you will find those who engage in truth telling, those who engage in pragmatism, and those who engage in lying. We should expect groups of verbally talented people to contain cadres that specialize in cheating, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, pseudoscience and lying. We all do something or other. The question is, can we all stop doing the negatives and only engage in production. Which sounds good if you’re at the top of the pyramid but not so much if you’re lower down. Meritocracy favors the good. Not everyone can compete in goodness.

  • RACE. A REPEAT. I am an aggressive supporter of kin-preference, aristocratic fam

    RACE. A REPEAT.

    I am an aggressive supporter of kin-preference, aristocratic families, paternal aristocracies, and as many of them as man can make.

    My position on the friction between the races is that democracy and multiculturalism causes conflict between them. And that nationalism, aristocracy, paternalism and local separatism improve everyone.

    My position on the cause of the *meaningful* differences between the races is the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses over long periods of time.

    My means of criticizing other groups is whether their group evolutionary strategy is objectively more or less moral than some others.

    My demand for changes is not to place it upon others, but to change our weaknesses so that we are no longer subject to the damage of the less moral, yet can reap the benefits of the more moral.

    I am very fond of my non-kin friends. I want to help them raise themselves and their families, as all aristocracy should assist other aristocracies in raising themselves and their families.

    So I don’t really want to lose those friends because you choose to criticize others successful reproductive strategies, rather than the criticize and repair your (our) own failed reproductive strategies.

    I don’t do racism. I might agree or disagree with you. But my goal is the evolution of man. I prefer every tribe evolve together, not that any tribe be subsumed by another. I want to see a world of many tribes – of many extended aristocratic families, raising their extended families. I do not seek to dominate others, only to preserve my tribe and to advance it and mankind’s tribes in the long journey to becoming gods.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-22 06:57:00 UTC