Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • Socialist Thieves, Libertarian Beggars, Sovereigntarian Warriors

    Socialist Thieves,

    Libertarian Beggars, Sovereigntarian Warriors.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-02 11:05:00 UTC

  • National (Middle Class) Socialism, Vs International (Underclass) Communism

    National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western. National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias) International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias) You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists). Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers? What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.

  • National (Middle Class) Socialism, Vs International (Underclass) Communism

    National Socialism (Tribalism) Pro Western vs. International Communism (Classism) Anti-Western. National Socialism: Defensive Strategy: Monopoly High Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public limits on and cooperation with Industry, Private commerce, Not autarkic but highly nationalist trade biases. With the purpose of policy the intergenerational family, and the suppression of the underclasses. Right of Exit. (Middle Class and Working Class Bias) International Communism: Offensive Strategy: Monopoly Low Culture, Industrialized production of commons, Public control of industry, public control of commerce, Not Autarkic but Expansionist. The purpose of policy the ‘individual’, and the expansion and ‘uplifting’ of the underclasses. (Laboring Class and Underclass Bias) You know the ancient world origins of judaism, christianity, and islam are in the underclass revolution against the (white) aristocracy, by replacing tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Achilles (the wealthy farmers), with the tragedy, sacrifice, and the trials of Jews, Jesus, Muhammed (the poor pastoralists). Why do you think that National Socialism (Nationalist Middle Class, Economic warfare) versus International Communism (Universalist Underclass Economic Warfare) is any different in our era than the battle between the high trust middle class agrarian traders, and the low trust lower class pastoralist laborers? What is the difference between postmodernism and christianity? None. They’re both for the purpose of making false promises to the underclasses so that they use their numbers to destroy the aristocracy and create a dark age.

  • Politics

    1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.

  • Politics

    1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.

  • Socialists(priesthood): Faith in Technology -vs- Aristocrats(military): Certaint

    Socialists(priesthood): Faith in Technology -vs- Aristocrats(military): Certainty of Genetics feminine vs masculine

  • If you don’t ‘go slumming’ you cannot understand the lower middle, working, labo

    If you don’t ‘go slumming’ you cannot understand the lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass peasantry. The vast majority of these people who are above 95 at least, are not immoral. They may be ignorant. They may lack opportunity to produce competitively enough to prosper, and they may feel left behind, that their contribution to moral norms is not reciprocated, but they are not immoral. Likewise, if you have never dined with the political, industrial (entrepreneurs with > 1000 employees), the financial class (serving the capitalists), or the capitalist class (the wealthy families), then you cannot understand that by and large they try to be moral. In my experience most of us try to be moral. The problem is just that we extend our concept of morality into a universal rather than a class, and that our institutions provide too few means of voluntary exchange, so that the various classes can achieve what they desire without resorting to fraud, conspiracy, and subterfuge. And the presently/academic classes outside of the STEM courses are, along with politicians they produce, the only immoral people that I know of (other than government employees outside of the market.) I’ve been an effete snob whether it was the early 70’s when my parents were financially struggling to keep the business going, when I was a middle class exec, or a member of the economic 1%. But I have never lost my Paganism (Love of Nature), Catholicism (Social Love of Others), or my Aryanism (Transcendence of man through heroic excellence). (Although due to my obsessiveness I have lost my senses more than a few times for certain.) I love most laboring men, I love working class people, I love lower middle class, and middle class people. My distaste for the upper middle is the product of university indoctrination in the pseudoscientific religions of the 20th century. My distaste for the financial and capitalist class is the result of failing to constrain them from perverse incentives. My distaste for the political class is that anyone who would engage in such a thing is an unredeemable danger to the rest of us, and the most evil of all. We are all fools. Children riding the elephant of our intuition whose actions are controlled by nothing more than reproductive strategy.

  • If you don’t ‘go slumming’ you cannot understand the lower middle, working, labo

    If you don’t ‘go slumming’ you cannot understand the lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass peasantry. The vast majority of these people who are above 95 at least, are not immoral. They may be ignorant. They may lack opportunity to produce competitively enough to prosper, and they may feel left behind, that their contribution to moral norms is not reciprocated, but they are not immoral. Likewise, if you have never dined with the political, industrial (entrepreneurs with > 1000 employees), the financial class (serving the capitalists), or the capitalist class (the wealthy families), then you cannot understand that by and large they try to be moral. In my experience most of us try to be moral. The problem is just that we extend our concept of morality into a universal rather than a class, and that our institutions provide too few means of voluntary exchange, so that the various classes can achieve what they desire without resorting to fraud, conspiracy, and subterfuge. And the presently/academic classes outside of the STEM courses are, along with politicians they produce, the only immoral people that I know of (other than government employees outside of the market.) I’ve been an effete snob whether it was the early 70’s when my parents were financially struggling to keep the business going, when I was a middle class exec, or a member of the economic 1%. But I have never lost my Paganism (Love of Nature), Catholicism (Social Love of Others), or my Aryanism (Transcendence of man through heroic excellence). (Although due to my obsessiveness I have lost my senses more than a few times for certain.) I love most laboring men, I love working class people, I love lower middle class, and middle class people. My distaste for the upper middle is the product of university indoctrination in the pseudoscientific religions of the 20th century. My distaste for the financial and capitalist class is the result of failing to constrain them from perverse incentives. My distaste for the political class is that anyone who would engage in such a thing is an unredeemable danger to the rest of us, and the most evil of all. We are all fools. Children riding the elephant of our intuition whose actions are controlled by nothing more than reproductive strategy.

  • If you don’t ‘go slumming’ you cannot understand the lower middle, working, labo

    If you don’t ‘go slumming’ you cannot understand the lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass peasantry. The vast majority of these people who are above 95 at least, are not immoral. They may be ignorant. They may lack opportunity to produce competitively enough to prosper, and they may feel left behind, that their contribution to moral norms is not reciprocated, but they are not immoral.

    Likewise, if you have never dined with the political, industrial (entrepreneurs with > 1000 employees), the financial class (serving the capitalists), or the capitalist class (the wealthy families), then you cannot understand that by and large they try to be moral. In my experience most of us try to be moral. The problem is just that we extend our concept of morality into a universal rather than a class, and that our institutions provide too few means of voluntary exchange, so that the various classes can achieve what they desire without resorting to fraud, conspiracy, and subterfuge. And the presently/academic classes outside of the STEM courses are, along with politicians they produce, the only immoral people that I know of (other than government employees outside of the market.)

    I’ve been an effete snob whether it was the early 70’s when my parents were financially struggling to keep the business going, when I was a middle class exec, or a member of the economic 1%.

    But I have never lost my Paganism (Love of Nature), Catholicism (Social Love of Others), or my Aryanism (Transcendence of man through heroic excellence). (Although due to my obsessiveness I have lost my senses more than a few times for certain.)

    I love most laboring men, I love working class people, I love lower middle class, and middle class people. My distaste for the upper middle is the product of university indoctrination in the pseudoscientific religions of the 20th century. My distaste for the financial and capitalist class is the result of failing to constrain them from perverse incentives. My distaste for the political class is that anyone who would engage in such a thing is an unredeemable danger to the rest of us, and the most evil of all.

    We are all fools. Children riding the elephant of our intuition whose actions are controlled by nothing more than reproductive strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-24 11:22:00 UTC

  • There is an aristocratic ethic in the literature of exploration and colonization

    There is an aristocratic ethic in the literature of exploration and colonization – and science fiction of the postwar period replaced the *actual* aristocracy of exploration and colonization that had existed prior to the war. So just as James Bond is really a lament to lost british power, science fiction of the period was a lament to lost european power. It was an effort to direct our exploration and colonization (and militarism) to the stars. I think that christianity was a vehicle for aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, exploration, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man) and I think the period of expansion in the ancient world, and in the modern, was just another vehicle for Aryanism. That same Aryanism (heroism, aristocracy, expansion, colonization, domestication of nature, beast, and man), can be heard in Ellison, Clarke, (or jules Verne, or Edgar burroughs, Or Robert Howard, or HG Wells, or Tolkien, or Stephenson and Gibson, is that Aryanism via military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes. This is the Aryanism of the military, scientific, traditional, and technological classes, just as capitalism is an expression of Aryanism in the merchant classes. Heinlein reformed Aryanism in the early-mid 20th century like Sir Walter Scott reframed it in the early 19th century with Ivanhoe. (or George Lucas refrormed it with the original star wars.). And I do think that Heinlein captured that reformation in language that all of us can understand today. And that it has endured through the postmodern rise and fall of the late 20th and early 21st century.