Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • Spoken as a member of the 1% myself, I voted for him. It’s time to overthrow the

    Spoken as a member of the 1% myself, I voted for him. It’s time to overthrow the century of pseudoscience and deceit. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 14:58:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802889435838812160

    Reply addressees: @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802162133320499200

    IN REPLY TO:

    @paulkrugman

    Anecdotally, I’m hearing about quite a few affluent, educated suburbanites who voted Trump. Even Jews! What to say, aside from “fools”? 1/

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802162133320499200

  • Some Aphorisms

    Unarmed, lacking exit, with four hours of electricity, one day of water, and five days of food. Who do you think is in control? Immigrant cities are excellent plantations for wage and tax slavery. Unfortunately, they don’t understand that they took the bait. There is a difference between a city (market) and an immigrant city (plantation). Democracy provides the immigrant cities with the illusion of influence. We paid for them. Why deport them? Rule them and tax them. You think a city is a position of power? A city is a shopping mall with entrances and exits, and a very limited supply of goods. Don’t kid yourself. You are animals in a farm. Democracy is just bait. A trap for wage slaves. End The Age of Monopoly Rule, and restore the west to it’s genius: markets in everything. Democracy created the age of monopoly rule, where the west had forever suppressed it. Houses of government created a market, not monopoly. Nov 15, 2016 12:24pm You can’t claim an opportunity as your property. You can only claim converted opportunities as your property. THE PURPOSE OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT? A mechanism for the division of spoils from the conquest of a continent. That’s it. that’s all there is to be said It’s not that economics isn’t empirical.It’s that its largely immoral.But science is a moral discipline. So if it’s immoral is it scientific? No. So economics isn’t scientific.    

  • Some Aphorisms

    Unarmed, lacking exit, with four hours of electricity, one day of water, and five days of food. Who do you think is in control? Immigrant cities are excellent plantations for wage and tax slavery. Unfortunately, they don’t understand that they took the bait. There is a difference between a city (market) and an immigrant city (plantation). Democracy provides the immigrant cities with the illusion of influence. We paid for them. Why deport them? Rule them and tax them. You think a city is a position of power? A city is a shopping mall with entrances and exits, and a very limited supply of goods. Don’t kid yourself. You are animals in a farm. Democracy is just bait. A trap for wage slaves. End The Age of Monopoly Rule, and restore the west to it’s genius: markets in everything. Democracy created the age of monopoly rule, where the west had forever suppressed it. Houses of government created a market, not monopoly. Nov 15, 2016 12:24pm You can’t claim an opportunity as your property. You can only claim converted opportunities as your property. THE PURPOSE OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT? A mechanism for the division of spoils from the conquest of a continent. That’s it. that’s all there is to be said It’s not that economics isn’t empirical.It’s that its largely immoral.But science is a moral discipline. So if it’s immoral is it scientific? No. So economics isn’t scientific.    

  • a general we are all uniform. To an entrepreneur we’re all gold. To a financier

    https://t.co/teahqpGXD0To a general we are all uniform. To an entrepreneur we’re all gold. To a financier we’re all interest rates. To the government we’re races.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 10:07:00 UTC

  • The Bourgeoise Society Has Been A Catastrophe.

    Nov 18, 2016 12:52pm There is a vast difference between the scientific enlightenment which was a tremendous success, and the classical liberal seizure of political power through the various revolutions against the aristocracy and the monarchies. Yes we can blame the aristocracy from failing to evolve the organization of the state and incorporate the bourgeoisie. And yes we can blame the bourgeoisie for failing by incorporating the proletariat and women into the house of commons. But in the present, of the Marxist proletariat(worldwide), the classical liberal bourgeoisie, the ‘liberal’ priesthood (20th century), and the martial aristocracy(antiquity to 1800), all have failed except the martial aristocracy. And more frighteningly, they have failed quickly, and in succession. The aristocracy created markets in every aspect of life: freedom, marriage, commerce, commons, dispute resolution, and rule. But failed to abandon their rents and accommodate the finance and merchant class when commerce rather than agrarian territory evolved to the central source of production. The classical liberal bourgeoisie tried to make the market everything, at the expense of the tribe. They tried to create a monopoly of the entrepreneurial classes. And they failed. They destroyed the family and community as a unit of production. They brought people to capital rather than capital to people. Even if the primary beneficiaries of their financial order were the common people’ The Marxists proletarians resisted the bourgeoise’s impact on home and family – and committed the greatest crimes in human history by trying to take over rule from the bourgeoisie. They tried to create a monopoly of the laboring classes. And they failed. They destroyed entire nations, tribes, families, economies and traditions. Worst of all they destroyed all trust. The secular priesthood we call ‘liberals’ or ‘the cathedral’ tried to take over from the Marxists, in pursuit of a global secular religion consisting of utopian promises, pseudoscience, and faith in the persistent expansion of technology – and destroyed the entirety of western civilization in less than a century. They tried to create a monopoly of the secular priestly caste. And they failed. They failed because they treated as equal in potential and demand people who are not. As the classical liberals destroyed the family as a unit of production, the liberals destroyed the nation as a unit of production. But only the martial aristocracy forced the creation of markets in everything by the total prohibition of monopoly – even a monopoly of rule – by resisting all unification and federalization until Napoleon used fiat credit to create ‘total war’ and forced them to relent out of defense. Only the monarchy created markets for the voluntary production, distribution, and exchange of goods, services, information, and commons, between the classes. And only the aristocracy understood that each class’ attempt to create monopolies would lead to a breakdown of the cooperation between the ‘estates of the realm’ – what we call today ‘the social classes’. Aristocracy creates a monopoly: the prevention of monopoly by the enforcement of markets.

  • The Bourgeoise Society Has Been A Catastrophe.

    Nov 18, 2016 12:52pm There is a vast difference between the scientific enlightenment which was a tremendous success, and the classical liberal seizure of political power through the various revolutions against the aristocracy and the monarchies. Yes we can blame the aristocracy from failing to evolve the organization of the state and incorporate the bourgeoisie. And yes we can blame the bourgeoisie for failing by incorporating the proletariat and women into the house of commons. But in the present, of the Marxist proletariat(worldwide), the classical liberal bourgeoisie, the ‘liberal’ priesthood (20th century), and the martial aristocracy(antiquity to 1800), all have failed except the martial aristocracy. And more frighteningly, they have failed quickly, and in succession. The aristocracy created markets in every aspect of life: freedom, marriage, commerce, commons, dispute resolution, and rule. But failed to abandon their rents and accommodate the finance and merchant class when commerce rather than agrarian territory evolved to the central source of production. The classical liberal bourgeoisie tried to make the market everything, at the expense of the tribe. They tried to create a monopoly of the entrepreneurial classes. And they failed. They destroyed the family and community as a unit of production. They brought people to capital rather than capital to people. Even if the primary beneficiaries of their financial order were the common people’ The Marxists proletarians resisted the bourgeoise’s impact on home and family – and committed the greatest crimes in human history by trying to take over rule from the bourgeoisie. They tried to create a monopoly of the laboring classes. And they failed. They destroyed entire nations, tribes, families, economies and traditions. Worst of all they destroyed all trust. The secular priesthood we call ‘liberals’ or ‘the cathedral’ tried to take over from the Marxists, in pursuit of a global secular religion consisting of utopian promises, pseudoscience, and faith in the persistent expansion of technology – and destroyed the entirety of western civilization in less than a century. They tried to create a monopoly of the secular priestly caste. And they failed. They failed because they treated as equal in potential and demand people who are not. As the classical liberals destroyed the family as a unit of production, the liberals destroyed the nation as a unit of production. But only the martial aristocracy forced the creation of markets in everything by the total prohibition of monopoly – even a monopoly of rule – by resisting all unification and federalization until Napoleon used fiat credit to create ‘total war’ and forced them to relent out of defense. Only the monarchy created markets for the voluntary production, distribution, and exchange of goods, services, information, and commons, between the classes. And only the aristocracy understood that each class’ attempt to create monopolies would lead to a breakdown of the cooperation between the ‘estates of the realm’ – what we call today ‘the social classes’. Aristocracy creates a monopoly: the prevention of monopoly by the enforcement of markets.

  • Kin, Class, Caste: Models And Functions

    Nov 19, 2016 11:50am KIN, CLASS, CASTE: MODELS AND FUNCTIONS Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation states), Class System (informal institution – markets) or Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws), exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by east Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is. We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability. kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse. Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders. All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and therefore create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper. There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning. The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses. Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.

  • Kin, Class, Caste: Models And Functions

    Nov 19, 2016 11:50am KIN, CLASS, CASTE: MODELS AND FUNCTIONS Kinship System (oligarchy)(small nation states), Class System (informal institution – markets) or Caste System (formal institution – religion and laws), exist universally in all nations, states, and empires. Without exception. It’s arguable the entire world operates as a caste system with whites arguably the minority aristocracy, followed by east Asians, then Hindus, then steppes, then Arabs, then the darker races. The data in every walk of life agrees with it. Just how it is. We see it in the patterns of relations in every walk of life. Why? because of (a) kin selection, (b) reproductive desirability, (c) commercial desirability (d) political desirability. kinship systems show the least diversity, class the next most diverse. Now, is a caste system superior or inferior to a class system? Well it depends upon the problems of managing the size of the underclass. The smaller the underclass the more useful kin and market orders. the larger the underclass the more useful the authoritarian and caste orders. All the warm climate states have the problem of the inability to reduce the relative size of the underclass and therefore create a voluntary organization of production using the proceeds of whatever they can produce. This means that any warm climate people unable to cull the lower classes will have permanent favelas and slums, and northern climes that eliminate lower classes will continue to prosper. There is a strange economics to the use of air conditioning. The hindus are … unnecessarily limited by the cast system and will do much better with the class system in the market order. However, it will mean (likely) degeneration into more Muslim frameworks more tolerable by leadership from the underclasses. Islam is suitable for rule of the ‘evil 80’s.’ Hinduism preserves the ability for a class to prevent expansion of rule by the evil 80’s.

  • This sketch of the right’s emerging arguments by social class

    This sketch of the right’s emerging arguments by social class: https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/23/the-new-right-class-structures/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 02:39:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801978668365053952

    Reply addressees: @VonMacht @digitalErmit @Salon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801956205329575936

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/801956205329575936

  • Different Economies

    As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them. But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.

    The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do. It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes). Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class. It isnt.