Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES The technique we

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shameSHAMING THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES

    The technique we call Shaming (which is the public use of gossip), evolved (like gossip), as a means of controlling alphas by rallying support from many in order to limit the few.

    Gossip is one of the three possible means of social coercion:

    (1) Violence (murder, harm, loss, deprivation, threat),

    (2) Remuneration (credit, gift, payment or exchange, promise), and

    (3) Gossip (compliment, criticism, guilting, shaming, rallying, and ostracization).

    Whether Gossip, Violence or Remuneration is used, is immaterial. Gossip, Violence, and Remuneration are neutral actions. The questions are only (a) whether gossip, violence or remuneration are used to stop or prevent parasitism, or whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are used to create parasitism. And (b) whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are performed truthfully or dishonestly.

    The uncomfortable truth is that all advancement in civilization has been the result of the construction of private and semi-private (group commons) property. And that individuals have NOT BEEN OPPRESSED, but that they reproduce without the ability to support themselves, in an attempt to parasitically reproduce at the expense of others.

    In large part, the majority in the middle and upper middle classes, seek to prevent parasitism by the political elites, and seek to prevent parasitism by the lower classes who are insufficiently productive to maintain themselves – especially as technological innovation advances.

    So the feminist narrative that the author Jacqui Shine attempts to use as yet another form of shaming, is itself a deceit: she says people are oppressed when in fact they and their parents are parasites. She says the struggle throughout history was not Malthusian, but against oppression. Neither of which is true. So this entire argument is an immoral, parasitic attempt to justify the desire of women to reproduce parasitically without demonstrating that they are worthy of reproduction.

    That is the scientific and economic analysis. The moral analysis is that Jacqui’s argument is an immoral one. The logical and economic argument is that she engages in fraud as an attempt to obscure theft. And that this fraud is perpetrated by an obscurant deceit. And that she uses rallying and shaming to obscure this deceit.

    Those are the facts.

    Now, the question is, why do we not shame liars in all their parasitic forms?

    Of which Postmodernists, and Feminists are the most expert perpetrators. j

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 07:39:00 UTC

  • REDISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION, NOT ELIMINATION OF IT —“As the culture of no

    REDISTRIBUTION OF DISCRIMINATION, NOT ELIMINATION OF IT

    —“As the culture of non-discrimination against protected groups expands, the discrimination against unprotected groups increases. In societies that do not prohibit any type of discrimination, pecking order is not rigid and discrimination is dispersed. As new rules and social stigmas against certain types of discrimination appear, society shifts its natural disdain for the members of its lower side of any kind of spectrum to the unprotected. As new groups are added to the taboo list, the possibilities for dispersing discrimination narrow. As a result, all societal hate becomes directed against the very few. We have yet to see the evidence that the politics of anti-discrimination reduces the overall amount of discrimination (as opposed to particular manifestation of discrimination).”— Paul B

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-13 21:19:00 UTC

  • The Decline in the USA’s Military Power Is Not A Problem for Americans – Only For Bureaucrats

    THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BUREAUCRATS
    (from elsewhere)
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396604082/dozens-of-countries-join-china-backed-bank-opposed-by-washington

    [T]he USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

    The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

    China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

    So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

    Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

    But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.

  • The Decline in the USA’s Military Power Is Not A Problem for Americans – Only For Bureaucrats

    THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BUREAUCRATS
    (from elsewhere)
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396604082/dozens-of-countries-join-china-backed-bank-opposed-by-washington

    [T]he USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

    The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

    China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

    So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

    Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

    But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.

  • THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BU

    THE DECLINE IN USA’S MILITARY POWER IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICANS – ONLY FOR BUREAUCRATS

    (from elsewhere)

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/31/396604082/dozens-of-countries-join-china-backed-bank-opposed-by-washington

    The USA pays for its military through the sale of petro-dollars and debt that it inflates away. It was this technique started under Nixon that allowed the USA to economically bankrupt the soviets via military competition. (Something easy enough to repeat with the Putinista Russians.)

    The sale of oil in euros was the first blow that limited future american military expansion. This allowed europeans to cease indirect payment for defense to the USA. The rise of China and demand for american debt sustained american military expansion. The attempt of Iran to create a bourse and take over this tax on world oil production by demanding middle eastern oil in the currency of their choice, is an effort to transfer this power. With nuclear weapons it becomes a possibility for them.

    China has set out to replace america as the global power in the current century. But to do so requires weakening the USA’s state department, and to weaken american financial interests. It is more important to weaken the relationship between capital and democracy. So for china, the use of such a bank, will extend its power, and more importantly, eliminate the correlation between demand for credit, demand for commerce, and the corresponding demand for democracy and human rights. In other words, china wants to spread authoritarian capitalism, by improving the standing of authoritarian capitalism.

    So in the long term, americans will have to retrench, because democracy is a failed experiment, social democracy a failed experiment, and authoritarianism with limited capitalism (aristocratic capitalism), superior to proletarian capitalism (social democracy).

    Americans would very much prefer to withdraw from world affairs. Especially that we are now marginally oil independent. Unfortunately, the left has succeeded in overwhelming americans through immigration, and thereby achieving through population-conquest what could not be achieved through ideas.

    But to state that this change in power is a ‘problem for americans’ is simply not true. It’s a problem for bureaucrats. But americans will merely experience a decline in standard of living to european levels of consumption. They will dramatically decrease their public spending on the military. Europe will dramatically increase its military spending on the military. And the world will equilibrate to less variation in purchasing power between nations. And the nations with the greatest purchasing power will be those that possess the best legal systems, with the greatest experimentation, and the least rents. In that race, americans may still win.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-05 08:05:00 UTC

  • see how this cultural marxism plays out. As I keep pointing out, the rhetoric in

    http://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/30hzi2/white_men_should_never_hold_elected_positions_in/cpsngd5—“Let’s see how this cultural marxism plays out. As I keep pointing out, the rhetoric in the West is evolving just as it did in S Africa: Freedom -> Equality -> Special Treatment -> Reparations -> . . . . Kill the Boer”—- Roman Skaskiw

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-01 01:26:00 UTC

  • RON PAUL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. It’s fascinating to me that Ron Paul (America), ju

    RON PAUL BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

    It’s fascinating to me that Ron Paul (America), just like Global Research (Canada), just like the Frankfurt School (Germany), just like the progressive think tanks, is a sucker for Russian money.

    The Ron Paul Institute is now bought and paid for by the same methods the Russians spread socialism in america: get close to propagandists (intellectuals) and pay them to work in their favor.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-30 07:43:00 UTC

  • A SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER CLASSES? Pay them to maintain the normative and physical

    A SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER CLASSES?

    Pay them to maintain the normative and physical commons and have only one child. Stop paying them if they don’t behave well, and sterilize them if they have an additional child. Imprison them in the desert at hard labor if they commit three strikes. I am against redistribution. But I am in favor of paying people to construct the voluntary organization of production we call property rights and the commons. And people who DON”T want to pay those classes are simply trying to make those classes pay the high price of constructing the voluntary organization of production – against their own interests. Paying people isn’t redistribution. It’s compensation. And you can be fired from the job.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-26 07:51:00 UTC

  • What Is Peak Capitalism?

    A leftist dogma. A new name for regurgitated Marx.  And just as fallacious as his. 

    The entire world has adopted capitalism.  Because innovation, adaptation, production, distribution and trade are not possible without it. 

    The current argument is that low trust, traditional-family, and tribal-family  polities, particularly those that practice cousin-marriage, cannot operate without a dominant state, and that high trust, absolute nuclear families are uniquely able to operate without a dominant state – relying entirely on common law.  And that the unique circumstances that allowed northern europeans to develop the high trust society cannot be repeated without returning to manorial era suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses.  And certainly cannot survive the immigration of new castes of underclasses. 

    So when we refer to peak capitalism we refer to the expansion of the world’s low trust demographic distribution evolving into the majority – both in absolute numbers, and in aggregate economic and political influence.

    Capitalist meritocracy is only tolerable to the upper classes.  When europeans were the worlds dominant upper class, others tried to imitate it. Now that we have been displaced through reproduction and immigration, that meritocracy is no longer advantageous to the remainder of the planet.

    That is the most honest, probably most scientific, and most probably answer to the question.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-peak-capitalism

  • What Is Peak Capitalism?

    A leftist dogma. A new name for regurgitated Marx.  And just as fallacious as his. 

    The entire world has adopted capitalism.  Because innovation, adaptation, production, distribution and trade are not possible without it. 

    The current argument is that low trust, traditional-family, and tribal-family  polities, particularly those that practice cousin-marriage, cannot operate without a dominant state, and that high trust, absolute nuclear families are uniquely able to operate without a dominant state – relying entirely on common law.  And that the unique circumstances that allowed northern europeans to develop the high trust society cannot be repeated without returning to manorial era suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses.  And certainly cannot survive the immigration of new castes of underclasses. 

    So when we refer to peak capitalism we refer to the expansion of the world’s low trust demographic distribution evolving into the majority – both in absolute numbers, and in aggregate economic and political influence.

    Capitalist meritocracy is only tolerable to the upper classes.  When europeans were the worlds dominant upper class, others tried to imitate it. Now that we have been displaced through reproduction and immigration, that meritocracy is no longer advantageous to the remainder of the planet.

    That is the most honest, probably most scientific, and most probably answer to the question.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-peak-capitalism