Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Others Thoughts on Libertarians

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:08 AM by Matt MacBradaigh I had a couple of thoughts about Libertarians. It might not be as intellectual as some, but I think not insignificant.

    1. Libertarian criticism of others on the Right, Republicans in particular, compares the actual failings of (some) Republicans vs the theoretical offering of Libertarianism.
      I.e, “(a few) Republicans compromise on gun rights, they aren’t true defenders of liberty. Join real defenders of liberty in our ideologically pure (on paper), but wholly untested practice in the field.”
      Theoretically, in this example, R’s are totally pro-gun rights. In practice, Reagan, H.W. Bush oversaw gun rights restrictions, and bump stock bans under Trump.
      Theoretically, L’s are totally pro-gun rights, but have NEVER cast a vote, or passed a bill, to empirically prove it.

    2. When L’s want to lobby politicians for pro-gun rights (to keep the example consistent on this issue), they must lobby R’s to do their work for them. L’s didn’t cast a single vote to defend gun rights under Reagan, HW. Bush, Clinton (AWB), or under GW Bush for the sunset of AWB, or to defend gun rights post Sandy Hook, or post Parkland, FL, etc.

    3. Given #2, it’s clear L’s aren’t even in the game. They’re watching, from the nosebleed cheap seats, and bitching about what the players actually did, armchair quarterbacking what they “should have” done.
      I was reminded of this fact by Curt’s comment re: boys begging men to fight for them.

    by Bill Smith Agreed. The ones I’ve met have been adult adolescents who unconsciously associate with their mothers as Jung described in Aion: The Syzygy: Anima and Animus They live spouting construct, never getting their hands dirty with interacting with their shadow… to continue with the jungian narrative.

  • Others Thoughts on Libertarians

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:08 AM by Matt MacBradaigh I had a couple of thoughts about Libertarians. It might not be as intellectual as some, but I think not insignificant.

    1. Libertarian criticism of others on the Right, Republicans in particular, compares the actual failings of (some) Republicans vs the theoretical offering of Libertarianism.
      I.e, “(a few) Republicans compromise on gun rights, they aren’t true defenders of liberty. Join real defenders of liberty in our ideologically pure (on paper), but wholly untested practice in the field.”
      Theoretically, in this example, R’s are totally pro-gun rights. In practice, Reagan, H.W. Bush oversaw gun rights restrictions, and bump stock bans under Trump.
      Theoretically, L’s are totally pro-gun rights, but have NEVER cast a vote, or passed a bill, to empirically prove it.

    2. When L’s want to lobby politicians for pro-gun rights (to keep the example consistent on this issue), they must lobby R’s to do their work for them. L’s didn’t cast a single vote to defend gun rights under Reagan, HW. Bush, Clinton (AWB), or under GW Bush for the sunset of AWB, or to defend gun rights post Sandy Hook, or post Parkland, FL, etc.

    3. Given #2, it’s clear L’s aren’t even in the game. They’re watching, from the nosebleed cheap seats, and bitching about what the players actually did, armchair quarterbacking what they “should have” done.
      I was reminded of this fact by Curt’s comment re: boys begging men to fight for them.

    by Bill Smith Agreed. The ones I’ve met have been adult adolescents who unconsciously associate with their mothers as Jung described in Aion: The Syzygy: Anima and Animus They live spouting construct, never getting their hands dirty with interacting with their shadow… to continue with the jungian narrative.

  • But Crisis Isn’t a Matter of Consumption

    Denied Lifesaving Care Under These Plans as Coronavirus Spreads — ProPublica propublica.org

    —“Alabama’s disaster preparedness plan says that “persons with severe mental retardation, advanced dementia or severe traumatic brain injury may be poor candidates for ventilator support.” https://propub.li/2JihhRY”— —“This is eugenics.”—Jeet Heer @HeerJeet

    You say that like it’s a bad thing rather than the correct thing to do. “Equality” is a means of directing resources to care rather than consumption. But this isn’t a matter of consumption but of survival of human capital. If you say otherwise you’re unfit for public speech.

  • But Crisis Isn’t a Matter of Consumption

    Denied Lifesaving Care Under These Plans as Coronavirus Spreads — ProPublica propublica.org

    —“Alabama’s disaster preparedness plan says that “persons with severe mental retardation, advanced dementia or severe traumatic brain injury may be poor candidates for ventilator support.” https://propub.li/2JihhRY”— —“This is eugenics.”—Jeet Heer @HeerJeet

    You say that like it’s a bad thing rather than the correct thing to do. “Equality” is a means of directing resources to care rather than consumption. But this isn’t a matter of consumption but of survival of human capital. If you say otherwise you’re unfit for public speech.

  • Sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is to

    Sometimes we must choose the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is to flatten the curve by constraining the people who spread the disease: the health care, elder care, and maintenance workers from the rest of society. It was not to shut down all of civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-23 11:47:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264161124016144386

    Reply addressees: @Quillette

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264159237267226625

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Quillette Flattening the curve saves the medical system from overloading. It means marginal cases might not die due to equipment shortages. It doesn’t mean that the frail and elderly won’t die soon. Nor does it mean the coming pain from shutting down the world won’t be a greater suffering.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1264159237267226625

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN:

    Apr 10, 2020, 9:18 AM THERE IS ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN: JESUS. AND THE CHURCH WAS AN INVASION AND CONQUEST OF OUR PEOPLE TO TURN WARRIORS INTO SLAVES.

    —“If all the religions were so similar and provided the same product they would have produced similar results. “—

    The point is that group strategy, military, and law influence adults, who are capable of and exercise agency (action) – and religion influences women and children, the weak and the poor who lack agency. Religion provides mindfulness as the first group drags the second group through time. Religions don’t lead – they create mindfulness that prevents defection so that the people may be led, despite the insecurity alienation and anonymity that arises as families, clans, and tribes scale and consolidate into polities.

    —“the faith was built on the natural laws (Gods Laws)”—

    We have discovered THREE sets of god’s laws:

    1. The physical laws of nature (action)
      … 2. The logical laws of consistency (thought)
      … … 3. The grammatical laws of paradigms (speech)

    2. The natural law of reciprocity (cooperation)
      … 5. The christian law of love (seduction into cooperation)
      … … 6. The political law of homogeneity (incentive to insure)

    3. The evolutionary law of transcendence (defeat the red queen).
      … … 8. The … law of self domestication
      … … … 9. The …. law of competition..

    Of this set of God’s laws, what does Christianity DENY? 1. physical laws of nature. 6. the political law of homogeneity 7. the evolutionary law of transcendence 8. the … law of self domestication 9. the … law of competition. What does this mean? Christianity is a feminine religion, because it uses the counter-evolutionary strategy of females. And all female societies die without host males. Just as christians only survive with host Aryans, jews can only survive with host male populations, and Muslims hyper-violate these laws by consuming and destroying those host populations.

    —” looking at historical performance “—

    A monopoly takes credit for the good that would occur in any civilization but not credit for the bad – in economics we learn that we must judge by full accounting, not cherry picking, and account for the seen and unseen, and measure by opportunity cost – the difference between possible choices. Looking at historical performance of the church and christian rome vs aristocracy and literate rome, we have to ask, why did the church choose subjugation supernaturalism, and spreading ignorance rather than militarization, engineering, and spreading literacy as did the roman aristocracy? THe dark ages exist just as much because of the church and religion as it did because of the migration period invasions,made possible by the roman holocaust against the celts. While european aristocracy, military, law, and mythology survived, It took the restoration of (a) viking military, (b) aristotelian reason, (c) north sea trade by first vikings then the hansa (c) literacy (d) then the In the difference between possible choices, there was obvious and necessary utility of an heroic underclass religion to integrate the middle eastern peasantry (tribes, slaves, women) into the pagan pantheon and therefore raise their status to equality in contribution to civilization, and therefore worthy of respect non-existent in the pagan hierarchy that treated them as undomesticated animals, and therefore would no longer be treated as barbarians. The use of this religion as an institution of warfare with which to keep the peasantry ignorant and subservient on one h and, but to undermine the aristocracy through social construction, resistance, and usurpation of power by numbers, just as the marxists-neo-marxists-postmodernists-feminists (jews in this age as in the last) have used immigration, and undermining the aristocratic civilization of the west for the SECOND TIME. So no I don’t give the church credit for the scraps of good that would take place even under the most horridly backward, ignorance producing, and parasitic means of government over the people, trying to reduce them to middle eastern barbarism as a good. Instead i compare what could have been without the church and that means the industrial revolution and a thousand years of ignorance poverty starvation disease and suffering would have been avoided if not for the ignorance-production of the semitic church, and instead, the continuation of the stoic and epicurean and philosophical, and mathematical, and legal, and commercial institutions of the europeans. Myth, Ritual, Oath, Feast, Celebration by Festival, Sport, Theater, Story) (the animal celebration of the rewards of the hunt around the fire) organized into Religion, and some kind of The church destroyed jesus’ message of love and the opportunity of the ancient world to create harmony by the jewish conversion of it into a political weapon of despotic rule, not harmonious like the egyptians, or justificationary like the babylonians, but despotic and hostile and undermining like the jews and arabs. So no. Jesus was the feminine alternative to Achilles – a hero of the poor. And Paul and the rest of the jews turned it into a religion of rebellion and destruction against rome, just as the muslims exacerbated the problem by converting it to a religion of conquest, destruction, and devolution into feminine barbarism – reversing gods law of transcendence of man.

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN:

    Apr 10, 2020, 9:18 AM THERE IS ONLY ONE CHRISTIAN: JESUS. AND THE CHURCH WAS AN INVASION AND CONQUEST OF OUR PEOPLE TO TURN WARRIORS INTO SLAVES.

    —“If all the religions were so similar and provided the same product they would have produced similar results. “—

    The point is that group strategy, military, and law influence adults, who are capable of and exercise agency (action) – and religion influences women and children, the weak and the poor who lack agency. Religion provides mindfulness as the first group drags the second group through time. Religions don’t lead – they create mindfulness that prevents defection so that the people may be led, despite the insecurity alienation and anonymity that arises as families, clans, and tribes scale and consolidate into polities.

    —“the faith was built on the natural laws (Gods Laws)”—

    We have discovered THREE sets of god’s laws:

    1. The physical laws of nature (action)
      … 2. The logical laws of consistency (thought)
      … … 3. The grammatical laws of paradigms (speech)

    2. The natural law of reciprocity (cooperation)
      … 5. The christian law of love (seduction into cooperation)
      … … 6. The political law of homogeneity (incentive to insure)

    3. The evolutionary law of transcendence (defeat the red queen).
      … … 8. The … law of self domestication
      … … … 9. The …. law of competition..

    Of this set of God’s laws, what does Christianity DENY? 1. physical laws of nature. 6. the political law of homogeneity 7. the evolutionary law of transcendence 8. the … law of self domestication 9. the … law of competition. What does this mean? Christianity is a feminine religion, because it uses the counter-evolutionary strategy of females. And all female societies die without host males. Just as christians only survive with host Aryans, jews can only survive with host male populations, and Muslims hyper-violate these laws by consuming and destroying those host populations.

    —” looking at historical performance “—

    A monopoly takes credit for the good that would occur in any civilization but not credit for the bad – in economics we learn that we must judge by full accounting, not cherry picking, and account for the seen and unseen, and measure by opportunity cost – the difference between possible choices. Looking at historical performance of the church and christian rome vs aristocracy and literate rome, we have to ask, why did the church choose subjugation supernaturalism, and spreading ignorance rather than militarization, engineering, and spreading literacy as did the roman aristocracy? THe dark ages exist just as much because of the church and religion as it did because of the migration period invasions,made possible by the roman holocaust against the celts. While european aristocracy, military, law, and mythology survived, It took the restoration of (a) viking military, (b) aristotelian reason, (c) north sea trade by first vikings then the hansa (c) literacy (d) then the In the difference between possible choices, there was obvious and necessary utility of an heroic underclass religion to integrate the middle eastern peasantry (tribes, slaves, women) into the pagan pantheon and therefore raise their status to equality in contribution to civilization, and therefore worthy of respect non-existent in the pagan hierarchy that treated them as undomesticated animals, and therefore would no longer be treated as barbarians. The use of this religion as an institution of warfare with which to keep the peasantry ignorant and subservient on one h and, but to undermine the aristocracy through social construction, resistance, and usurpation of power by numbers, just as the marxists-neo-marxists-postmodernists-feminists (jews in this age as in the last) have used immigration, and undermining the aristocratic civilization of the west for the SECOND TIME. So no I don’t give the church credit for the scraps of good that would take place even under the most horridly backward, ignorance producing, and parasitic means of government over the people, trying to reduce them to middle eastern barbarism as a good. Instead i compare what could have been without the church and that means the industrial revolution and a thousand years of ignorance poverty starvation disease and suffering would have been avoided if not for the ignorance-production of the semitic church, and instead, the continuation of the stoic and epicurean and philosophical, and mathematical, and legal, and commercial institutions of the europeans. Myth, Ritual, Oath, Feast, Celebration by Festival, Sport, Theater, Story) (the animal celebration of the rewards of the hunt around the fire) organized into Religion, and some kind of The church destroyed jesus’ message of love and the opportunity of the ancient world to create harmony by the jewish conversion of it into a political weapon of despotic rule, not harmonious like the egyptians, or justificationary like the babylonians, but despotic and hostile and undermining like the jews and arabs. So no. Jesus was the feminine alternative to Achilles – a hero of the poor. And Paul and the rest of the jews turned it into a religion of rebellion and destruction against rome, just as the muslims exacerbated the problem by converting it to a religion of conquest, destruction, and devolution into feminine barbarism – reversing gods law of transcendence of man.

  • The Hierarchy of Possibilities Prevents Error

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:22 AM By Lucas Cort SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINANT MALE The male strategy creates sovereignty IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers. FREEDOM – ALL Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. If FREEDOM is used as the starting point without understanding the necessity for sovereignty that makes freedom possible, then men will not pay the cost of defending the sovereigns who create freedom. LIBERTY – ASCENDANT MALE The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). If LIBERTY is used the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures of permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). REDISTRIBUTION – FEMALE This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If REDISTRIBUTION is used as the starting point, first entitlement devoid merit, then hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.

  • The Hierarchy of Possibilities Prevents Error

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:22 AM By Lucas Cort SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINANT MALE The male strategy creates sovereignty IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers. FREEDOM – ALL Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. If FREEDOM is used as the starting point without understanding the necessity for sovereignty that makes freedom possible, then men will not pay the cost of defending the sovereigns who create freedom. LIBERTY – ASCENDANT MALE The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). If LIBERTY is used the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures of permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). REDISTRIBUTION – FEMALE This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If REDISTRIBUTION is used as the starting point, first entitlement devoid merit, then hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.

  • “Curt, What About Socialism”

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:32 PM Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine. Edit