Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544647422 Timestamp) Armies evolved to fight armies. Men will join armies more easily the guerillas. Guerillas are very hard for armies to defeat. Armies are are hard to for guerillas to defeat. it costs more to sustain an army than a band of raiders. It costs more to sustain a city than a band of raiders. Ergo these are wars of attrition. The difference is that we are in an era where there is nothing accumulated in the supply lines.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544637565 Timestamp) YELLOW VESTS SHOWING HOW IT IS DONE A molotov to get a pistol, a pistol to get a rifle, a rifle to get a cannon, a cannon to get an armory, an armory to get a government, a government to get a territory….

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545055782 Timestamp) BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” seems like absolutism— Hue Whitman That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544957637 Timestamp)

    • Absolutists: We will do it because ‘we know best’.
    • Fascists: We will do it to stop them.
    • National Socialists: We will do it because it is best for us.
    • Conservatives: We will only do it if we must as a last resort.
    • Libertarians: We won’t do anything except beg to be left alone.
    • Moderates: We will do as little as possible while preserving ours.
    • Leftists: We will do it to get ours.
    • Communists: We will do it to get from them.
    • Anarchists: We will do it to get back at them.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544957315 Timestamp) THE DESIRES OF ABSOLUTISTS by Bill Joslin I don’t think the absolutists are haters. I think they lack what they claim we lack – that being a foundation for meaning,. motivation -“a superordinate transcendental ideal to be subservient to”… We have that – it’s called Career, Friends, Family and Kids. They’re looking for meaning and inspiration. They’re unestablished males seeking to individuate from “dad”. The critiques leveled at us as best as I can see are a series of straw men and equivocations , but suspect their main recruitment efforts which are successful are build off critique of propertarianism (much like our strongest arguments are leveled against libertarians) – without prop – there would not really be much for absolutist to build their case on without going whole hog pomo. Besides it’s a strange conflation of de Jouvenel On Power used to justify “charisma” (he who drives the idiom is king) as a “metaphysically” coherent justification for absolute rule (the idiomatic subterrain king) (which if you really thought about it – what drives idiomatic mimicking in society (fashion, fame etc) is often driven from the underclasses up (pop music, pop culture, thug culture etc)… At least we understand why this is: omegas service as stress relief for the group – deferred aggression and initiation of play. Why? Because that’s all they have to offer. They’re not haters per say, just building a castle in the clouds and looking for others to agree it’s made of stone. Now, I shouldn’t have said they “lack” what they claim we are lacking, but rather have said they are looking for (trying to construct) what they see we are missing. But it kind of baffles me… For instance; aesthetics and transcendentals being required for motivation… Joel once said to me that having an aesthetic is propelling these young men toward excellence – working out, self perfection, career etc…. Yet under in the sheepdog group the things which Ivar is doing with is family business, of Alain is doing personally, or Bryan is doing locally… There are many of us driven forward by understanding the operational necessity of agency-en-toto . It’s a simple if-then operation. If agency is at the root of this then I should build agency, if I value (xyz) then I should act (agency) … This doesn’t diminish or reduce motivation to some materialistic or positivist frame (Anglo ontology as they would say) but rather demonstrates that aesthetics grounds into something more fundamental. The result is a market for aesthetics – each moving in the same direction (increase agency) for their own personal reasons opposed to a grand unifying aesthetic. Just seems like they’re seeking another monopoly – or rather seeking someone who has a monopoly on aesthetics and/or a monopoly on inspiration ( a leader ) You know…. “Anglo ontology can’t provide a transcendental” – yet I see that it is. It’s just not always a shiny, polished, sophisticated ideal… It can be mundane – like love of your family, or pride in work well done – it can be simple. And that is where I see their dissatisfaction – what we propose isn’t “special” enough. And that specialness they seek I think is the outward manifestation of young males seeking to establish themself via status symbols (specialness) at reduced costs (ideals over reals). I have a great respect for and see them walking the same path I did 20 years ago… That path leads here not over there. Give them time, let them live, forebearence for what ever costs they’ll impose in the meantime… They’ll eventually meet us somewhere in the middle – all young men must individuate on their own terms (or it wouldn’t be an individuation process). They’re my brothers too…. If anything it’s taught me what that patient yet irritated look on my father’s face meant, when I railed away at some stupidity in my youth.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545055782 Timestamp) BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” seems like absolutism— Hue Whitman That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544957637 Timestamp)

    • Absolutists: We will do it because ‘we know best’.
    • Fascists: We will do it to stop them.
    • National Socialists: We will do it because it is best for us.
    • Conservatives: We will only do it if we must as a last resort.
    • Libertarians: We won’t do anything except beg to be left alone.
    • Moderates: We will do as little as possible while preserving ours.
    • Leftists: We will do it to get ours.
    • Communists: We will do it to get from them.
    • Anarchists: We will do it to get back at them.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544957315 Timestamp) THE DESIRES OF ABSOLUTISTS by Bill Joslin I don’t think the absolutists are haters. I think they lack what they claim we lack – that being a foundation for meaning,. motivation -“a superordinate transcendental ideal to be subservient to”… We have that – it’s called Career, Friends, Family and Kids. They’re looking for meaning and inspiration. They’re unestablished males seeking to individuate from “dad”. The critiques leveled at us as best as I can see are a series of straw men and equivocations , but suspect their main recruitment efforts which are successful are build off critique of propertarianism (much like our strongest arguments are leveled against libertarians) – without prop – there would not really be much for absolutist to build their case on without going whole hog pomo. Besides it’s a strange conflation of de Jouvenel On Power used to justify “charisma” (he who drives the idiom is king) as a “metaphysically” coherent justification for absolute rule (the idiomatic subterrain king) (which if you really thought about it – what drives idiomatic mimicking in society (fashion, fame etc) is often driven from the underclasses up (pop music, pop culture, thug culture etc)… At least we understand why this is: omegas service as stress relief for the group – deferred aggression and initiation of play. Why? Because that’s all they have to offer. They’re not haters per say, just building a castle in the clouds and looking for others to agree it’s made of stone. Now, I shouldn’t have said they “lack” what they claim we are lacking, but rather have said they are looking for (trying to construct) what they see we are missing. But it kind of baffles me… For instance; aesthetics and transcendentals being required for motivation… Joel once said to me that having an aesthetic is propelling these young men toward excellence – working out, self perfection, career etc…. Yet under in the sheepdog group the things which Ivar is doing with is family business, of Alain is doing personally, or Bryan is doing locally… There are many of us driven forward by understanding the operational necessity of agency-en-toto . It’s a simple if-then operation. If agency is at the root of this then I should build agency, if I value (xyz) then I should act (agency) … This doesn’t diminish or reduce motivation to some materialistic or positivist frame (Anglo ontology as they would say) but rather demonstrates that aesthetics grounds into something more fundamental. The result is a market for aesthetics – each moving in the same direction (increase agency) for their own personal reasons opposed to a grand unifying aesthetic. Just seems like they’re seeking another monopoly – or rather seeking someone who has a monopoly on aesthetics and/or a monopoly on inspiration ( a leader ) You know…. “Anglo ontology can’t provide a transcendental” – yet I see that it is. It’s just not always a shiny, polished, sophisticated ideal… It can be mundane – like love of your family, or pride in work well done – it can be simple. And that is where I see their dissatisfaction – what we propose isn’t “special” enough. And that specialness they seek I think is the outward manifestation of young males seeking to establish themself via status symbols (specialness) at reduced costs (ideals over reals). I have a great respect for and see them walking the same path I did 20 years ago… That path leads here not over there. Give them time, let them live, forebearence for what ever costs they’ll impose in the meantime… They’ll eventually meet us somewhere in the middle – all young men must individuate on their own terms (or it wouldn’t be an individuation process). They’re my brothers too…. If anything it’s taught me what that patient yet irritated look on my father’s face meant, when I railed away at some stupidity in my youth.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545061608 Timestamp) RESTORING VIOLENCE TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS We removed violence from the discourse in order to accommodate women into the political system – despite the fact that the market for politics, like all other markets, is simply a proxy for violence. I set out to restore violence to libertarianism and it resulted in “Sovereigntarianism” (Propertarianism). Noah brings up the current context: –“Another big hurdle is adjusting mens relationship to violence. I have no problem with women saying “I disavow all violence” but I don’t want to hear men saying such weak things. We men need to embrace violence and the consequences of violence. The more comfortable we are with hard edged solutions the better. We don’ t seek them, but we don’t avoid what’s necessary. A failure to account for the power of violence has been a weakness of the right for too long.”—– Noah J Revoy You can’t peace your way into power unless you have power, and if you peace your way into power you will not retain it. Empires fall for this reason as much ore more so than any other. Pacifism is just rent seeking by avoidance of the cost of preservation of the natural order of reciprocity.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545061608 Timestamp) RESTORING VIOLENCE TO THE STUDY OF POLITICS We removed violence from the discourse in order to accommodate women into the political system – despite the fact that the market for politics, like all other markets, is simply a proxy for violence. I set out to restore violence to libertarianism and it resulted in “Sovereigntarianism” (Propertarianism). Noah brings up the current context: –“Another big hurdle is adjusting mens relationship to violence. I have no problem with women saying “I disavow all violence” but I don’t want to hear men saying such weak things. We men need to embrace violence and the consequences of violence. The more comfortable we are with hard edged solutions the better. We don’ t seek them, but we don’t avoid what’s necessary. A failure to account for the power of violence has been a weakness of the right for too long.”—– Noah J Revoy You can’t peace your way into power unless you have power, and if you peace your way into power you will not retain it. Empires fall for this reason as much ore more so than any other. Pacifism is just rent seeking by avoidance of the cost of preservation of the natural order of reciprocity.