Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law

    BUT I’M NOT CREATING A POPULAR POLITICAL MOVEMENT I’M CREATING A REVOLUTION AND A BODY OF LAW (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)

    —“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford

    Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.

  • But I’m Not Creating a Popular Political Movement I’m Creating a Revolution and A Body of Law

    BUT I’M NOT CREATING A POPULAR POLITICAL MOVEMENT I’M CREATING A REVOLUTION AND A BODY OF LAW (and frankly y’all got nobody else at all other than me with anything to offer.)

    —“Curt: Don’t you realize that what you are trying to do is start a political movement? P must be a political movement if it’s ever going to get off the ground. You can talk all you want about it being the final conclusion to logic and science. You know what? That and $4 will get you a cup from Starbucks. I would personally like to see some P principles in our constitution. But it ain’t gonna happen if you don’t build constituencies. And the number one group that could be in your corner is conservative Christians. But that isn’t going to happen because you are too dogmatic about the folly of Christianity. I am offering you some advice. Delete all negative references to Christianity in your writings. Stop telling Christians they are foolish, failures, weak, arrogant, disobedient and wasting their time believing in the fake man in the sky. You are trying to build a political movement (herd) whether you choose to admit it or not. Who is going to be followers of the P movement? Marxists? Socialists? Antifa? The leftist academic elitists? The deep state? The parasitic democrats dependent on government transfer payments, single mothers, millions of recent immigrants, the AOC & Bernie millennials? No. It’s Euro Americans of which a huge number are Christian. And you’re going to piss them off. You are NOT going to gain any traction by alienating what should be your core constituency. You can be self-righteous in your P dogma and lose. Or you can try to win by forging alliances with those who can help you move forward. Choose wisely.”— Herod Bedford

    Go to my twitter page. What does the pinned tweet say? Here. I’m going to post it below for you. My response is that instead you stop making excuses for the truth in order to burying your head in the sand using faith as an excuse. You can never have a theocracy. You can only have trifunctionalism, or you can disappear from this earth. Truth and Law vs Wisdom and Faith. I’m not looking for a majority, any more than were the founders. I’m looking for 1% or less of the population that will fight to restore the constitution and our civilization without pandering to anyone, whether christian, or fascist, or marxist-socialist-postmodernist-feminist, or anything in between – we are made from rule of law and christianity, fascism, liberalism, and leftism are all privileged cults of fantasy that are possible because the few – the very few – were willing to pick up, carry arms, sally forth, and fight to preserve them despite cowards like you. Either your civilization and its operating system of law comes first, or you are an enemy of our people. If your faith is before your people, or you are the enemy of our people. if it comes before our law, our people, and our civilization then you are the enemy of your people. Your privilege of faith is due to our civilization, and our law, and the truth within our law that you deny in order to maintain your faith. Christian self congratulatory delusions are only possible, as is judaism, because real men fight for the law to have the freedom to provide you with that self indulgence. The few strong, reciprocal, and brave, do not need the approval of the many weak, irreciprocal, and cowardly. So grow up, man up, shut up, and fight for our law. Because the survival of your faith is predicated on it.

  • The Constitution of Religion

    The Constitution of Religion https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/the-constitution-of-religion-2/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:04:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253414420912279553

  • The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law

    (natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)

    [I]f you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.

  • The Only Test of Your Ideas Is Law

    (natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)

    [I]f you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in. You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t. And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain. But we all test that limit at every opportunity.

  • Government Under P-Law

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution. A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments. But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests. So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today. We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors. The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house). The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law. The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators. The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model. This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.

  • Government Under P-Law

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution. A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments. But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests. So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today. We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors. The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house). The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law. The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators. The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model. This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.

  • Loyalty

    (from elsewhere) Very smart fellow and intellectually honest. Pleasure discussing this with you.

    —“When I brought up the religiosity of the US founders I was referring only to a very basic common principle: that morality, and its subgenre of political law, must be grounded in God by a logical necessity (hence the ‘God-given’ ‘inalienable rights’). This is a philosophical truth that Catholicism specifically built into European civ. and consequently handed down to our Protestant and Deist founders”–

    Well, it’s in our law which predates christianity by over two thousand years. Christian: God has given us his son jesus as his prophet, and first among his laws is to live in imitation of jesus and according to his teachings – teachings we call christian morality: to love thy neighbor as thyself, Deist: God has given us the evidence of his hand: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of christian love (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). Scientist: Whether a god exists or not these are the laws evident in the universe: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of seduction into reciprocity (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). The human brain evolved to distribute between feminine and empathic to raise children in small numbers and masculine and systematizing to govern polities in large numbers. Each of us regardless of sex, has a mix of feminine and masculine intuitions. For those of you with more feminine cognition, the empathic is necessary – you must feel the spirituality. For those of us who are in the middle – practical – we must only undrestand that the norm works and imitate it. For those of us who are entirely masculine, we feel nothing, find faith childish, find norms arbitrary, and seek the science in faith and norm – because we cannot feel, we cannot just imitate, we can only calculate. Throughout our history we have practiced Trifunctionalism: The martial aristocracy, the Religion of the Faithful, and the Judicial law to resolve our differences. We have always had three leadership groups: violence, law, and faith. Women and the faithful cannot think as men. Men and the empirical cannot think as women and the faithful. But by obeying the judicial law we can still cooperate despite our thinking. There is no place for truth in faith or it would not be faith. There is no place for faith in truth or it would not be truth. There is no place for violence in either. As such we are left with the law to judge our differences. Men and women can be loyal to one another. Men and women of feminine mind can marry. Men and women of practical mind can marry. Men and women of systematizing mind can marry. And under our law any combination in between – because loyalty is enough. Likewise the faithful, judicial, and martial can be loyal to one another. As we always have been. And both succeed. Or we cannot and both fail. And my name is Caesar so to speak. And my job is the law.

  • Loyalty

    (from elsewhere) Very smart fellow and intellectually honest. Pleasure discussing this with you.

    —“When I brought up the religiosity of the US founders I was referring only to a very basic common principle: that morality, and its subgenre of political law, must be grounded in God by a logical necessity (hence the ‘God-given’ ‘inalienable rights’). This is a philosophical truth that Catholicism specifically built into European civ. and consequently handed down to our Protestant and Deist founders”–

    Well, it’s in our law which predates christianity by over two thousand years. Christian: God has given us his son jesus as his prophet, and first among his laws is to live in imitation of jesus and according to his teachings – teachings we call christian morality: to love thy neighbor as thyself, Deist: God has given us the evidence of his hand: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of christian love (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). Scientist: Whether a god exists or not these are the laws evident in the universe: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of seduction into reciprocity (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). The human brain evolved to distribute between feminine and empathic to raise children in small numbers and masculine and systematizing to govern polities in large numbers. Each of us regardless of sex, has a mix of feminine and masculine intuitions. For those of you with more feminine cognition, the empathic is necessary – you must feel the spirituality. For those of us who are in the middle – practical – we must only undrestand that the norm works and imitate it. For those of us who are entirely masculine, we feel nothing, find faith childish, find norms arbitrary, and seek the science in faith and norm – because we cannot feel, we cannot just imitate, we can only calculate. Throughout our history we have practiced Trifunctionalism: The martial aristocracy, the Religion of the Faithful, and the Judicial law to resolve our differences. We have always had three leadership groups: violence, law, and faith. Women and the faithful cannot think as men. Men and the empirical cannot think as women and the faithful. But by obeying the judicial law we can still cooperate despite our thinking. There is no place for truth in faith or it would not be faith. There is no place for faith in truth or it would not be truth. There is no place for violence in either. As such we are left with the law to judge our differences. Men and women can be loyal to one another. Men and women of feminine mind can marry. Men and women of practical mind can marry. Men and women of systematizing mind can marry. And under our law any combination in between – because loyalty is enough. Likewise the faithful, judicial, and martial can be loyal to one another. As we always have been. And both succeed. Or we cannot and both fail. And my name is Caesar so to speak. And my job is the law.

  • Economists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any lon

    Economists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 10:20:00 UTC