Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • CD: COMBINE (holding place) Stupid American mistakes 1) War of independence, rat

    CD: COMBINE (holding place)

    Stupid American mistakes

    1) War of independence, rather than paying our debt for the french and indian war to the crown. (Beneficial outcome: writing down the common law in a constitution)

    2) Not buying and paying for the repatriation of the slaves.

    3) Not letting the south secede, civil war, and the catastrophe of the 14th amendment. No beneficial outcome.

    4) Joining WW1 rather than letting Germany restore herself after Napoleon’s destruction of the holy roman (German) empire (France’s equivalent of the war of northern aggression)

    3) The Versailles treaty granting France it’s wishes to destroy the holy roman empire and de-prussianize germanic civilization – the heart of european civilization for all of our history.

    4) Joining WW2

    5) Taking over rather than reinforcing and restoring the British empire, as the primary global defense of western civilization.

    6) Taking over the pound as the world reserve currency

    7) Not letting loose our generals Macarthur in china and Patton in Russia.

    8) Not suppression the jewish postwar movements – particularly communism, marxism, cultural marxism, and postmodernism

    9) Tolerating libel slander and gossiping under the pretense of free speech.

    8) No fault divorce, child support and alimony, and removing liability for interference in the marraige.

    Not helping Russia after the fall

    Stupid British Mistakes

    1) Not creating a house of the colonies)

    2) allowing jews into the state, academy…

    The greatest mistakes our country made were not letting the south secede, expanding the franchise to those unproductive and lacking responsibility, and the hart cellar act to open the gates to the underclasses – destroying the American experiment in a third way: middle class civ. These are followed closely by tolerating the postwar suppression of the american eugenics movement, and not brutally crushing the communist movement, marxist-postmodernist movements.

    We were tolerant in greek, roman, germanic, and british civilizations.

    Tolerance is a weakness not a virtue.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 10:51:00 UTC

  • THE P CONSTITUTION ISN’T A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL I don’t think it’s coming across

    THE P CONSTITUTION ISN’T A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL

    I don’t think it’s coming across. We aren’t trying to get consensus on reciprocity under some form of a P constitution. We’re saying that the only reason not to conquer, deprive, rule, tax, enserf, enslave, or much worse, is under reciprocity – and there is no possible to counter it.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 10:15:00 UTC

  • The greatest mistakes our country made were not letting the south secede, expand

    The greatest mistakes our country made were not letting the south secede, expanding the franchise to those unproductive and lacking responsibility, and the hart cellar act to open the gates to the underclasses – destroying the American experiment in a third way: middle class civ. These are followed closely by tolerating the postwar suppression of the american eugenics movement, and not brutally crushing the communist movement, marxist-postmodernist movements.

    We were tolerant in greek, roman, germanic, and british civilizations.

    Tolerance is a weakness not a virtue.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 11:12:00 UTC

  • READ HOPPE TO UNDERSTAND “WHY MONARCHY?” by Scott De Warren ‘Democracy: The God

    READ HOPPE TO UNDERSTAND “WHY MONARCHY?”

    by Scott De Warren

    ‘Democracy: The God that Failed’ by Hoppe is available online and to help expand people’s thinking on monarchies.

    Also, it will help to know that the founding fathers originally intended to stay under the monarchy and that George Washington’s officers regularly toasted the health of the King.

    Their fight was with the King’s ministers in their mind . Even after the decision to break was made many of the officers and leaders were open to monarchy in the United States.

    Our enemies have greatly exaggerated the extent to which radical anti-monarchical elements played in the founding of our Republic. The military leaders wanted to make Washington king, but he declined in the face of the radical fringe democratic elements.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 11:02:00 UTC

  • “IT”S HARD TO GET ON BOARD WITH MONARCHY” I wasn’t on board with it either. It’s

    “IT”S HARD TO GET ON BOARD WITH MONARCHY”

    I wasn’t on board with it either. It’s just eventually I couldn’t deny it any longer.

    Constitutional monarchy with power of veto, termination of ministers, dissolution of parliament. That’s all.

    Monarchy = Kinship government, and Intergenerational Incentives, and capitalization rather than tragedy of the commons, and compensates for fashion, political, and procedural failure.

    The enemy wanted to end our monarchy to replace it with an organized crime family.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 09:53:00 UTC

  • VOTING —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it w

    VOTING

    —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it would have a great cost, but did it anyway because it’s “right”…the cost was exactly what they predicted it would be: the quality of civilization itself.”—Mike Harvey

    From Alexander Hamilton:

    —“It is also, undeniably, certain, that no Englishman, who can be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws, to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his representative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a freehold, to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to a share in the legislature, which he exercises, by giving his vote in the election of some person, he approves of, as his representative.

    “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue influence, or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections, than is consistent with general liberty. If it were probable, that every man would give his vote, freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of Liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote, in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty and life. But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order, to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

    Hence it appears, that such “of the people as have no vote in the choice of representatives, and therefore, are govern’d, by laws, to which they have not consented, either by themselves or by their representatives, are only those persons, who are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.” Every free agent, every free man, possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British constitution, intitled to a vote, in the election of those who are invested with the disposal of his life, his liberty and property.”—

    Source:

    Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, or A more impartial and comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies. . . . (New York, 1775), in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-1979), 1:81-165.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 09:50:00 UTC

  • P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective) by John Mark In any

    P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective)

    by John Mark

    In any nation there will be capable and incapable people, wealthy and poor, etc – all across the spectrum.

    There is a huge difference between giving less capable people (who often tend to vote for free stuff stolen from others) “via-negativa” power thru P-law (the power to STOP violations of reciprocity) and giving them “via-positiva” power thru voting (the power to INITIATE violations of reciprocity).

    The Propertarian system does NOT allow less capable (often parasite-minded) people the ability to INITIATE violations of reciprocity, and at the same time it DOES allow everyone to stop violations of reciprocity. So you can see it solves 2 problems at once: It TAKES AWAY via-positiva initiating power from a demographic that has a majority of parasite-instinct people, and GIVES via-negativa power to STOP violations of reciprocity, to everyone.

    And under P-Law the average person WILL have MUCH more power to counter the well-heeled than today.

    First, keep in mind that poor people even today often have no trouble getting legal representation when the lawyers believe their is strong chance of a big financial reward. P-Law would provide significant $ rewards – violators of reciprocity will have to pay damages, and the richer the violator, the greater the financial reward for taking them to court will be in many cases.

    Second, under P-Law there will be very few if any frivolous lawsuits because loser has to pay extra damages. This reduces/eliminates the ability of rich people to use their wealth to “play the lawsuit game” as a tool of control over the poor. Everyone regardless of wealth level will be much more careful about their actions and words in general (so as not to end up in court by violating reciprocity), and careful about going to court (poor people if they have a good case will have no trouble finding a good lawyer, rich people will not be able to use frivolous lawsuits to intimidate & wear out opposition).

    (Curt has thought this through very thoroughly. People just need to stick around long enough to find out that the multiple changes outlined in the propertarian system fix multiple problems as well as they can be fixed, keeping in mind that no fix will be 100% perfect.)

    —

    —“The importance of voting is evidence the American experiment failed. The greater the importance, the greater the evidence, the greater the failure.”— Luke Weinhagen

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 21:11:00 UTC

  • IS P EITHER SUPREMACIST OR FASCIST? —“Hey Curt sorry to be a nuisance, I have

    IS P EITHER SUPREMACIST OR FASCIST?

    —“Hey Curt sorry to be a nuisance, I have so many questions and concerns about propertarianism. I truly want it to work and to make it grow. Buy maybe it’s me over thinking or seeing things that are not there, but let me ask straight out.

    1. Is propertarianism a white supremacist movement?

    2. Is it a Fascist form of Government?

    3. Will people be Slaves under it?

    I ask because I see stuff that gives credibility to those questions but then I also see stuff from you and john that tend to counter that. I’ve pledged my support and my guns to you but I need to be able to counter these kinds of questions when talking to people as well as in my own mind. You are an amazing man Curt I truly appreciate your time and what your doing. Thank you for you time.”—

    It’s none of those things.

    If I call propertarianism “the scientific and logical articulation of the traditional ancestral natural law of the european peoples” does that answer your question?

    Propertarianism consists of:

    1) A methodology that completes the scientific method merging all the logics, sciences, narratives, and deceits into a universally commensurable language. In other words, we describe all existence as one continuous language (paradigm, vocabular, gramma) using operational language (semantics). This produces a universal system of measurement across all disciplines. (it solves EO Wilson’s predicted Wilsonian Synthesis)

    2) A methodology for writing constitutions and laws in that language. With this methodology you can produce ANY political social and economic order you desire as long as you do so truthfully and reciprocally.

    3) An explanation of the reason for western civilization’s disproportionate success at evolution in relation to other civilizations – that explanation is our accidental development of the most adaptive civilization that is possible for human beings to construct: soverignty.

    4) A constitutional template that would restore that disproportionate success by reversing the harms against our civilization in the 19th and 20th centuries – largely by the second jewish revolt against civilization that we call marxism, socialism, feminism, postmodernism, social construction, and denialism.

    5) That constitution allows the formation of many small states under a common military and judicial defense of the ’empire’ that each produce different social orders within that natural law constitution.

    6) Some of those social orders will be separatist (by race) and some will not. Some will be conservative (middle) and some will be consumptive (liberal, top and bottom).

    7) So propertarianism isn’t ANY ideology, it’s a means of creating political systems and separating by political system as suits our preference – markets in everything – just as was possible throughout european history.

    So if you were to ask me if european civilization is superior to all others then the answer is empirically yes. If you ask me if european genome is superior to others than empirically yes, except for perhaps our fragile skin, and vulnerability to deception by the abrahamic method of deceit. If you ask me if I want to live (myself) in an homogenous ethnostate, but would like to visit other ethnostates, then the answer would be yes. If you ask me if every group of people should – if any such “should” exists – be granted reciprocal rights to self determination presuming they pay the cost and consequences of it, then yes. Because that is the natural law.

    Propertarianism is just science expanded from the physical sciences to all sciences, including psychological, social, economic, political, and group evolutionary. Propertarianism completes the scientific method and allows us to use that science for producing social orders that suit our interests: polities as PRODUCTS.

    Now if you understand this but disagree with it then you are absolutely positively a bad person and a threat to humankind and I will, and my people will, try to remove you and that threat you pose to human kind.

    There is no more moral objective above this, because this is simply the optimum evolutionary strategy available to man, with the optimum freedom available to man – at the attendant cost of one’s choices.

    The only alternative to P’s political solution is parasitism, predation, and war.

    Which I’m fine with because frankly, we are really, really good at war.

    So to answer questions:

    1. “Is propertarianism a white supremacist movement?”

    Propertarianism allows all movements to separate into states that pursue the interests of their people as long as they do not externalize the costs of their choices.

    One of those choices will obviously be some number of ethnostates each claiming superiority.

    2. “Is it a Fascist form of Government? “

    (a) There is no definition of fascist other than intolerant, conformist, ethnic, nationalist, with greater emphasis on state investment in capital intensive industries that prohibits political competition to replace that form of organization. China is a fascist state. But it is also a deceptive state. The Italians and the nazis were not deceptive states they said exactly what they were doing and why. If you want to built an intolerant conformist ethnic nationalist state with greater emphasis on state investment in capital intensive industries using propertarian method of law, then you can. You just can’t do it deceptively. All china would have to do is be honest like the Italians and Germans. Russia is sort of half way honest. But is still a resource harvester not an industrial country.

    (b) The constitution I have recommended is intolerant of competition against the political organization because as far as I know there is no possible competitor to that organization that is not a violation of natural law. That’s why I call it ‘perfect government’. This government is flexible in that it can switch between authoritarian in war, republican in growth, and redistributive in windfalls. The law is intolerant because it prohibits irreciprocal display word and deed, so it reduces one’s freedom to propagandize, bend the truth, lie, cheat, fraud, bait into hazard in public, to the public, in matters public. In other words you must be more careful making truth or good claims. This constitution also suppresses all the means by which our people have been lied to over the twentieth century((())). So it would crush the financial, advertising, media, entertainment, academic, and political sectors and transfer all our efforts in those sectors to non-parasitic, non-false, objectives – productivity rather tan parasitism. the result will be a new renaissance as capital is directed to truthful and reciprocal production.

    3. “Will people be Slaves under it?”

    Prisoners are in slavery.

    Soldiers are in indentured servitude.

    WPA (nationalized work force) are in indentured servitude.

    Unionized and State Directed labor is in serfdom.

    Dependents have freedom

    People with capital have liberty

    Some people have sufficient capital that they are at least functionally sovereign.

    Chattel slavery (involuntary) is irreciprocal.

    Indentured servitude exchanges responsibility for room and board for directed labor, minimal pay, and no right of exit.

    The question is this: should we tolerate indentured servitude?

    We do in public affairs (the military). But should we in private affairs? It is not irreciprocal, and if people did so voluntarily it is hard to say no. The problem is in modernity almost no one could afford indentured servants. So it is an unlikely question.

    So in the sense you mean “are there chattel slaves” then the answer is a rather obvious no. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 10:47:00 UTC

  • “WHAT’S YOUR VISION FOR POST MAJORITARIAN AMERICA, EUROPE, WESTERN CIVILIZATION?

    “WHAT’S YOUR VISION FOR POST MAJORITARIAN AMERICA, EUROPE, WESTERN CIVILIZATION?”

    —“Do you wish to implement a caste system in America? And, if so what would it be regarding: racial based or social status based?”—Amit Patel

    Are parties castes? No. Are tribes castes? no. Are classes castes? Close but no – a class is alterable by demonstrated behavior, but a caste isn’t.

    The reason for european success in the ancient and modern world is sovereignty, and sovereignty requires markets in every aspect of life, and markets produce continuous adaptation and evolution without political consensus and intervention.

    I want to create markets in everything, where we may not seek to circumvent those markets in display word or deed without severe consequences.

    In politics i want to recreate the market between the classes for the production of commons – using houses of the classes in the traditional British european model.

    And a market for polities that produce those commons suitable to the needs of different people, in the traditional european model – particularly the hundreds of princedom’s in the german holy roman empire.

    For some of us we will prefer the English, Prussian, Germanic, orderly, clean, aesthetic, homogenous, redistributive, civil society where most of our investments are in the commons.

    For others they will prefer the ‘latin, catholic, leisurely, communal life of the family with state (feudal) responsibility for the commons.

    For others the individual they prefer the cosmopolitan (jewish) urban, high stimulation, high consumption, high opportunity, low responsibility, low investment in the commons.

    For others they will prefer the close membership and mutual insurance of the semitic hyper familial tribe, at the high cost of the many externalities, including demand for authoritarian religion and state.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 08:06:00 UTC

  • monarchs tried repeatedly to override customary (natural) law

    monarchs tried repeatedly to override customary (natural) law.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-10 21:50:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226986933907316737

    Reply addressees: @EricLiford

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226984297812373505

    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/1226984297812373505