Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • YES, WHITE SHARIA IS A JOKE, BUT WE DON’T HAVE AN EQUIVALENT. —“White Sharia m

    YES, WHITE SHARIA IS A JOKE, BUT WE DON’T HAVE AN EQUIVALENT.

    —“White Sharia makes me laugh with some truth-like connections, but then cringe if it’s meant seriously. We’re better than that.”—Bryan Nova Brey

    Of course we’re better than that, because natural law is (a) scientific, (b) constantly evolving and adapting, (c) innovative, eugenic and transcendent.

    Sharia is none of those things. It’s supernatural, fixed, ignorance-creating, developmentally inhibitory, dysgenic, and devolutionary.

    That said, we don’t have an equivalent term for Zero Tolerance Law Every Man Must Enforce.

    I use Natural Law, The Oath, and Every Man A Sheriff. But the general idea that every member of a civilization must adhere to a law, an oath, and the duty to defend both, doesn’t have a name in western civilization precisely because prior to the present we had no idea *any alternative existed*.

    —“Sharia is the Bedouin equivalent of the Talmud.”—Howard Van Der Klauw

    And Natural Law, The Oath and Every Man A Sheriff and a Warrior, is the equivalent of those laws. The problem is, truth science evolves, our literature covers every discipline, and all must survive competition from one another – and theirs don’t. They are monopolies not markets.

    —“It’s a joke. But, White Sharia will be an even funnier joke once there are no more Muslims.”–Eli Harman

    Um… Eli is always on message. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 19:35:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW ON MISCEGENATION (this oughtta get me in trouble) —“Hi Curt … Re

    NATURAL LAW ON MISCEGENATION

    (this oughtta get me in trouble)

    —“Hi Curt … Regarding your post on natural law being sharia for whites … what would be the logical stance of natural law toward a nordic woman from Minnesota with a 125 IQ marrying an 85-IQ immigrant from Somalia? Would the negative externalities need to be incorporated into a natural law approach to this?”— A Friend

    Well first, putting aside that this example violates near universal demonstration of female hypergamy. But it does happen.

    Second, some group may choose NOT to invest in and insure their genetic commons, and some group might choose to invest in and insure their genetic commons. The longer term question of whether the dysgenic and the eugenic polities will eventually end up in conflict is a practical rather than legal question.

    Natural Law says only that we may not impose costs upon the investments others – particularly those that they choose to defend. So if you moved to a polity that didn’t insure the genetics of the group over the desires of the individual, then it’s not a violation. If instead you attempt to impose costs upon a group that insures the genetic commons of the group, then that’s a violation.

    I would say that it’s cause for exit or removal because (a) one cannot perform restitution for genetic dilution(pollution), and (b) one cannot perform restitution for the externalities created – all of which are bad. In fact, genetic disinformation (pollution) is perhaps the worst possible crime with the longest consequences. More so than murder.

    So the only form of restitution for those impositions of costs upon the genetic, cultural, and normative commons, is voluntary exist or forcible removal.

    My view is that reproduction under 92 should be prohibited, and under 100 limited to one child. (using current distribution numbers, where 106 is the ‘minimum median’).

    This is the only way reproduction is not damaging to the genetic commons for those groups that want to invest in the genetic commons, and pay the cost of insuring that commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 19:17:00 UTC

  • “Saw you in … “— ( Actually my phenotype (appearance) is fairly common in no

    —“Saw you in … “—

    ( Actually my phenotype (appearance) is fairly common in north and east France near the German border, and I have plenty of doppelgangers – most of whom are a bit taller than I am. one musician in Texas in particular. People used to send me pictures of ‘sightings’ when I was younger. Most people don’t travel enough to europe to see the remnants of our tribes.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 19:10:00 UTC

  • Conservatives serve as the white blood cells in the tribe, nation and race. That

    Conservatives serve as the white blood cells in the tribe, nation and race. That’s why we are so easily disgusted, and so intolerant. We are ridding the body politic of disease.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 15:27:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998223590947516416

  • Natural Law on Miscegenation

    (this oughtta get me in trouble) —“Hi Curt … Regarding your post on natural law being sharia for whites … what would be the logical stance of natural law toward a nordic woman from Minnesota with a 125 IQ marrying an 85-IQ immigrant from Somalia? Would the negative externalities need to be incorporated into a natural law approach to this?”— A Friend Well first, putting aside that this example violates near universal demonstration of female hypergamy. But it does happen. Second, some group may choose NOT to invest in and insure their genetic commons, and some group might choose to invest in and insure their genetic commons. The longer term question of whether the dysgenic and the eugenic polities will eventually end up in conflict is a practical rather than legal question. Natural Law says only that we may not impose costs upon the investments others – particularly those that they choose to defend. So if you moved to a polity that didn’t insure the genetics of the group over the desires of the individual, then it’s not a violation. If instead you attempt to impose costs upon a group that insures the genetic commons of the group, then that’s a violation. I would say that it’s cause for exit or removal because (a) one cannot perform restitution for genetic dilution(pollution), and (b) one cannot perform restitution for the externalities created – all of which are bad. In fact, genetic disinformation (pollution) is perhaps the worst possible crime with the longest consequences. More so than murder. So the only form of restitution for those impositions of costs upon the genetic, cultural, and normative commons, is voluntary exist or forcible removal. My view is that reproduction under 92 should be prohibited, and under 100 limited to one child. (using current distribution numbers, where 106 is the ‘minimum median’). This is the only way reproduction is not damaging to the genetic commons for those groups that want to invest in the genetic commons, and pay the cost of insuring that commons.
    May 20, 2018 7:17pm

  • Natural Law on Miscegenation

    (this oughtta get me in trouble) —“Hi Curt … Regarding your post on natural law being sharia for whites … what would be the logical stance of natural law toward a nordic woman from Minnesota with a 125 IQ marrying an 85-IQ immigrant from Somalia? Would the negative externalities need to be incorporated into a natural law approach to this?”— A Friend Well first, putting aside that this example violates near universal demonstration of female hypergamy. But it does happen. Second, some group may choose NOT to invest in and insure their genetic commons, and some group might choose to invest in and insure their genetic commons. The longer term question of whether the dysgenic and the eugenic polities will eventually end up in conflict is a practical rather than legal question. Natural Law says only that we may not impose costs upon the investments others – particularly those that they choose to defend. So if you moved to a polity that didn’t insure the genetics of the group over the desires of the individual, then it’s not a violation. If instead you attempt to impose costs upon a group that insures the genetic commons of the group, then that’s a violation. I would say that it’s cause for exit or removal because (a) one cannot perform restitution for genetic dilution(pollution), and (b) one cannot perform restitution for the externalities created – all of which are bad. In fact, genetic disinformation (pollution) is perhaps the worst possible crime with the longest consequences. More so than murder. So the only form of restitution for those impositions of costs upon the genetic, cultural, and normative commons, is voluntary exist or forcible removal. My view is that reproduction under 92 should be prohibited, and under 100 limited to one child. (using current distribution numbers, where 106 is the ‘minimum median’). This is the only way reproduction is not damaging to the genetic commons for those groups that want to invest in the genetic commons, and pay the cost of insuring that commons.
    May 20, 2018 7:17pm

  • He Solution to Kevin Mac Donald’s Question of How and Why the Culture of Critique

    (important) (core) 1) Ashkenazis succeeded in reversal of gender bias in cognitive ability, while maintaining pastoral aggression. (We can easily measure this, and all data I’ve seen supports it.) 2) The result has been adoption of the female group social strategy, 3) … and the Female primate’s reproductive strategy for constraining alphas. 4) Female Humans seek systemic free riding and parasitism upon the commons (force the tribe to pay the cost of her offspring), control reproduction and leadership by undermining, and undermine using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, straw manning, heaping of undue praise, and spreading of undue criticism. They poison(pollute) the informational commons. All female behavior evolved to either control children at the lowest cost, obtain rents from men and the commons at lowest cost, and to increase the cost of her sex, affection, and political support (positive gossiping), by both scarcity of it an constant undermining in the absence of it. ( It’s a very simple algorithm really.) 5) So, Ashkenazi behavior and its damage to all host civilizations is just Instinct, common interest, common strategy, and not conspiracy: Neither women nor Ashkenazim know that they do. They both destroy unless their behaviors are severely limited. And the lesson is that males that cannot constrain their females (or their proxies) from undermining are too weak to rule (defend). Evolution does its work if men do not. 6) In other words: The Culture of Critique is just the Female Group Evolutionary Strategy making use of each innovation in “distribution” writing, traveling and preaching, printing, mass media, the priesthood and the academy, the entertainment industry and the media rallying women and the underclasses against the aristocracy (white males). 8) The Technological History is: Gossip > Monotheism(writing) > Pseudoscience(printing) > Industrialized Lying (major media) 7) This is the answer to @TOOEdit’s mystery. “They are all female” and act accordingly out of intuition to undermine at all opportunities, and to seek parasitic rents on the commons. 8) Our only mistake was ‘free speech’ rather than free warrantied (ie: truthful) speech. And our means of correction is quite simple. Extend the involuntary warranty we impose upon goods and services to that of speech (information); restore Defamation, (Libel, Slander), and physical retaliation for insult (fighting or ‘the judicial duel’); We let loose the industrialization of lying under the premise of false speech under the assumption that our high trust people and our high trust habits were universal to man. But they are not only unique to westerners, but unique to western males who aggressively police their honor (reputations) by the aggressive physical and legal suppression of falsehood, and the universal duty to do so. White males are the human race’s aristocracy and developed aristocratic technological civilization using heroism, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity( empirical law of tort), markets in everything, including a market government between the classes, and markets for information in multiple disciplines. Only the most competitive people can use meritocracy. The weak cannot. They will lose. Hence why no other civilization evolved what the west did. Truth, Testimony, Sovereignty, Natural Law of Reciprocity: Tort, Markets in everything as a consequence, and competition, reason, empiricism, and science to resolve differences between those markets. So excellence and superiority are not a question. They’re measurable. We pay the high cost of truth and duty regardless of the cost to the signal hierarchy (dominance or competence hierarchy). We invented truth reason empiricism science, market civilization because only we could – because only the most competitive can succeed under meritocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • He Solution to Kevin Mac Donald’s Question of How and Why the Culture of Critique

    (important) (core) 1) Ashkenazis succeeded in reversal of gender bias in cognitive ability, while maintaining pastoral aggression. (We can easily measure this, and all data I’ve seen supports it.) 2) The result has been adoption of the female group social strategy, 3) … and the Female primate’s reproductive strategy for constraining alphas. 4) Female Humans seek systemic free riding and parasitism upon the commons (force the tribe to pay the cost of her offspring), control reproduction and leadership by undermining, and undermine using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, straw manning, heaping of undue praise, and spreading of undue criticism. They poison(pollute) the informational commons. All female behavior evolved to either control children at the lowest cost, obtain rents from men and the commons at lowest cost, and to increase the cost of her sex, affection, and political support (positive gossiping), by both scarcity of it an constant undermining in the absence of it. ( It’s a very simple algorithm really.) 5) So, Ashkenazi behavior and its damage to all host civilizations is just Instinct, common interest, common strategy, and not conspiracy: Neither women nor Ashkenazim know that they do. They both destroy unless their behaviors are severely limited. And the lesson is that males that cannot constrain their females (or their proxies) from undermining are too weak to rule (defend). Evolution does its work if men do not. 6) In other words: The Culture of Critique is just the Female Group Evolutionary Strategy making use of each innovation in “distribution” writing, traveling and preaching, printing, mass media, the priesthood and the academy, the entertainment industry and the media rallying women and the underclasses against the aristocracy (white males). 8) The Technological History is: Gossip > Monotheism(writing) > Pseudoscience(printing) > Industrialized Lying (major media) 7) This is the answer to @TOOEdit’s mystery. “They are all female” and act accordingly out of intuition to undermine at all opportunities, and to seek parasitic rents on the commons. 8) Our only mistake was ‘free speech’ rather than free warrantied (ie: truthful) speech. And our means of correction is quite simple. Extend the involuntary warranty we impose upon goods and services to that of speech (information); restore Defamation, (Libel, Slander), and physical retaliation for insult (fighting or ‘the judicial duel’); We let loose the industrialization of lying under the premise of false speech under the assumption that our high trust people and our high trust habits were universal to man. But they are not only unique to westerners, but unique to western males who aggressively police their honor (reputations) by the aggressive physical and legal suppression of falsehood, and the universal duty to do so. White males are the human race’s aristocracy and developed aristocratic technological civilization using heroism, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity( empirical law of tort), markets in everything, including a market government between the classes, and markets for information in multiple disciplines. Only the most competitive people can use meritocracy. The weak cannot. They will lose. Hence why no other civilization evolved what the west did. Truth, Testimony, Sovereignty, Natural Law of Reciprocity: Tort, Markets in everything as a consequence, and competition, reason, empiricism, and science to resolve differences between those markets. So excellence and superiority are not a question. They’re measurable. We pay the high cost of truth and duty regardless of the cost to the signal hierarchy (dominance or competence hierarchy). We invented truth reason empiricism science, market civilization because only we could – because only the most competitive can succeed under meritocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Retweeted Blair Cottrell 🇦🇺 (@blaircottrell89): Being white affords you the priv

    Retweeted Blair Cottrell 🇦🇺 (@blaircottrell89):

    Being white affords you the privilege of working until you’re 75 to finance your own ethnic replacement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 23:34:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997983954933252096

  • Retweeted Blair Cottrell 🇦🇺 (@blaircottrell89): Being white affords you the priv

    Retweeted Blair Cottrell 🇦🇺 (@blaircottrell89):

    Being white affords you the privilege of working until you’re 75 to finance your own ethnic replacement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 19:34:00 UTC