Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552145789 Timestamp) —“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”— Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience. There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity. The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed. The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule. So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people). I DO understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law). I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552061709 Timestamp) Я люблю маму россию и всех ее детей Our governments are unnecessary enemies not our people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552149827 Timestamp) VALUE: Markets (LAW) vs Dictators (DISCRETION) And this is the value of strong men – change to what is known from what is unknown when one is not current but behind. The value of markets is in changing from current and known to future that is unknown. Efficient organization to produce a known by eliminating competition vs efficient organization to produce an unknown by competition.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552145789 Timestamp) —“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”— Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience. There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity. The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed. The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule. So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people). I DO understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law). I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552062098 Timestamp) DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law. 1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights; 2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist“: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and; 3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway. The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights. Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights. Rule of Law (By Rights) 1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation) 2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges). Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”. The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion) 3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”. Closing (Summary) In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552061709 Timestamp) Я люблю маму россию и всех ее детей Our governments are unnecessary enemies not our people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552149827 Timestamp) VALUE: Markets (LAW) vs Dictators (DISCRETION) And this is the value of strong men – change to what is known from what is unknown when one is not current but behind. The value of markets is in changing from current and known to future that is unknown. Efficient organization to produce a known by eliminating competition vs efficient organization to produce an unknown by competition.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552147611 Timestamp) By: Pat Ryan America expended its goodwill as the great equality experiment via democratic tradition during the two World Wars, ensuring the mythology was monopolized by grass-is-greener communism. …. America traded mythological hope for material justice. Guess when discontent institutionalized?

  • (FB 1552315925 Timestamp) ACCORDING TO RAND, WE ALWAYS LOSE In simulated World W

    (FB 1552315925 Timestamp) ACCORDING TO RAND, WE ALWAYS LOSE In simulated World War III scenarios, the U.S. continues to lose against Russia and China, two top war planners warned last week. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its a– handed to it” RAND analyst David Ochmanek said Thursday. RAND’s wargames show how US Armed Forces – colored blue on wargame maps – experience the most substantial losses in one scenario after another and still can’t thwart Russia or China – which predictably is red – from accomplishing their objectives: annihilating Western forces. “We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” he warned. In the next military conflict, which some believe may come as soon as the mid-2020s, all five battlefield domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, will be heavily contested, suggesting the U.S. could have a difficult time in achieving superiority as it has in prior conflicts. The simulated war games showed, the “red” aggressor force often destroys U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters on the runway, sends several Naval fleets to the depths, destroys US military bases, and through electronic warfare, takes control of critical military communication systems. In short, a gruesome, if simulated, annihilation of some of the most modern of US forces. “In every case I know of,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense with years of wargaming experience, “the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.” So, as Russia and China develop fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic missiles, “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructures like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.” “That’s why the 2020 budget coming out next week retires the carrier USS Truman decades early and cuts two amphibious landing ships, as we’ve reported. It’s also why the Marine Corps is buying the jump-jet version of the F-35, which can take off and land from tiny, ad hoc airstrips, but how well they can maintain a high-tech aircraft in low-tech surroundings is an open question,” said Breaking Defense. Meanwhile, speaking purely hypothetically of course, “if we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein. And that’s it,” Work complained. The US has 58 Brigade Combat Teams across the continent but doesn’t have anti-air and missile-defense capabilities required to handle a barrage of missiles from Russia. RAND also war-gamed cyber and electronic attacks in the simulations, Work said; Russia and China tend to cripple US communication networks. “Whenever we have an exercise and the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise,” Work said without a trace of humor. Beijing calls this “system destruction warfare,” Work said. They aim to “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time.” The Air Force asked RAND to formulate a plan several years ago to improve the outcomes of the wargames in favor of the US, Ochmanek said. “We found it impossible to spend more than $8 billion a year” to fix the problems. “That’s $8 billion for the Air Force. Triple that to cover for the Army and the Navy Department (which includes the US Marines),” Ochmanek said, “and you get $24 billion.” Work was less concerned about the near-term risk of war, and he said, China and Russia aren’t ready to fight because their modernization efforts have not been completed. He said any major conflict is unlikely for another 10 to 20 years from now. He said “$24 billion a year for the next five years would be a good expenditure” to prepare the military for World War III. RAND offers a sobering assessment that America could lose a multi-front war in the future, which is quite shocking considering that the US spent nearly three times as much as the second biggest war power, China, did in 2017.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552168499 Timestamp) Break the Cycle. Nationalism.