Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Our Medieval Religion as Specialization in a Market for Rule of Classes

    In evaluating our medieval religion, we must separate the term “religion” into the strategy, the philosophy, the mythology, the administration, and the rule. And then we must compare it to the alternatives developed in the ancient world, and our traditional religions prior to their destruction by the ancient world. The christian religion was a source of ignorance by providing a false high context narrative that impeded the advancement of knowledge, and imposing the ability to rule by deceit.

    The church was a source of (weak) administration. The church’s philosophy was adequate for uniting european tribes. But it was not in any way a replacement for greco-roman civilization, or the megalithic-pagan civilization that both so diligently exterminated. The church was not in fact all that hostile to science. The state was an advocate, and investor in technology. The state and the people were more dependent upon law and technology than religion and the church. The church created an informational monopoly then as the academy/media/state monopoly now, tended to produce all the narratives – almost all of which are false histories. The restoration of our ancient civilization provided the restoration of our technological knowledge (low context high precision), but what we struggle with today, is providing the narrative (high context low precision) by which we identify and seize opportunities. Demonstrably, our ancient religion (super-normalism), philosophy (stoicism and epicureanism), epistemology (science, reason, naturalism), cooperation(natural, common, law of torts), and virtues (heroism, truth, goodness and beauty), were superior to the medieval church’s. The church provided government for the underclasses just as the warrior aristocracy provided a government for the aristocratic classes. It was this combination that served our people such that both the warrior aristocracy, the practicality of commercial government, and the rule of the underclasses could for ‘specializations’ in a ‘market for rule’. Demonstrably, they are superior to all other cultural portfolios, in one dimension or the other. Unfortunately, our technology needs a narrative. And the one provided by the cosmopolitans is … to put it bluntly… “Evil”.

  • Correcting the Term “Government”

    Rule and Government are two different things. Nomocracy = Rule of Law (by Judges). Therefore under nomocracy (judge rule), ‘government’ provides laws. What we call ‘government’ more correctly provides a method for the construction of commons. We have conflated the functions of government and commons production, whenever the functions of judicial and commons production are combined into a monopoly. (a crime against reciprocity – most often because of technological and cultural incompetence at identifying reciprocity, or the intentional violation of reciprocity for the purpose of predation).

    We can construct commons the individual authority, oligarchical choice, representative choice, or market choice. (And, yes, I know, I am ‘correcting’ a lot of past colloquial language and that this is hard to learn.)

  • Correcting the Term “Government”

    Rule and Government are two different things. Nomocracy = Rule of Law (by Judges). Therefore under nomocracy (judge rule), ‘government’ provides laws. What we call ‘government’ more correctly provides a method for the construction of commons. We have conflated the functions of government and commons production, whenever the functions of judicial and commons production are combined into a monopoly. (a crime against reciprocity – most often because of technological and cultural incompetence at identifying reciprocity, or the intentional violation of reciprocity for the purpose of predation).

    We can construct commons the individual authority, oligarchical choice, representative choice, or market choice. (And, yes, I know, I am ‘correcting’ a lot of past colloquial language and that this is hard to learn.)

  • We can revolt and separate, or we can return to our traditional industry, of col

    We can revolt and separate, or we can return to our traditional industry, of colonization, rule, domestication, and eugenics. #NewRight

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-02 16:43:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859448323002048512

  • Solving the Google, Facebook Wikipedia Problem, and News in the 21st Century

    As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces. There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.

    The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile. Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not. So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons. Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world. Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice. WHY DON’T THEY?

  • Solving the Google, Facebook Wikipedia Problem, and News in the 21st Century

    As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces. There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.

    The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile. Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not. So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons. Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world. Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice. WHY DON’T THEY?

  • I mean, what can we possibly classify as more intolerant than Sovereignty? Isn’t

    I mean, what can we possibly classify as more intolerant than Sovereignty? Isn’t Sovereignty a synonym for Zero Tolerance? #NewRight

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-02 15:12:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/859425326048448512

  • Democracy is impossible. We really have only two choices: Aristocracy or an infe

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

    Democracy is impossible.

    We really have only two choices:

    Aristocracy or an inferior Oligarchy which calls itself ‘Democracy’.

    It is impossible to organise humans to any significant scale without hierachies, the only question which remains is, “who sits atop the hierarchy?”

    There are only two answers, the first honourable, the second dishonourable. We are either ruled those whom rule the masses by force (Aristocracy) or those whom fool the masses into surrendering rule (Oligarchy).

    Or, I should say, (((Oligarchy))).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-02 02:24:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://yournewswire.com/duterte-rothschilds-philippines/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-30 12:00:00 UTC

  • by Nathaniel Trilby Mainstream Right – the Prisoners of Postmodernism New-Right

    by Nathaniel Trilby

    Mainstream Right – the Prisoners of Postmodernism

    New-Right – the Empiricist Aristocracy

    Alt-Right – the Propagandist Proletariat

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-30 10:36:00 UTC