Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • They don’t want the EU, they can work with Russia and Israel to be the core stat

    They don’t want the EU, they can work with Russia and Israel to be the core state of islam, and displace Iran.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:50:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765153757361496064

    Reply addressees: @amerika_blog

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765150941561626624

    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/765150941561626624

  • POLITICS FOR DUMMIES? OK. EASY. Politics for dummies? Ok. It’s this simple. Ther

    POLITICS FOR DUMMIES? OK. EASY.

    Politics for dummies? Ok. It’s this simple.

    There are three ways to coerce people: force(law/military), payment(trade), and shaming(gossip/morals)

    These correspond to conservative(saving), libertarian(trade), and progressive(shaming).

    And these correspond to the reproductive roles of father(conservative), the brother(libertarian), and the mother and sister(progressive)

    And that’s because it’s the reproductive strategy of the males, the young, and the females.

    It’s very simple. We all just negotiate on behalf of our reproductive strategies. It’s that simple. All our talk is nonsense.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:07:00 UTC

  • ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIES OF THE UKRAINAN AND RUSSIAN PEOPLES AND A PREDICTION

    ANALYSIS OF THE STRATEGIES OF THE UKRAINAN AND RUSSIAN PEOPLES AND A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE.

    —Why is urkaine’s independence sacrosanct?—

    1) liberty has a value in itself, and one cannot claim a desire for liberty without reciprocally assiting others. Although the reason for that is longer than I want to get into right now.

    2) there is no reason ever, why a people cannot secede to form a nation by secession from an empire, except occupation.

    2) It is always moral for a higher trust people to govern a lower trust people, but Russians are a lower trust people than Ukrainians.

    4) Poland and Ukraine are genetically related peoples (indistinguishable) and there is no reason that Ukrainians cannot possess the same quality of life as the Poles. Poland has a GDP per capital of 14K and Ukraine, despite similar geography and demographics has one of 4k. Ukrainians could triple their standard of living if they could join either Poland or the EU, which would displace the oligarchs, and with the oligarchs and Russian corruption, post-soviet poverty.

    5) The Russians have murdered far too many people in this country, desecrated graves, destroyed traditions, made people disappear in the night, destroyed a once-healthy high trust European culture, destroyed families, destroyed ethics and morality, destroyed the middle class, occupied, impoverished, and supported a predatory and corrupt regime. They don’t want Russian leadership they want prosperity.

    6) the borderlands sphere, consisting of the north eastern European countries: Boland, Czech republic, Hungary,, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, and at the outside, Romania form a cultural and genetic region.

    The southern eastern European countries of the mountain-sphere: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, would be better off forming their own federations. These countries had more ottoman influence and they will always be harder to govern.

    Belarus has decided to remain, like the Kazhaks, in the Russian steppe-sphere. Much like cuba lived off soviet contributions, belarus lives of russian.

    WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO RUSSIA?

    Well, to be a great power requries about .5B people. Russia has 140M. The Kazahks have 17, the Belarus 10, Ukraine about 45, the poles 38, the baltics not enough to matter.

    Russia has poor ports for a world power: the black sea (crimea), kalinningrad (conquered german city of Koenigsburg), and it’s artic locations. So as an ARTIC power it’s got bases, but as a TEMPERATE SHIPPING power it doesn’t.

    Without access to water russia cannot be a great power.

    WHY DOES RUSSIA WANT TO BE A GREAT POWER?

    They want to restore orthodox civilization, and frankly who can blame them. Otherwise they’re a small population with an enormous land mass to defend, and without the people, economy, and infrastructure to defend it.

    Russian mythology and paranoid psychology does not easily accept the status of second-rate nation, subject tot he will of others. Especially when internal control requries such heavy-handedness. Weakness is not tolerable.

    So the die is cast, and unless russia wants to rule the islamic world by remote, using israel, saudi arabia, and turkey, she has no possible method of obtaining territory and economy sufficient for a great power status.

    So she has three choices: join the west (which is what we all want really – them to rescue us from liberalism and us to rescue them from corruption and the absence of rule of law.

    She can try to unite with china, which merely means she will be a client state of 140m managed by the economiy and might of a different race (chinese) who have a very poor record of treatment of satellites.

    Or she can try to progressively obtain control over the middle east. And why is this sensible for russia? Beause almost all the oil in the world is in a big puddle between saudia arabia, and the artic above moscow.

    IN other words, russia can make a play to rule the resourc-cursed destert and steppe peoples. Why? Islamic demographics and religion dooms them to permanent underclass. Russia, israel, and turkey can create a technological and miltiary caste system that basically farms the arabs and iranians as cattle.

    THIS IS HOW GROWNUPS TALK ABOUT WORLD AFFAIRS.

    (and if you can’t talk economics and incentives you need to learn to)

    BACK TO UKRAINE.

    A romantic would say that we preserve Ukraine. A scientist would say that the southeast and access to the black sea are lost because Russians successfully transplanted so many of their people into that region that they have done to Ukraine what Europeans did to the American Indians: destroyed them through invasion and conquest and immigration.

    So the rational solution would be to give russia her warm water ports and return the center and west of Ukraine to poland, making Poland roughly the population of Germany, but with three time’s germany’s 120k square miles, at ~300K square miles of territory, and the best farmland outside of west france. Capable of feeding all of europe forever. Poland and germany alone then would be equal in population to russia, and economically leaving germany+poland/ukraine with ~5T in GDP compared to 2T of russian GDP.

    Russia then is both safe and economically incapable of western expansion.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 11:01:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Brett Stevens (@amerika_blog): You’re not right-wing until you want ar

    Retweeted Brett Stevens (@amerika_blog):

    You’re not right-wing until you want aristocracy, nationalism, free markets and transcendental guidance. #tcot #nrx #altright

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:49:00 UTC

  • CAN WE FIND CLASS MOVEMENTS IN CONSERVATISM, LIBERTARIANISM, AND PROGRESSIVISM?

    CAN WE FIND CLASS MOVEMENTS IN CONSERVATISM, LIBERTARIANISM, AND PROGRESSIVISM?

    (Short answer: yes)

    CURT:

    —I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).- Curt Doolittle

    IVAN:

    —“Are there similar class-movements among progressives and libertarians? And, could it be stated that class-movements among all three groups are consequence of division of moral intuitions on one hand, and perception, cognition, labour and advocacy on the other?

    I guess, among libertarians, there would be: libertines (lower), an-caps(middle) and international traders (high). And among progressives there would be members of syndicate (lower), social justice warriors (middle) and globalist (high).”— Ivan Ilakovac

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:48:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT: DOES EUGENIC REPRODUCTION PLACE TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF GOVER

    Q&A: “CURT: DOES EUGENIC REPRODUCTION PLACE TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT?”

    Great question, let’s take another example:

    Economists argue one group is correct or incorrect, but this is false framing of the discipline. The discipline of economics can be broken into three schools that describe a degree of discretion.

    The austrian(aristocratic/ conservative) school pursues social science: the means by which we improve (reduce the frictions) of cooperation, without interfering in (lying) the information system we call the economy.

    The Chicago(classical liberal / libertarian) school pursues rule of law: we can interfere as long as those engaged in planning understand the rules under which we will interfere, and that they are non discretionary, and non-arbitrary, formulae. This achieves the desired result of compensating for ‘stuck’ patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, but does so ‘truthfully’ and ‘transparently’ and ‘predictably’.

    The saltwater(left/social democratic) school seeks the maximum interference (lying) that we can perform that will produce the maximum amount of consumption, under the assumption that we can repair externalities using the same tools at a later date, and that the benefits of discretionary rule to those who engage in planning is sufficient to compensate for their increased risk and hardship.

    The same is true for eugenic policies. We cannot do much under the non-interference of social science except attempt to educate others on the consequences of reproduction – yet they are the most impulsive and least open to education. We can construct rule of law under which we pay people subsidies for single children, and anyone can prosecute anyone on behalf of the commons, if it’s violated, and people will be involuntarily sterilized, lose their subsidies, and be sent to the desert to live in unpleasant communes (slums) for their crimes. If sterilization is legal and subsidy is highest for non-child bearing women, and lower for child bearing women, and non-existent and accompanies by punishment for multiple childbearing women, then this is merely rule of law. There is no government intervention here other than the courts.

    I think the opposite is true, is that we must expand rule of law and eliminate government discretion. Not just in economics, but throughout the production of commons. Markets not government. Rule of law, not discretion.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:28:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”— Short answer? Empi

    Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”—

    Short answer? Empiricism vs Irrationalism

    Curt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer—

    .

    Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?—

    Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration).

    I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).

    And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy.

    Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it:

    Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy.

    A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels.

    By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why?

    Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.)

    Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes).

    We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history.

    A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science).

    Conservatism has always been scientific.

    The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair.

    So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes.

    This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:27:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: WHAT’S WRONG WITH CAPITALISM?”— —“What is wrong with capitali

    Q&A: —“CURT: WHAT’S WRONG WITH CAPITALISM?”—

    —“What is wrong with capitalism? Can it be solved by economic theories alone, or is it a leadership problem as well?”—

    Well, let’s take a ‘meaningful’ name: “capitalism”, and restated it operationally, using a ‘true’ name: What problems arise from the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade(capitalism) with individual distribution of property rights providing individual discretion using information provided by the pricing system, compared to the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade (socialism) with the discretionary distribution of property rights, in the absence of a pricing system, and compared to a mixed economy, where we use the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, with the individual allocation of property rights, and with individual discretion provided by the pricing system, yet representative decision over the amount and use of the proceeds from the voluntary organization of production? And why has no one really succeded at producing a mixed property economy (other than the fascists), whereby the majority of consumption goods are produced by the voluntary market, and the commons are produced by the involuntary organization of production? In other words, we use armies for building defense, why don’t we use the industrial equivalent of armies to build and maintain infrastructure, and maintain the beauty, and civility of the commons.

    That’s a very long way of describing the problem, but it still obscures the next layer of complexity: discretion (decidability).

    The market provides superior decidability for those things that will benefit from competition. In many cases, competition for ideas(architecture and engineering) is beneficial but competition for labor is not (construction and maintenance).

    The answer is that we cannot choose pure capitalism because too many people are of too little value in many markets, because of immigration, asymmetric class reproduction, or simply overpopulation in relation to the trustworthiness of the people and their institutions.

    Likewise we cannot choose pure socialism, because there are too few incentives for people to engage in value-creating production, and too many incentives for people to engage in corruption.

    When we try a mixed appropriation economy (what we call a mixed economy today), we seem to produce rapidly decreasing birth rates in our productive people, and extraordinary rents in the public sector.

    We considered trying a mixed production economy, but the problem is the statists and rent seekers in the productive sector compete using the government to deprive the private sector.

    So the problem is not capitalism or socialism. The problem is demographic mix, the mixture of voluntary and involuntary organiztaion of production to suit the demographics and institutions available, and the elimination of discretion from the people in what we call government so that even if they exist they cannot (easily) engage in corruption.

    The problem is:

    1) That we lack rule of law rather rule of legislation. Majority rule, representative democracy, is perhaps the worst government everyone ever produced. If we could vote to oust the entire government every 90 days, and rescind all acts of that government upon successful ouster, then that might be helpful. If we could sue government participants if they tried to construct or did construct immoral contracts, then that would be an a solutoin. And if we were still required to pay a progressive income tax, but we chould choose how it was allocated, right down to the paperclip, I think that would solve the problem.

    2) But then we get to the answer: That we lack a market for the production of commons (like we had under english houses of parliament). We rely on assent (majority rule) creating opportunity for corruption, instead of relying on dissent (violation of natural, judge discovered, common law) to prevent immoral and illegal contracts for the production of commons. We could allocate funds evenly and let areas negotiate exchanges. And that would produce a moral and naturally legal market for the production of commons.

    3) We rely on fiat money (which is an advantage) but we distribute liquidity and dividends through the financial system rather than directly to consumers. In other words, we cause consumers and businesses to fight for credit, rather than businesses and finance to fight for consumer spending.

    So as humans we tend to like to break ideas down into too simple a set of comparisons, becuase really, it’s hard to work with anything other than ideal types. Humans… well, we just aren’t that smart. (Try algebraic geometry, which in principle should’nt be too complicated, but our minds are just not often made for it.)

    Instead we must often thing in supply demand curves, becuase whether the thing we are discussing is persona, social, international, or physical concept, we deal with equilibrial forces.

    In this case we have a series of problems we must deal with:

    1) demographic distributions: the differnce between races is largely one of sexual maturity and asymmetric sexual dimorphism producing differences in abilities. This is magnified by geography that cuases various selection pressures. As such poor places just were worse at killing off the lower classes and suppressing their reproduction, and the wealthier places better at upward redistribution of resources and constant culling of the underclasses through sanction (killing), war, starvation, and the difficulty of surviving in cold climates.

    2) Information and incentives: the pricing system provides opportunity to FORM both information and incentives.

    3) Discretion versus rule of law: Discretion and corruption versus rule of law and non-corruption.

    4) The distribution of the organizaiton of production from authoritarian (originating in the fertile crescent and other flood plains) raider ethics (originating in steppe and desert), and libertarian (originating in the forest and sea peoples), and equalitarian, (preserved among hunter-gatherers).

    The solution is to solve all these problems with (a) rule of law (non discretion) (b) market production of commons limited by legal dissent. (c) extension of involuntary production for the construction and maintenance of commons, and reduction of the voluntary organization of production to those capable of surviving within it. (d) the restoration of the family as the central object of policy (e) the restoration of the process of intergenrational lending to preserve knowldge and calculability. (f) the direct and equal distribution of liquidity under fiat money (shares in the commons) to consumers in the case of the necessity to reorder the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (the market) when it incurrs shocks or exhaustions (of opportunities).

    I could go on but I think you get the general idea. We got it wrong when we tried to steal the commons from the aristocracy by imposing majoritarianism, rather than constructing additional houses and continuing the tradition of using government as a market for the production of commons by negotiation between the classes.

    The middle class was nowhere near as good at governing as the aristocracy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 16:17:00 UTC

  • Conservative: “What would happen if everyone did that?” -VS- Progressive “It’s n

    Conservative: “What would happen if everyone did that?” -VS- Progressive “It’s not going to matter if just I do that!”

    Conservative: “What do we need to prevent?” -vs- Progressive: “What can we get away with?”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 13:15:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one i

    REVOLUTIONS IN STRATEGIC CONTEXT

    Everyone knows how to fix Ukraine. But no one in the country has the power to do it. And the only external group willing to use power to do it, will just make it worse (Russians). Even though the optimum people to do it are their genetic siblings right next door (Poland). And other peoples (the Americans, Canadians, and Germans) have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it. (yes really). Ukraine’s problem is a Jewish-libertarian’s dream: about 40 oligarchs (rich people) who range from men of commercial achievement and character, to Russian ex-gangsters, to families that control judicial corruption, to jews looking to restore Ukraine to their undeclared homeland.

    Very few people know how to fix the United States of America. But because of our arms, our traditions of legal revolt, and culture of aristocratic martial tradition, we have the ability and power to enact that change. We just need to have the will to do it. But because of that same culture we need a moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition, and a means of revolt, in order to execute our will.

    Now, every major revolution in the anglo world (anglo-saxon-contractualism) has occurred in no small part, because of expansion of the methods of communication and innovations in technology. We have the ability to communicate and coordinate vast numbers of people that no prior era has ever imagined.

    Washington had nothing at all but pocket change, character, and some helpful propagandists who used the printing press. Stalin did what he did and had nothing on par with the tools we have at our disposal. Mao did what he did, and he nad nothing on part with the tools we have at our disposal. Napoleon had a lot more going for him than we do. Cromwell had more at his disposal than we do.

    But whether one is inside the government or outside the government, it does not matter if one has a set of demands, a plan of transition, a means of raising the cost of the status quo through insurrection, a small minority of males willing to risk life and limb, and a communication system capable of distributing information, tactics, and strategy to participants.

    The world has never been so fragile and in such great transition as it is today – or at least, it has not since the Marxist (Jewish) enlightenment inspired the lower classes to seek power as much as the empirical (anglo) enlightenment inspired the middle classes to seek power. But the difference today is that we cannot, under duress, return to the farm. THere are but a few days of food water and energy in the pipline, and in a momentum economy, like a momentum stock market, the system is increasingly vulnerable to shocks. (Thank your Keynesians for their efforts at ‘balanced equilibrium, rather than your Classical Liberals, for their “changes in capital”).

    We can more easily fix america than any group ever chose to fix any nation in history.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    (I have no idea where I am at the moment) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 05:18:00 UTC