Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • FINANCIAL TIMES: TRUMP IS AMERICA’S PUTIN? Vladimir Putin offers Donald Trump fa

    FINANCIAL TIMES: TRUMP IS AMERICA’S PUTIN?

    Vladimir Putin offers Donald Trump fans a glimpse of the possible

    The Russian leader offers a glimpse of a president unstymied by Congress, writes Courtney Weaver

    Vladimir Putin…Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on fuel and energy industries in the Kremlin, in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Oct. 27, 2015.

    On a blustery evening, a crowd of thousands gather at a political rally, many eager to explain to me why their country needs a strong leader, is right to take a more aggressive stance on the world stage and should be respected and feared by other nations.

    It’s a scene not unlike those I have covered over the past five years as a correspondent for the FT in Russia. Only this time I have not come to see the adoring fans of Vladimir Putin. I am in Macon, Georgia, and the man we are waiting for is Donald Trump.

    One month into a new job covering the US presidential campaign, I am starting to find that the Trump phenomenon is more understandable when viewed through the lens of a Putin-Trump Venn diagram — or, rather, the Venn diagram of their supporters.

    Two weeks ago in Macon at a stadium full of diehard Trump supporters, I met Tal Wollschlaeger, a law student, who declared apropos of nothing and with no knowledge of my background that he wanted to see a US president more like . . . Mr Putin.

    “I think Putin is brilliant!” the twenty-something Mr Wollschlaeger told me as two of his friends nodded in agreement. “He’s taking care of business the way he has to. His country loves him. He’s done well for them. He does what he says and he gets the job done.”

    He continued: “We just have to reassert ourselves. We’ve got to the point where Britain and France can’t look to us for advice because we can’t make the first move any more, because really we’re too weak. We need to get our seat back at the table.”

    At first it seemed like a one-off, a random Putin fan sprouting up like a unicorn in a southern US city nicknamed the Heart of Georgia. But I don’t think Mr Wollschlaeger is an outlier.

    In Dubuque, Iowa, a crucial primary state, the Associated Press recently spoke to Duane Ernster, a local Trump supporter who also offered the Putin comparison. “Maybe we need a warrior instead of a politician,” he said. “People compare Mr Trump to Putin. There’s something to be said about the man who takes care of the Russian people.”

    In a Gallup survey last year — a period marked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the war in Ukraine and western sanctions — Mr Putin ranked as the 10th most admired man in America, beating among others vice-president Joe Biden, the Dalai Lama and the actor George Clooney.

    To Mr Putin’s admirers in the US, he offers a tantalising view of what it might be like to have a president stymied by neither Congress nor two-term limits — and one who treats the delicate art of diplomacy more like judo than chess. To many of these people, Mr Trump represents the quixotic tsar who will rid Washington of its gridlock, reverse failed foreign policies and end years of perceived economic decline. If he is Trump the Terrible, so much the better.

    In his campaign, Mr Trump appears to be taking chapters out of Mr Putin’s handbook. There is the creation of a perceived external threat (in Mr Putin’s case, the US and its encroachment into Russia’s sphere of influence; in Mr Trump’s, it is Muslims and illegal immigrants); the salty language; and the stranglehold on national television. Both men are credited with being spontaneous, unpredictable and counter-intuitive, qualities that make it difficult for opponents to out manoeuvre them.

    The two men’s ratings appear to defy logic. Mr Putin’s remains strong despite a worsening economy on the back of western sanctions, lower oil prices and the plunging rouble. Mr Trump’s support improves the more offensive or outlandish his comments become.

    The comparisons to Mr Putin seem to suit Mr Trump just fine, perhaps because he knows they suit part of his base. In the past few months, Mr Trump has declared that he would “get along” with Mr Putin in a way that President Barack Obama has not, and he has been one of the few candidates to express his approval of Moscow’s military campaign in Syria. Mr Trump likes to joke that he and the Russian president are “stablemates” because they both appeared (separately) on the same episode of the US news programme 60 Minutes.

    As for Mr Putin’s impression of Mr Trump? He has yet to comment.

    courtney.weaver@ft.com

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:56:00 UTC

  • DEAR VOVA, JUST BE TRUTHFUL. HELP US ALL. If it’s walks like a Tsar, talks like

    DEAR VOVA, JUST BE TRUTHFUL. HELP US ALL.

    If it’s walks like a Tsar, talks like a Tsar, and acts like a Tsar, it’s a Tsar.

    Create a dynasty.

    Restore Nation and Family.

    Abandon the Corporate State.

    Restore Parliamentary Monarchy.

    Help restore monarchy to our peoples.

    The enemy is corporatism, and our restoration is in nationalism.

    (BTW: As a fellow short person. I won’t hold your height against you.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 03:47:00 UTC

  • MERKEL “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘li

    MERKEL

    “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. “The challenge is immense,” she said. “We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”

    Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she probably would insist that she was not contradicting herself. In fact, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced several years ago when she said multiculturalism in Germany had “utterly failed.”

    “Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘Let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other.’ But this concept has failed, and failed utterly,” she said in 2010.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 04:31:00 UTC

  • MERKEL: “MUTICULTURALISM, A SHAM” == PARALLEL SOCIETIES (not that we can trust w

    MERKEL: “MUTICULTURALISM, A SHAM” == PARALLEL SOCIETIES

    (not that we can trust what merkel says any more than putin or obama these days) (h/t: Alexander Brown )

    Monday, December 14, Chancellor Angela Merkel was at a her party convention. There, she told her political party people that multiculturalism is indeed a sham, that she would act to stem the raging migrant flow. She however defended her opened door policy that left German borders opened for the migrant influx, and said she is decidedly against aggressive unilateral German action in migrant crisis resolution, insisting that she would seek an European agreement towards a final solution.

    Angela Merkel:

    “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie’.

    The [ migrant ] challenge is immense. We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”

    The Chancellor told the gathering that the migrants have to integrate, and assimilate German culture, values, and respect laws.

    Already, ONE MILLION migrants made it into Germany, and got registered by the German authorities beginning January 2015.

    She is beginning to speak the truth as per this tide of immigration. The timing however, is significant. She may be doing so to please the political base she was meeting. Or she may mean what was said, in fact.

    If she is serious, question would be when she realised this: now or prior. If earlier, why is she now speaking, and wanting to act albeit still weakly. If now, it further speak to her palpable weakness and cluelessness, even more. Regardless, she is now somewhat awake. And, Germany may close the migrant tap while benefitting from those that already made it in situ.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 04:20:00 UTC

  • QUARTER, GHETTO, AND NOW CITY? We had ‘Ghettos’ and ‘Quarters’ under the Great C

    QUARTER, GHETTO, AND NOW CITY?

    We had ‘Ghettos’ and ‘Quarters’ under the Great Christian Monarchies.

    There is no reason we cannot have ghettos and quarters as we did under smaller scale states, and no reason we cannot have whole cities under today’s governments of greater scale.

    Rule, governance, commerce, and existence are very different things.

    (I have seen escape from ny btw. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 04:09:00 UTC

  • Monopoly Government vs Market Militia

    (important)(profound) [T]he monopoly of government versus the market and militia. When there is government the responsibility is ‘theirs’. When there is militia the responsibility is ‘ours’. Where there is rule of law, there is scientific rule. Where there is a market for commons, there is a civic society. Where there is a market for goods and services there is productivity Where there is a market for reproduction there is eugenic reproduction. The people who create change in favor of excellence. THE MARKET SOCIETY Miltia: Market Warfare Judiciary: Market Jurisprudence Houses: Market Government Property: Market Productivity Monogamy: Market Reproduction Market = Meritocracy = Aristocracy And that is the difference between the river valley civilizations (them) and the sea civilizations (us).

  • Monopoly Government vs Market Militia

    (important)(profound) [T]he monopoly of government versus the market and militia. When there is government the responsibility is ‘theirs’. When there is militia the responsibility is ‘ours’. Where there is rule of law, there is scientific rule. Where there is a market for commons, there is a civic society. Where there is a market for goods and services there is productivity Where there is a market for reproduction there is eugenic reproduction. The people who create change in favor of excellence. THE MARKET SOCIETY Miltia: Market Warfare Judiciary: Market Jurisprudence Houses: Market Government Property: Market Productivity Monogamy: Market Reproduction Market = Meritocracy = Aristocracy And that is the difference between the river valley civilizations (them) and the sea civilizations (us).

  • GOVERNMENT and MONOPOLY VS MILITIA and MARKET (important)(profound) When there i

    GOVERNMENT and MONOPOLY VS MILITIA and MARKET

    (important)(profound)

    When there is government the responsibility is ‘theirs’.

    When there is militia the responsibility is ‘ours’.

    Where there is rule of law, there is scientific rule.

    Where there is a market for commons, there is a civic society.

    Where there is a market for goods and services there is productivity

    Where there is a market for reproduction there is eugenic reproduction.

    The people who create change in favor of excellence.

    THE MARKET SOCIETY

    Miltia: Market Warfare

    Judiciary: Market Jurisprudence

    Houses: Market Government

    Property: Market Productivity

    Monogamy: Market Reproduction

    Market = Meritocracy = Aristocracy

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 04:54:00 UTC

  • EVERYWHERE WE HAVE PROLES MANAGING PROLES IT FALLS APART. There is a limit to th

    EVERYWHERE WE HAVE PROLES MANAGING PROLES IT FALLS APART.

    There is a limit to the scale of aristocracy. There is a limit to proletarian capability. There is no means of proceduralizing it.

    Police need to be knights but they are foot soldiers.

    Prison guards need to be squires but they are ditch diggers.

    Moral education worked.

    We can go back to it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 10:57:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “HOW DOES THE REVOLUTION OCCUR IN EUROPE?” (from a private message) Q: “How

    Q&A: “HOW DOES THE REVOLUTION OCCUR IN EUROPE?”

    (from a private message)

    Q: “How does propertarianism fit into a world of increasing network technology without previous geographic constraints?”

    Representatives are no longer necessary. We can instead return to the jury system, with jurors selected by lot. This makes corruption nearly impossible.

    The rest is quite complicated, and I don’t know if I want to go into it here but (a) title registries are now possible, (b) liquidity can be directly distributed to individuals (citizens) circumventing distribution through the financial system, (c) proposals can published online and subject to public scrutiny, (d) “full accounting” is possible, (e) a prohibition on ‘pooling and laundering’ is possible, … well, a lot of transparency is possible. And that’s the most of it. We can eliminate discretion from government (commons).

    Q: “You are American and a lot of what I interpret of the revolution appears to apply mostly, or be aimed at the American context. Have you written on how the revolution would differ in the various European countries? “

    America is just the most likely first candidate, because as a large heterogeneous polity reaching the point of revolution, it’s easiest to occur there.

    The value of propertarianism is the suppression of corruption and the increase in cooperation between the groups and classes creating an optimistic rather than pessimistic political economy. So I would expect that just as we need only ONE SECESSION to prove ‘smaller is better’, we need only ONE REVOLUTION to prove that market government is better.

    So I suspect that europeans will (as usual) be laggards and adopt it later on out of pressure from the people.

    What we will always be challenged with is the american desire for everyone to get ahead and that it’s heroic, and the european desire to keep everyone from getting ahead of them and that success is somehow immoral.

    (The hardest part I see, is the burden it puts on economists who lie through a conspiracy of ignorance today. The burden on people who talk pseudoscientific nonsense in the academy will be life altering for the pseudoscientists in all the social sciences..)

    Q:”Philosophically, in a vacuum your ideas seem universal but in application I’m sure the execution would differ nation to nation. I’m English. I don’t see or experience the spirit of revolution in the people here compared to what I sense in the US. The history of the nations explains the difference I am sure. Conservatives in the US aim to conserve the revolutionary defiance where as conservatives in the UK want to conserve order. (Basically counter revolutionary) day to day on the ground in the UK the only revolutionaries I meet are on the left where as in the US it is the reverse. Given this difference I have no idea how to network with these ideas in the UK/European context. Projecting from an American standpoint gets me blank faces.

    Q: “Is the revolution in Europe political or violent?

    Hopefully both. The right always does the fighting. I expect them to do it. As always. While the others free ride on the right’s risk. But I suspect europeans will find violence marginally unnecessary if it’s used elsewhere. The example will be enough.

    Q: “What groups do you know of with whom I can network with in the UK or Europe.”

    If I knew I wouldn’t say. My group feels we can do it alone. That’s probably not true. I don’t like single points of failure. My preference is to arm everyone with the moral justification for constitutional change, and to force it through violence and disruption if not. So I don’t care who gets it done or how it gets done, but we have to put an end to lies and pseudoscience and return western civilization to the path of excellence.

    Q: “I appreciate it. Thanks”

    I appreciate the opportunity to answer questions. 🙂 So thanks for asking.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 11:38:00 UTC