Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE 1. OSTRACIZE(SHAME), 2. BUY(COMPENSATE), 3.FORCE(THRE

    THREE WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE

    1. OSTRACIZE(SHAME), 2. BUY(COMPENSATE), 3.FORCE(THREATEN)

    We have spent a century shaming them.

    We have spent three quarters of a century trying to buy them.

    And neither has worked. They redefined morality with Postmodernism. And our efforts to buy them off only encouraged them.

    The only remaining choice is to threaten them. To harm them. To kill them if necessary.

    Violence is the source, and sustenance, of private property rights.

    Use it or lose them.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 07:32:00 UTC

  • DRAMATIC VIDEO OF SUNDAY’S PROTEST (this is how it’s done right)

    DRAMATIC VIDEO OF SUNDAY’S PROTEST

    (this is how it’s done right)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 05:59:00 UTC

  • V Says that there are soldiers on Kontractova. (the square down the street.) I c

    V Says that there are soldiers on Kontractova. (the square down the street.) I can’t seem to find a live streaming video. The rest are offline.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 10:26:00 UTC

  • OF ROCKWELL VIA GORDON ON ROCKWELL “Fascism is an aggressive nationalism and imp

    http://mises.org/daily/6603/Fascism-Is-a-Current-Political-and-Economic-SystemCRITICISM OF ROCKWELL VIA GORDON ON ROCKWELL

    “Fascism is an aggressive nationalism and imperialism.”

    Well, that’s a pretty inarticulate morally loaded expression for Lew Rockwell to use, even if it’s mostly accurate. Fascism, on the Asplund chart, which I think is the best we have, is a totalitarianism of the moderates, as a reaction against the totalitarianism of the left and right. Rather than devolve to anarchy as we recommend, fascists maintain the moderate position by totalitarian means. On the Doolittle Chart it’s just Indo-European paternalism, or via Todd’s chart, it’s just the expression of traditional paternal families for the good of the extended family.

    “The state, for the fascist, is the instrument by which the people’s common destiny is realized, and in which the potential for greatness is to be found. “

    This statement just plain isn’t true. Fascism was a reactionary movement to resist the communists. Fascism isn’t anything people desire. It’s a means of resisting ideological conquest. We don’t like war either. But we must often concentrate our efforts to resist conquest, at no small personal sacrifice. Fascism was, and remains, a resistance movement, for moderates, not an aspirational movement.

    HERE IS THE REALITY

    Egalitarian Aristocracy is the one and only source of liberty. Period. Liberty is obtain in exchange from those who agree to institute liberty (property rights) using the organized application of violence.

    If one does not have liberty then, one fails to pay its cost: constant sacrifice and constant vigilance of your rights and all others whose rights you agree to protect.

    That’s all it is.

    Rights MUST be contractual.

    They cannot otherwise exist.

    Unless you say they’re given by god.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 09:56:00 UTC

  • Just wanted to add something to your analysis. And that is, that the disadvantag

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/12/03/would-absorbing-ukraine-make-russia-a-superpower-no/Mark,

    Just wanted to add something to your analysis. And that is, that the disadvantage of an aging population is one of perspective. It’s pretty hard to argue that keeping people active and working, even in simple jobs, very late in life, is better for them then paying them to stay home waiting to die, given that the alternative is immigration from less advanced societies that place extraordinary political and social burdens on that society.

    Just beasue social democracies have chosen to treat the state as a corporation rather than as the administration of a nation – an extendeed family and culture, does not mean that there are not other ways. Japan, Russia, China, South Korea have intentionally chosen the NATION (people), rather than the STATE(corporation) model.

    When Putin makes this statement in his own language, he is not making an artificial claim. He, Russians, Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese as well as western conservatives, would prefer to remain a NATION – a family, rather than a CORPORATION.

    And this is not an irrational, emotional, or ignorant position. This is what middle america wants too. It is what middle England wants. It is what conservatives in Germany want.

    To act in furtherance of their family and culture, not the corporate state.

    And it is very hard to argue against this point of view as anything other than conquest and exploitation of those people who prefer the system of intergenerational cooperation we call ‘family, savings, and interest’, than the system of intergenerational redistribution we call ‘social security’, when it is dependent on the consumption of the gene pool and the culture and millennia of history to support it.

    The neo-cons were wrong of course. The world did not need another Rome. Just the opposite. But conservatives do underestand the value of moral capital, and the reproductive structure of the family as inseparaable and inalienable from the high trust society. I would have thought differently, but I my work has led me to appreciate Emmanuel Todd’s findings on the nature of the family in relation to political structures. And without the absolute nuclear family that was a required method of conformity into the American system, the american high trust society cannot persist. Period.

    Russians aren’t stupid. They don’t have a high trust society, So they don’t take cooperation for granted. They have to work at it.

    We take it for granted. that’s why we’re losing it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 08:12:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE GOSSIP 1) AP reporting that the President has agreed to meet with ex-pre

    UKRAINE GOSSIP

    1) AP reporting that the President has agreed to meet with ex-presidents to resolve the conflict. People tell me it’s not true. It is a diffusion game. He is arriving back in the country today and he’s more than a little worried someone will kill him. Now, I have no idea. But it certainly makes sense to me. A lot of very rich people get very harmed by this, and he may be a sacrifice that needs to be made.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 06:50:00 UTC

  • KIEV ALERT : LOTS OF MILITARY NOW. URGENT, URGENT, URGENT “Dec. 9, 1:02 p.m. A t

    KIEV ALERT : LOTS OF MILITARY NOW. URGENT, URGENT, URGENT

    “Dec. 9, 1:02 p.m. A top government source confirmed to the Kyiv Post that a decision was taken to use force against protesters. The attack seems imminent, but no details are available at the moment.” –Katya Gorchinskaya

    “Dec. 9, 12:58 p.m. Government workers have been evacuted from the Kyiv city center as police in riot gear move in a set up barricades on Khreschatyk Street, according to a source in the European Union delegation to Ukraine who asked that he remain anonymous because he was not allowed to speak publicly.” — Christopher J. Miller

    OK. I”M HITTING THE CASH MACHINE AND THE GROCERY STORE….

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 06:20:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY AS AN ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, OR JUST FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE LIBERTY? It

    LIBERTY AS AN ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, OR JUST FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE LIBERTY?

    It’s kind of admirable that the british enlightenment felt that they could create an aristocracy of everybody. And, given british power and circumstance, it’s possibly understandable how such an ambition could be honestly thought, and more than ideological marketing to the rapidly expanding colonials and bureaucrats, and motivation for the labor force. With such wealthy of course, it seemed at least plausible that the trend would continue forever.

    But really. It was just marketing.

    Good marketing.

    But just marketing.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 04:56:00 UTC

  • WHO INNOVATES POLITICAL THEORY TODAY? MARXISTS (nothing new here) CORPORATISTS (

    WHO INNOVATES POLITICAL THEORY TODAY?

    MARXISTS (nothing new here)

    CORPORATISTS (chinese – state and neo-corporatism)

    POSTMODERNISTS (totalitarian humanism – nothing new)

    PUBLIC CHOICE THEORISTS (democratic socialist game theory – nope)

    ECONOMISTS (center – maybe, MMT etc.)

    CONSERVATIVES (classical liberalism – nothing new here)

    LIBERTARIANS (Hoppe’s polycentric insurance)

    So who really has made any innovation in political theory?

    Everyone in the west is trapped in the paradigm of monopoly democracy. The Chinese have made state corporatism the movement of the 21st century. That seems to be everyone’s direction. And, I guess, compared to Corporatism, that neo-Corporatism is a minor invention. But It’s been around for a long time.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 15:05:00 UTC

  • WHY DOES THE MONOPOLY STATE FEAR COMPETITION? All conflicts are resolvable if pr

    WHY DOES THE MONOPOLY STATE FEAR COMPETITION?

    All conflicts are resolvable if private property rights are respected. So why can’t groups with different sets of property rights join different groups (unions, parties) and made contracts with one another?

    There isn’t any reason that they can’t.

    Except that the state, and democracy, and bureaucracies, are a monopoly.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 09:46:00 UTC