Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • LOYALTY

    Apr 16, 2020, 9:15 PM (from elsewhere) Very smart fellow and intellectually honest. Pleasure discussing this with you.

    —“When I brought up the religiosity of the US founders I was referring only to a very basic common principle: that morality, and its subgenre of political law, must be grounded in God by a logical necessity (hence the ‘God-given’ ‘inalienable rights’). This is a philosophical truth that Catholicism specifically built into European civ. and consequently handed down to our Protestant and Deist founders”–

    Well, it’s in our law which predates christianity by over two thousand years. Christian: God has given us his son jesus as his prophet, and first among his laws is to live in imitation of jesus and according to his teachings – teachings we call christian morality: to love thy neighbor as thyself, Deist: God has given us the evidence of his hand: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of christian love (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). Scientist: Whether a god exists or not these are the laws evident in the universe: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of seduction into reciprocity (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). The human brain evolved to distribute between feminine and empathic to raise children in small numbers and masculine and systematizing to govern polities in large numbers. Each of us regardless of sex, has a mix of feminine and masculine intuitions. For those of you with more feminine cognition, the empathic is necessary – you must feel the spirituality. For those of us who are in the middle – practical – we must only undrestand that the norm works and imitate it. For those of us who are entirely masculine, we feel nothing, find faith childish, find norms arbitrary, and seek the science in faith and norm – because we cannot feel, we cannot just imitate, we can only calculate. Throughout our history we have practiced Trifunctionalism: The martial aristocracy, the Religion of the Faithful, and the Judicial law to resolve our differences. We have always had three leadership groups: violence, law, and faith. Women and the faithful cannot think as men. Men and the empirical cannot think as women and the faithful. But by obeying the judicial law we can still cooperate despite our thinking. There is no place for truth in faith or it would not be faith. There is no place for faith in truth or it would not be truth. There is no place for violence in either. As such we are left with the law to judge our differences. Men and women can be loyal to one another. Men and women of feminine mind can marry. Men and women of practical mind can marry. Men and women of systematizing mind can marry. And under our law any combination in between – because loyalty is enough. Likewise the faithful, judicial, and martial can be loyal to one another. As we always have been. And both succeed. Or we cannot and both fail. And my name is Caesar so to speak. And my job is the law.

  • “Curt, What About Socialism”

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:32 PM Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine. Edit

  • “Curt, What About Socialism”

    Apr 16, 2020, 10:32 PM Define how you use the term socialism. I’m assuming you mean european socialism (french-german) not jewish socialism (jewish russian). Socialism means state control of the means of production. Mixed economy means using the borrowing power of the state to strategically finance what the private sector cannot or will not. My opinion is the same as most major economists – that the state does not capture the proceeds of those investments and return them to the common people. My opinion is that we should finance repatriation of all non-trivial industry AND automate the heck out of it, and that the state should take non-voting interest in these companies and demand dividends as income for the people. My opinion is that the financial sector is predatory and that consumer credit should be purely statistical and direct from the treasury eliminating all rent seeking from the financial sector. My opinion is that liquidity necessary to generate demand should not be distributed to the financial sector for credit multipliers, but as cash distribution directly to citizens that business and finance compete for. My opinion is that education is largely wasted income other than the high end stem fields, and that all other schooling takes one year to two years non-resident at most. My opinion is that teaching and research staffs should be separate corporations with separate controls, and that phd and research programs should be well funded and largely state funded. My opinion is that the military used to fund basic research, and that presently, basic research must be faked under medical or non-military, when in general the state should treat investment in research as a venture capitalists, seeking returns for the polity in longer time horizons than other peoples. My opinion is that the best education in the world should be offered to all citizens from the best educators in the world, and that this should be a continuous process, and it should cost almost nothing (200 per course or something) My opinion is that if universities admit students that if the student doesn’t compete two years or transfer the university eats the money. And that the university carries the loan entirely, even if the loan is borrow by the university from the government. My opinion is that if we did this we’d be back to one income households just fine. Edit

  • health care, elder care, maintenance workers, take back to less ‘sanitary’ commu

    health care, elder care, maintenance workers, take back to less ‘sanitary’ communities where it spreads. (rather obvious in the data).

    Lesson? Restore family care of the elderly. Minimize hospital and doctors visits. Restore ‘house calls’.

    No more ‘cheap’ health care labor.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-22 01:43:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263646571385761805

    Reply addressees: @Steve_Sailer @CovfefeAnon @samuhyu

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263390288711581698

  • And they were wrong

    —”The founders of America fought to stop the installation of a central bank, but finally after many years, one was successfully installed here.”—

      And they were wrong. A central bank is the economic equivalent of an army – necessary. Fiat currency is the ability to borrow from your future production w/o interest. However, once you divorce from hard money pricing, how do you measure your debt and returns? … We can. We don’t. The problem is that unlike the French that NATIONALIZED the Rothschild banks, we left them private and let the financial sector benefit from borrowing rather than the people.

  • And they were wrong

    —”The founders of America fought to stop the installation of a central bank, but finally after many years, one was successfully installed here.”—

      And they were wrong. A central bank is the economic equivalent of an army – necessary. Fiat currency is the ability to borrow from your future production w/o interest. However, once you divorce from hard money pricing, how do you measure your debt and returns? … We can. We don’t. The problem is that unlike the French that NATIONALIZED the Rothschild banks, we left them private and let the financial sector benefit from borrowing rather than the people.

  • Reciprocity – Court

    Jury Nullification

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • Reciprocity – Court

    Jury Nullification

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • Jesus wasn’t complicated

    Apr 25, 2020, 9:54 AM Mithra was the origin of the political utility of monopoly. Zoroastrian the religion of that successful monopoly. Sol Invictus was a rotation like Odin->Tyr replacement, to compete with Mithra. Jesus was a ‘capture’ of john the baptist (jesus’ competitor for prophet), Mithra, Pagan Sun Gods, and from hindu: “Christ”=”Krishna”, from Egyptian: Osiris, the king as son-of-god, mediator with god, trinity, isis=holy spirit, cross, baptism, eucharist, and mythology, and the was bible an attempt to replace the Epic Cycle esp. aristocratic Achilles with his mirror image.

    –“Zoroaster’s religious innovation was the cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda, a supreme wise and benevolent deity, and Angra Mainyu, Ahura’s evil opponent. Here on earth, humans can support this struggle by taking sides. Living a virtuous life supports Ahura Mazda and contributes to the triumph of good over evil. Zoroaster encouraged his followers to worship Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, claiming that the old Persian deities were unworthy of worship and should be considered spirits of destruction.”–

    Jesus wasn’t complicated. He had a single very useful idea of how to resist the predation of the jews on their own, and the threat of their cultural erasure by the great empires, and the need for a means of integrating with or competing with those empires that conveyed mindfulness to the weak and ignorant. And it worked. Just like Marxism > Neomarxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > and it’s origins: HBD-Denialism and the natural eugenics of the great civilizations.

  • Jesus wasn’t complicated

    Apr 25, 2020, 9:54 AM Mithra was the origin of the political utility of monopoly. Zoroastrian the religion of that successful monopoly. Sol Invictus was a rotation like Odin->Tyr replacement, to compete with Mithra. Jesus was a ‘capture’ of john the baptist (jesus’ competitor for prophet), Mithra, Pagan Sun Gods, and from hindu: “Christ”=”Krishna”, from Egyptian: Osiris, the king as son-of-god, mediator with god, trinity, isis=holy spirit, cross, baptism, eucharist, and mythology, and the was bible an attempt to replace the Epic Cycle esp. aristocratic Achilles with his mirror image.

    –“Zoroaster’s religious innovation was the cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda, a supreme wise and benevolent deity, and Angra Mainyu, Ahura’s evil opponent. Here on earth, humans can support this struggle by taking sides. Living a virtuous life supports Ahura Mazda and contributes to the triumph of good over evil. Zoroaster encouraged his followers to worship Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, claiming that the old Persian deities were unworthy of worship and should be considered spirits of destruction.”–

    Jesus wasn’t complicated. He had a single very useful idea of how to resist the predation of the jews on their own, and the threat of their cultural erasure by the great empires, and the need for a means of integrating with or competing with those empires that conveyed mindfulness to the weak and ignorant. And it worked. Just like Marxism > Neomarxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > and it’s origins: HBD-Denialism and the natural eugenics of the great civilizations.