Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • So the germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first

    So the germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies in Europe, and had them before democracy.

    So they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government.

    The French rebelled against aristocracy and church.

    The English against the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, and the Americans against the aristocracy but not the church.

    So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the european plain given the path to modernity.

    But (as Candice Mary is trying to get to) the maternalism (heavy in France, less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, and still dominating the south, …. that demand is constant over time.

    And was constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north…. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now.

    (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-19 13:06:00 UTC

  • The Lie of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism

    —“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”— Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions proposed a MONOPOLY – all monopolies are bad (and all monopolistic arguments are false) The only possible economic structure is a Mixed Economy, and the only structure that every has existed at any scale is a mixed economy. The underclass requires redistribution because they have no ability to participate in the market. Labor requires insurance against the vicissitudes of manual labor, the clerical and managerial classes require commons in order to produce multiples, the professional and entrepreneurial class require property and rule of law in order to produce the voluntary organization of production, the financial and political classes need organization such that they can produce redistribution, insurance, and property rights, so that all the classes can function as producers and consumers and parents and elderly. THE TRUTH OF RULE OF LAW VS RULE BY DISCRETION(MAN) If you practice rule of law – meaning the natural law of torts (not legislation, which is not law, but either contract or command. And commands are not laws, but commands alone), then you will produce a mixed economy. If you practice discretionary rule or legislative rule you will produce failed attempts at the MONOPOLIES of communism (underclass) socialism (working class), or capitalism (middle and upper middle class). When instead we require communism (redistribution), socialism (production of commons), and capitalism (production of goods, services, and information) in EVERY economy. THE ASHKENAZI (Authoritarian) VS EUROPEAN (Rule of Law ) DEBATE 1 – Germanics (Masculine) : Rule of Law and Mixed economies. 2 – French (Feminine): Republican Socialism 3 – Ashekanazi (authoritarian): Communism, Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatissm. 4 – Ashkenazi-Russian-Chinese (Authoritarian) : Communism, Socialism. However, the Ashkenazi and the French are the intellectual vanguard of authoritarianism, having produced every variation from Rousseau to the Postmodernists, and Marx/Boas/Freud/Cantor/Trostsky/Lenin/Mises/Rothbard all the way to the Frankfurt school. While the french retaliated against the english use of empiricism with their nonsense rationalism, and the germans imitated Rousseau with their nonsense moralism, it was the Ashkenazi of Europe, Russia, and America, who weaponized pseudoscience and propaganda against western civilization by creating pseudoscientific cults with false promise of economic and political paradise just as they had done so in the ancient world with false promise of life after death. Every time you ask the question which is better you are demonstrating that you have been the victim of a pseudoscientific cult in the modern world, just as your ancestors were the victims of supernatural cults in the anceient world. The only economy possible is a mixed economy.

  • The Lie of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism

    —“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”— Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions proposed a MONOPOLY – all monopolies are bad (and all monopolistic arguments are false) The only possible economic structure is a Mixed Economy, and the only structure that every has existed at any scale is a mixed economy. The underclass requires redistribution because they have no ability to participate in the market. Labor requires insurance against the vicissitudes of manual labor, the clerical and managerial classes require commons in order to produce multiples, the professional and entrepreneurial class require property and rule of law in order to produce the voluntary organization of production, the financial and political classes need organization such that they can produce redistribution, insurance, and property rights, so that all the classes can function as producers and consumers and parents and elderly. THE TRUTH OF RULE OF LAW VS RULE BY DISCRETION(MAN) If you practice rule of law – meaning the natural law of torts (not legislation, which is not law, but either contract or command. And commands are not laws, but commands alone), then you will produce a mixed economy. If you practice discretionary rule or legislative rule you will produce failed attempts at the MONOPOLIES of communism (underclass) socialism (working class), or capitalism (middle and upper middle class). When instead we require communism (redistribution), socialism (production of commons), and capitalism (production of goods, services, and information) in EVERY economy. THE ASHKENAZI (Authoritarian) VS EUROPEAN (Rule of Law ) DEBATE 1 – Germanics (Masculine) : Rule of Law and Mixed economies. 2 – French (Feminine): Republican Socialism 3 – Ashekanazi (authoritarian): Communism, Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatissm. 4 – Ashkenazi-Russian-Chinese (Authoritarian) : Communism, Socialism. However, the Ashkenazi and the French are the intellectual vanguard of authoritarianism, having produced every variation from Rousseau to the Postmodernists, and Marx/Boas/Freud/Cantor/Trostsky/Lenin/Mises/Rothbard all the way to the Frankfurt school. While the french retaliated against the english use of empiricism with their nonsense rationalism, and the germans imitated Rousseau with their nonsense moralism, it was the Ashkenazi of Europe, Russia, and America, who weaponized pseudoscience and propaganda against western civilization by creating pseudoscientific cults with false promise of economic and political paradise just as they had done so in the ancient world with false promise of life after death. Every time you ask the question which is better you are demonstrating that you have been the victim of a pseudoscientific cult in the modern world, just as your ancestors were the victims of supernatural cults in the anceient world. The only economy possible is a mixed economy.

  • Demand for Authority (decidability) from Institutions by Region Over Time

    Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern. ===== From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying…. So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do. The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity. The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse. The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times. So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity. But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it. And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you. (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.) Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm

  • Demand for Authority (decidability) from Institutions by Region Over Time

    Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern. ===== From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying…. So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do. The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity. The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse. The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times. So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity. But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it. And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians. ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you. (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.) Aug 17, 2018 6:46pm

  • DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (DECIDABILITY) FROM INSTITUTIONS BY REGION OVER TIME Some i

    DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (DECIDABILITY) FROM INSTITUTIONS BY REGION OVER TIME

    Some institutional network of decidability must provide people with decidability given the available institutions versus the available means of production. That intersection sophistication of institutions vs Trusthworthiness of those institutions, v available means of production determined demand for institutions and decidability under those institutions. This is rather obvious but I wasn’t able to put together the German incentive until now. Fukuyama only gets the recent not the ancient and medieval and late modern.

    =====

    From discussion with “Teacher” Alhaji Dada

    OK. I see what you mean. I see. I just have to translate it from the intellectuals justification to what it was that they were justifying….

    So the Germans haven’t been far out of aristocracy, they had developed the first professional bureaucracies, in Europe, and had them before democracy, so that they never rebelled against the aristocracy, and trust their government – and still (unfortunately) do.

    The French rebelled against aristocracy and church, and were already the most backward government in Europe by the time of the revolution. They still retain self righteousness of the ‘liberty equality fraternity’ and the fantasy that they led the world with the revolution rather than they were the rebellion against modernity.

    The English rebelled against France and Spain in particular, the church in general, and the continent in general and did not have the fracture or diversity of the French, so they retained internal trust. The empire gave them the resource (commerce) curse, and when the empire collapsed they followed the Spanish into fantasy-preservation without the resources for it and lost their industrial base as well. So they profit by becoming a virtue signal and financial center while their continue their collapse.

    The Americans rebelled against the aristocracy but not the church, although the church was terribly weak (protestant) without the catholic institutions, land ownership, and political infrastructure, and and could retain the English (Scandinavian) raiding (pirate) culture because they were expansionary at all times.

    So the “Demand for Authority” took very different routes across the Atlantic continent and european plain given the different trust-paths to modernity.

    But, as you’ve said this tendency is ANCIENT, and as Candice Mary is trying to get across to me, the maternalism – heaviest in France because of the original Venus cult’s influence – less so in Germany, non-existent in the slavic lands, but still dominating and dominant the south, …. that demand is constant over time. So we have lower trust south all around (maternal), with demand for family, church, and hierarchy. While we have the germans, germanic Scandinavians (west), Finnio-russian Scandinavians, and then the slavs, and southern slavs, each retaining…. ok. I get it.

    And that demand never changed because it was a constant in old (south eastern) Europe in antiquity since they had the least admixture from the north, were most similar to greek (llyrian), had much migration (Scythian), and were ruled by old europeans (byzantines), then by ottomans (muslims), so they never had the northern influences other than during Austro-hungarians.

    ok. ok. I can start to see how this works now. (Why is it that you, more than anyone, point me in the right direction when I am off?) thank you.

    (Thinking: Damn …. DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY (A SET OF INSTITUTIONS) + DEMAND FOR TRUST (FROM A SET OF INSTIUTUTIONS) + Degree of paternalism from raiding, and then from trade, vs demand for maternalism as resistance, vs settled-landed mixed demand. yep. demand for trusted authority from the set of available institutions given the means of available production.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 18:46:00 UTC

  • THE LIE OF COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND CAPITALISM —“What’s the unbiased pros and

    THE LIE OF COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND CAPITALISM

    —“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”—

    Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=279756825954548&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 17:14:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030503175378399232

  • THE LIE OF COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND CAPITALISM —“What’s the unbiased pros and

    THE LIE OF COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, AND CAPITALISM

    —“What’s the unbiased pros and cons of socialism, communism and capitalism?”—

    Each proposes a MONOPOLY, just as the abrahamic religions proposed a MONOPOLY – all monopolies are bad (and all monopolistic arguments are false)

    The only possible economic structure is a Mixed Economy, and the only structure that every has existed at any scale is a mixed economy.

    The underclass requires redistribution because they have no ability to participate in the market. Labor requires insurance against the vicissitudes of manual labor, the clerical and managerial classes require commons in order to produce multiples, the professional and entrepreneurial class require property and rule of law in order to produce the voluntary organization of production, the financial and political classes need organization such that they can produce redistribution, insurance, and property rights, so that all the classes can function as producers and consumers and parents and elderly.

    THE TRUTH OF RULE OF LAW VS RULE BY DISCRETION(MAN)

    If you practice rule of law – meaning the natural law of torts (not legislation, which is not law, but either contract or command. And commands are not laws, but commands alone), then you will produce a mixed economy.

    If you practice discretionary rule or legislative rule you will produce failed attempts at the MONOPOLIES of communism (underclass) socialism (working class), or capitalism (middle and upper middle class). When instead we require communism (redistribution), socialism (production of commons), and capitalism (production of goods, services, and information) in EVERY economy.

    THE ASHKENAZI (Authoritarian) VS EUROPEAN (Rule of Law ) DEBATE

    1 – Germanics (Masculine) : Rule of Law and Mixed economies.

    2 – French (Feminine): Republican Socialism

    3 – Ashekanazi (authoritarian): Communism, Libertarianism, Neo-Conservatissm.

    4 – Ashkenazi-Russian-Chinese (Authoritarian) : Communism, Socialism.

    However, the Ashkenazi and the French are the intellectual vanguard of authoritarianism, having produced every variation from Rousseau to the Postmodernists, and Marx/Boas/Freud/Cantor/Trostsky/Lenin/Mises/Rothbard all the way to the Frankfurt school.

    While the french retaliated against the english use of empiricism with their nonsense rationalism, and the germans imitated Rousseau with their nonsense moralism, it was the Ashkenazi of Europe, Russia, and America, who weaponized pseudoscience and propaganda against western civilization by creating pseudoscientific cults with false promise of economic and political paradise just as they had done so in the ancient world with false promise of life after death.

    Every time you ask the question which is better you are demonstrating that you have been the victim of a pseudoscientific cult in the modern world, just as your ancestors were the victims of supernatural cults in the anceient world.

    The only economy possible is a mixed economy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-17 13:14:00 UTC

  • 100% of political conflict is the result of forcible, involuntary, association,

    100% of political conflict is the result of forcible, involuntary, association, caused by normative, traditional, religious, educational, aesthetic, institutional, or demographic competition. The problem is simple to solve: voluntary disassociation. We call that ‘secession’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-16 13:06:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030078415158829061

  • 100% of political conflict is the result of forcible, involuntary, association,

    100% of political conflict is the result of forcible, involuntary, association, caused by normative, traditional, religious, educational, aesthetic, institutional, or demographic competition. The problem is simple to solve: voluntary disassociation. We call that ‘secession’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-16 09:06:00 UTC