Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • “I hope everyone who reads these posts on natural law realizes how precious this

    —“I hope everyone who reads these posts on natural law realizes how precious this wisdom is.”— John Mark

    The idea that natural law is discovered science the result of which produces a formal logic of decidability in all matters of sentience is very hard to grasp given our history of moral variation in relation to geography, demographics, and economy, and the multitude of falsehoods we have invented to justify one order or another given those same constraints.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 12:08:00 UTC

  • September 21st, 2018 1:26 PM THE THIRD QUESTION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY [T]he qu

    September 21st, 2018 1:26 PM THE THIRD QUESTION OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY [T]he question isn’t how we get along, it’s Genghis Khan’s question: “Why should the strong refrain from decimation, enslavement, enserfment, or rule for maximum profit?” The only incentive for the strong is whether cooperation is preferable to conquest. It is only preferable for conquest if it is sufficiently preferable to conquest to refrain from conquest. So, as the Great Khan said: “Given that cooperation is not preferable or possible, and serfdom and slavery are costly, that leaves decimation, or rule for the maximization of profit.” “We might prefer the former or the latter. However the enemy would undoubtedly prefer separation to decimation or rule under out maximization of profit. And this is the wise choice. Since we can still cooperate indirectly by trade while having no influence over one another within the same polity.” The problem the Khan faced is that he lacked the ability to produce institutions capable of sustained rule, just as expansionary aryans lacked the ability to produce institutions of sustained rule for maximum profit. The Indo-Aryans succeeded only under decimation and replacement in europe, not by any other means. So the Khan was wrong. Decimation was actually the right answer.

  • September 21st, 2018 12:08 PM —“I hope everyone who reads these posts on natur

    September 21st, 2018 12:08 PM

    —“I hope everyone who reads these posts on natural law realizes how precious this wisdom is.”— John Mark

    [T]he idea that natural law is discovered science the result of which produces a formal logic of decidability in all matters of sentience is very hard to grasp given our history of moral variation in relation to geography, demographics, and economy, and the multitude of falsehoods we have invented to justify one order or another given those same constraints.

  • September 21st, 2018 12:08 PM —“I hope everyone who reads these posts on natur

    September 21st, 2018 12:08 PM

    —“I hope everyone who reads these posts on natural law realizes how precious this wisdom is.”— John Mark

    [T]he idea that natural law is discovered science the result of which produces a formal logic of decidability in all matters of sentience is very hard to grasp given our history of moral variation in relation to geography, demographics, and economy, and the multitude of falsehoods we have invented to justify one order or another given those same constraints.

  • FASCIST? I’M A FASCIST? Yeah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets tha

    FASCIST? I’M A FASCIST?

    Yeah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative.

    Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache.

    So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist.

    And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others.

    So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 15:12:00 UTC

  • IS THERE A PLACE FOR THE LEFT? —“Under your natural law, Is there a place for

    IS THERE A PLACE FOR THE LEFT?

    —“Under your natural law, Is there a place for the left?”—

    There is a place for EXCHANGE between anyone, but predation and parasitism by no one.

    It’s not true that left wingers invent more than right. It’s true that leftists and rightists innovate in different areas: left consumption and release of normative constraint vs right order and release of existential constraints. I mean, I have absurd orderliness, and I still was voted most likely to succeed as a practicing artist by the faculty two years in a row. creativity occurs across the spectrum, but it’s creativity in WHAT?

    There is a place for everyone, there is just no place for parasitism and the left innovates means of parasitism and consumption to obtain its freedom from the right, and the right innovations suppression of parasitism and consumption in order to obtain its freedom from the left.

    The left and the feminine mind it evolved from cannot compete so it engages in rents, parasitism and predation to obtain what they see as proportionality independent of merit, and what we see as proportionality by merit.

    They have lower agency. They are not fully human. And this is why we must separate if possible, so that we can continue to speciate by proportionality: whether equalitarian and irreciprocal, or meritocratic and reciprocal.

    REVOLT, SEPARATE, PROSPER, SPECIATE.

    They will devolve and we will evolve and leave them behind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 12:18:00 UTC

  • Fascist? I’m a Fascist?

    [Y]eah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative. Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache. So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist. And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others. So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.

  • Fascist? I’m a Fascist?

    [Y]eah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative. Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache. So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist. And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others. So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.

  • Is There a Place for The Left?

    —“Under your natural law, Is there a place for the left?”—

    [T]here is a place for EXCHANGE between anyone, but predation and parasitism by no one. It’s not true that left wingers invent more than right. It’s true that leftists and rightists innovate in different areas: left consumption and release of normative constraint vs right order and release of existential constraints. I mean, I have absurd orderliness, and I still was voted most likely to succeed as a practicing artist by the faculty two years in a row. creativity occurs across the spectrum, but it’s creativity in WHAT? There is a place for everyone, there is just no place for parasitism and the left innovates means of parasitism and consumption to obtain its freedom from the right, and the right innovations suppression of parasitism and consumption in order to obtain its freedom from the left. The left and the feminine mind it evolved from cannot compete so it engages in rents, parasitism and predation to obtain what they see as proportionality independent of merit, and what we see as proportionality by merit. They have lower agency. They are not fully human. And this is why we must separate if possible, so that we can continue to speciate by proportionality: whether equalitarian and irreciprocal, or meritocratic and reciprocal. REVOLT, SEPARATE, PROSPER, SPECIATE.  They will devolve and we will evolve and leave them behind.

  • Is There a Place for The Left?

    —“Under your natural law, Is there a place for the left?”—

    [T]here is a place for EXCHANGE between anyone, but predation and parasitism by no one. It’s not true that left wingers invent more than right. It’s true that leftists and rightists innovate in different areas: left consumption and release of normative constraint vs right order and release of existential constraints. I mean, I have absurd orderliness, and I still was voted most likely to succeed as a practicing artist by the faculty two years in a row. creativity occurs across the spectrum, but it’s creativity in WHAT? There is a place for everyone, there is just no place for parasitism and the left innovates means of parasitism and consumption to obtain its freedom from the right, and the right innovations suppression of parasitism and consumption in order to obtain its freedom from the left. The left and the feminine mind it evolved from cannot compete so it engages in rents, parasitism and predation to obtain what they see as proportionality independent of merit, and what we see as proportionality by merit. They have lower agency. They are not fully human. And this is why we must separate if possible, so that we can continue to speciate by proportionality: whether equalitarian and irreciprocal, or meritocratic and reciprocal. REVOLT, SEPARATE, PROSPER, SPECIATE.  They will devolve and we will evolve and leave them behind.