Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • EDUCATIONAL REFORM 1. Restore Grammar(imitating), Logic(understanding), Rhetoric

    EDUCATIONAL REFORM

    1. Restore Grammar(imitating), Logic(understanding), Rhetoric(Speaking) – Add Propertarianism (truth, ethics, morality) as well as the grammars and lying.

    2. Restore the Epic Cycle (the indo european expansion, the matter of Greece and Rome, the matter of Germanics),

    Add the and the Evolution of our Religions

    3. Restore Art History – Add scientific, Technological, and Economic, political, and military History (repeating)

    4. Add money, accounting, banking, interest, and investing, micro and macro economics as early as possible.

    5. Convert the teaching of math from symbolic an sets to operational so that far more people are able to grasp it. Restore high repetition work loads in mathematics (asian method)

    6. Restore competitive teaching and separate the boys and girls.

    7. Restore overlapping age groups so students are subject to repetition. (one room method)

    8. Restore divisions of classes into students of similar abilities learning at similar rates.

    9. Add teachers following students through the years (Finnish method)

    10. Restore the combination of physical, verbal, and recitation in groups as technique during the grammar years. (Simon says method)

    11. Restore competitive physical activity as a daily requirement.

    12. Restore military discipline and corporal punishment until high school (zero tolerance). Add parental punishment and parental classrooms. Add forcible sterilization for failure.

    13. Reform the dietary recommendations to limit carbohydrates and sugars to the absolute minimum.

    14. Privatize all schools under the ownership of teachers. Restore catholic and protestant schools.

    15. Develop standardized tests that measure progress in the above including personality, intelligence, and current state of knowledge.

    16. Restore the German method of apprenticeship throughout.

    17. Seek to reduce school hours, especially morning hours, beginning at age 14, and split between working (apprenticeship) and schooling.

    18. Eliminate homework wherever possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 11:54:00 UTC

  • “That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to ref

    —-“That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”—- James Madison, Amendments

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 08:42:00 UTC

  • ANSWERS TO THREE QUESTIONS 1) —“Hi Curt, wondering what your thoughts are on o

    ANSWERS TO THREE QUESTIONS

    1) —“Hi Curt, wondering what your thoughts are on ostracism as an effective way to discourage degenerate behaviour. It’s something Stef points to and I’m beginning to see it as a rather feminine method”—

    Well, I think both pre and post are valulable in the sense that I think it is very important to preserve both ostracism AND to require demonstraion of competence for inclusion. In other words, everyone may require via negativa protection under natural law, but fewer people are capable of via positiva exercise of political judgement, and there are some if not many people who must be ostracized (lose citizenship, benefits, liberty, or life) in defense of others – and that we have been far too tolerant by ending the general eugenic process provided by hanging a lot of malcontents every year.

    2) —“Re: the successful march, important to be involved in such an historic moment. When shit goes down it will be remembered as “the first peaceful demonstration of American patriotism”, or some such. Year after year of Antifa antics are met by 20000 armed men. It’s beautiful”—

    The point is (a) we can show up in large numbers, even on a work day (b) antifa is always the source of violence, not us (c) c’ville was antifa not the right. So I think we succeeded in making our points: 1) we have to show up in large numbers, 2) we have to use the rights framework not the identity framework, even though the result is the same. 3) revolution comes.

    3) —“I’m interested to know your thoughts on the cultural importance of cinema and the shift from written to visual communication”—

    Cinema combines the play and photography, to produce greater accessibility, and extraordinary beauty, but the era with which we produced cinematic “literature” ended by the 1960’s. And we are in full postmodern anti-civilizational decline in the arts just as the jews intended. Just as they destroyed the arts and literature of the ancient world. The most important feature of cinema otherwise has been the concentration of income in the cinema industry thereby depleting the rest of the arts of income and funding. So between the marxist, cultural marxist, postmodernist, feminist, denialist undermining of civilization; cinematic decline in post-lit screenwriting; collapse in funding of the arts; the use of panel products in construction of our buildings and therefore, incompatibility of art and architecture; and the perception of building spaces as temporary rather than intergenerational – cinema has been good and bad. But we are seeing the collapse of the income model. I have a fairly clear view of the future of the arts if we end the american empire and especially if we end copyright and substitute creative commons, then I think we will deprive the industry of any chance of funding, and this will force the correction we are looking for.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 08:07:00 UTC

  • ACTION PLAN by Scott De Warren Trump voters have taken over the Republican Party

    ACTION PLAN

    by Scott De Warren

    Trump voters have taken over the Republican Party and made it a party of economic nationalism. There’s no reason why we can’t provide the intellectual firepower to help this already successful political movement expand its power and reach and correct its blindspots as we push the Overton window wide open 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-24 19:34:00 UTC

  • Sort of lost my patience with the Manginas last week. So we’re going to simply d

    Sort of lost my patience with the Manginas last week. So we’re going to simply delete Mangina Cowardice, Nihilism, Counter-Signaling into Guilt, and GSRRM, as dead weight on our people and our movement. Not worth our efforts. Intellectually honest solution seeking, questioning, and criticism only. We have to cut out the dead weight and sunk costs on losers.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 12:05:00 UTC

  • CRITICISM OF P 1. Lack of Vital Components: This is the correct criticism. My pl

    CRITICISM OF P

    1. Lack of Vital Components: This is the correct criticism. My plan has been consistent: A moral license, a set of demands, a plan of transition and a means of insurrection. So far you can only see through the set of demands (constitution). It does not pay to release more information. The window has to move further.

    2. Lack of Reach: We have a plan. It is not useful to release it. The window has to move further.

    The window keeps moving. Unfortunately it’s started moving faster than I can…

    3. I’ll give you a warning: your conservatism (“show me, i need to understand”) is effective in resisting change only if you are in control. And it’s been a failure in resisting when you are not in control. And we lost control when women and underclasses entered the franchise. And you (we) let them into the franchise out of christian optimism during a period of windfall profits at civilizational scale – one that will never repeat again given the seizure of low hanging scientific fruits. So, I”m going to be blunt and say ‘if you need to understand to act, then you are the reason you fail.” The left just seizes a series of opportunities for incremental advancement. Your need for ‘understanding’ and ‘certainty’ is why you (conservatives) have failed. And the hand-wringing (cowards) on the right are the majority. I have studied many things not the least of which is the history of revolutions and evolutions in governance both inside the anglo european and outside it. The last time we had a political solution available to us was 1992. We have not had that solution available to us yet. it is only under extreme duress, and the inability to deny being ‘conservative and politically lazy’ that the overton window moves to the blatantly obvious. So the problem is the man in your mirror that even asks these questions rather than running to every rally, every demonstration,m every opportunity, and yes, every fight, to defend what you depend upon but really want others to solve for you so you can continue being lazy ‘conservatives’. There is no condition under which we can gain control after this next election and that is simply it. The only solution is to eliminate the optimism of the ‘white middle’ civic nationalists by evidence that they cannot contradict: the exposure of differences in groups under duress.

    4. My strategy has been to create a discussion on a proposition that serves the interest of our people regardless of disposition at the expense of the elites. It is not a ‘conservative’ strategy so much as it is a strategy neither side can envision because of their ignorance of the law, economics, and the sciences that describe the world beyond what is emotionally available to our intuitions. So, my strategy is to make a solution available and the promise of civil war so certain that it is unnecessary. But that if necessary there is the least possible resistance. This is not something new, it is the same strategy I have expressed for over a decade. And as far as I know there is no solution for engineering the operation of a government under which we can separate (and continue to speciate) yet hold this continental territory and its unique advantage in food production from competitors.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 11:51:00 UTC

  • Sort of lost my patience with the Manginas last week. So we’re going to simply d

    Sort of lost my patience with the Manginas last week. So we’re going to simply delete Mangina Cowardice, Nihilism, Counter-Signaling into Guilt, and GSRRM, as dead weight on our people and our movement. Not worth our efforts. Intellectually honest solution seeking, questioning, and criticism only. We have to cut out the dead weight and sunk costs on losers.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-22 10:28:00 UTC

  • THE ECONOMIC POLICY OF ELIZABETH WARREN by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made som

    THE ECONOMIC POLICY OF ELIZABETH WARREN

    by Tyler Cowen

    Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:

    1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.

    2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.

    3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.

    4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.

    5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.

    6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.

    7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.

    8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.

    All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.

    9. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.

    Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit.

    More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts?

    When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed).

    I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites.

    If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime.

    For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all.

    That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass.

    So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-19 13:04:00 UTC

  • THE 20TH CENTURY ECONOMIES IN CONTEXT – AND HOW TO FIX THEM WITH PROPERTARIANISM

    THE 20TH CENTURY ECONOMIES IN CONTEXT – AND HOW TO FIX THEM WITH PROPERTARIANISM

    You know, they called what we do today “Jewish economics” in the pre-war period because it favored investors at the expense of the middle classes (which in those days just meant ‘families’). Keynes was reading MARX, and just removed all references from his book (the general theory) before publishing. Keynes used mathematics (he was first and foremost a mathematician specializing in probability) to give us his elegant simplification of the economy, but he put no measures in place to control it’s abuse – and of course, and Hayek didn’t refute him, and no one produced a limit, so the government just took ‘presumption of growth from presumption of consumption’ as license to convert Keynes’ explanation of how to get out of postwar crisis with how to maximize spending by pushing risk downstream and consuming all institutional, behavioral, normative, physical, and human capital.

    That limit was a balance sheet, and full accounting of investments and returns. In other words, to maintain the MEASUREMENT that both the GOLD STANDARD and RULE OF LAW had made possible at the cost of inability to react to shocks.

    This isn’t to dismiss his aggregate theory which is, like all economics, hydraulic. And it isn’t to defend the classical theory, which presumes rational actors, rather than bounded rationality within the limits of our frustration budgets. (We used commercial consumption to sedate ourselves during what has been a long period of social disintegration all of which decrease mindfulness and increase stress, create dysfunctional infantilized ‘woke’ children, reduce our commons into barbarism, loneliness and horrors in old age.)

    We spent thousands of years incrementally building rule of law leaving only a markets, and in a century we have destroyed rule of law, markets, and our social, institutional, and worst of all, genetic capital.

    You can’t imagine how much advertising and that evil box in your living room has contributed to destruction of our civilization. But THOUSANDS of thinkers predicted it. The British were right with their BBC – which horrifies the libertarian remnant in me.. But it’s because the left (cognitively female) always and everywhere seeks to create consensus to undermine because it cannot produce and innovate itself. As such the parasite pursues ‘the pulpit’ from whence it conducts it’s false promise, baiting into hazard, as a means of undermining the order and the capital structure of the people who DO produce.

    Now, I have no problem with censorship in the Russian and Chinese and Turkish models, if it’s censorship of GSRRM, baiting into hazard, and advocacy of capital consumption or underclass reproduction or limiting upper class reproduction – all things that affect the balance sheet (capital). But the court must be there to defend the truth, and the law has to tolerate truth regardless of cost. In other words, it has to be ILLEGAL to suppress truthful statements if it’s Illegal to undermine.

    This kind of test wasn’t possible until Propertarianism.

    But it’s possible now.

    And you can’t imagine (I can and it overwhelms me) how different a world would be if we ended all the f—king lying – including the lying of false promise baiting into hazard, and advocacy of consuming capital.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-15 15:42:00 UTC

  • WHY ECONOMISTS FAIL TO PROPOSE SUCCESSFUL SOLUTIONS Most economists propose nons

    WHY ECONOMISTS FAIL TO PROPOSE SUCCESSFUL SOLUTIONS

    Most economists propose nonsense solutions that mean more taxes without changing the structure of the economy.

    My proposition is pretty simple and has profound consequences. Stop all lying, baiting into hazard, free riding and parasitism upon the people, and capture those proceeds in the production of PHYSICAL commons.

    THAT IS HOW WE FIX EQUALITY.

    I’m not in favor of equality. Im’ in favor of suppressing parasitism upon the people so that people aren’t rewarded for parasitism and predation and conquest.

    The result is MORE equality for the middle class at the cost of the parasitic media, academy, state, financial and probably marketing and advertising sectors.

    That’s how you fix it.

    What will happen?

    I think sh-t through.

    What will happen is increasing demands for investments that aren’t parasitic, and that leaves accumulating rather than spending down capital.

    Economists work by income statements.

    Citizenry works by balance sheets.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-15 15:23:00 UTC