Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • WE HAVE MOTIVE, MEANS, AND OPPORTUNITY, FOR REVOLUTION —“Any people, anywhere,

    WE HAVE MOTIVE, MEANS, AND OPPORTUNITY, FOR REVOLUTION

    —“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.” — Abraham Lincoln,1848

    Never, since late antiquity, has a civilization been so fragile, and for the same reasons: the inadvertent training of the barbarians in our ways, and the decline in our population, that in the ancient world was caused by the justinian plague, but in this current era is caused by the introduction of women into the workforce at the expense of reproduction, and the consequential mass migration that always has followed.

    Men must invent, men must work, men must fight, women must bear, and women must train, and women must care.

    Without this we cannot survive the barbarians.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    h/t:Justin Ptak

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 14:47:00 UTC

  • Put it this way. if islam doesn’t reform, it is just a confirmation that religio

    Put it this way. if islam doesn’t reform, it is just a confirmation that religion is done for all but those people unfit to survive into the future.

    Yes. that’s harsh. That’s true. That is what it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 12:47:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE *WILL* TAKE NATURAL LAW IN EXCHANGE Ran my work on ending financialism th

    PEOPLE *WILL* TAKE NATURAL LAW IN EXCHANGE

    Ran my work on ending financialism through the “Mom Test” today with excellent results. (Spent her career in customer service, banking, teaching, and counseling.)

    Response? Well, horror at understanding how our people have been preyed upon. Thrilled at the consequences of that reform. Amazed at the solutions provided. But “omg… you cannot explain this kind of thing to the average american. they’re too stupid….”

    Which is why we can only do it under natural law, and defense of the informational commons, so that we can punish, imprison, or kill anyone who attempts to use propaganda to stop it.

    You see, we must adhere to natural law, and offer something substantial to the people in exchange for imposing a new constitution of natural law

    What I’m offering is the banking and financial sector and their political dependents on pyre in exchange for rescue from financial servitude.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 16:06:00 UTC

  • The entire Econ discipline must be reconstructed

    The entire Econ discipline must be reconstructed.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-15 14:08:00 UTC

  • UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – Paragraph 2 —We hold these truths t

    UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – Paragraph 2

    —We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created unequal; that to prosper despite our inequality we must voluntarily cooperate; and to voluntarily cooperate we must be considered equal under the law; and as such we must establish equal rights under the law; and that among these rights are Life, Body, Mind, Freedom of Action and the Pursuit and Accumulation of Property-in-Toto, for self, Family, Kin, Clan, Tribe, and Nation, through productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of the imposition of costs against the property of others by externality.—

    Jefferson unfortunately lacked the language to state the preamble more perfectly.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 09:45:00 UTC

  • SIZE OF GOVERNMENT? (AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT) Theoretically, as a rule of thumb,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_sectorTHE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT? (AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT)

    Theoretically, as a rule of thumb, the maximum is 20%. As a rule of thumb, we can produce about a 20% surplus in the long term, and we can accelerate innovation and consumption to raise that number through debt at the cost of increased volatility and risk.

    The US govt is about 15% of the population but, that’s misleading since we use so many contractors. It’s useful for judging the political bias of the people. Everything I’ve read is that it hovers int the 20-22% range in total.

    %GDP is a better judge of government scale. OECD countries range from about 35 to 55%, with the USA hovering near the low end (34%) but this includes financial magic because of petrodollar demand. France is at the high end with 55%. The general western consensus is that between 40-50 is the liberal ideal. And in total taxation we all reach that number.

    But that assumes that the government employees obtain total compensation equal to but not more than the general population.

    My suggestion (My Demand) is that not all countries need be the same, and as such those that suppress the reproduction of the underclass can most easily (and very rapidly) decrease the cost of ALL government burden, and thereby increase the returns of all shareholders (citizens).

    The USA was designed to exit the parasitism of the upper and lower classes by creating a middle class and upper middle class society on new territory. This is the only form of society in which democratic participation can survive. And this experiment has been under attack – successfully.

    The attack has been achieved by replacing arguments over rule of law (morality) with arguments over consumption (economics).

    The best thing we can do is restore rule of law, natural law, common law of reciprocity in not only goods, and services, but information. And therefore restore markets in everything.

    The best thing you can do for your people is eliminate non-professional immigration, and eliminate underclass reproduction. Period. End of story.

    Like all things: as complexity increases, Via-Negativa defeats via-positiva.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 10:03:00 UTC

  • A System That Will Work

    Apr 20, 2017 12:11pm YOU WANT A SYSTEMIC SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK? Max 24 hour work week, preferably 4 days. Forced retirement savings, 4 hour school day, prohibition on immigration outside of research in physical sciences, tiered medical insurance, zero interest home loans, direct redistribution of liquidity to consumers, end of child support, spousal support, and marital community property, and marital credit and taxation; creation of debt-‘dole’ on the british model. removal of women from the voting pool into a separate house. mandatory service in militia (expansion of national guard’) providing both natural disaster, emergency, medical, and defense capability – with fitness requirement through the age of 60, or heavy penalties. Requirement for strict construction of law, legislation, regulation. Revocation of civil war violations of natural law. Restoration of voluntary association and dissociation. Redistribution of income taxes to the states, which then forward them to the federal government. And total revocation of the federal ability to levy taxes. As a package it will sell. Incrementally it won’t.

  • A System That Will Work

    Apr 20, 2017 12:11pm YOU WANT A SYSTEMIC SOLUTION THAT WILL WORK? Max 24 hour work week, preferably 4 days. Forced retirement savings, 4 hour school day, prohibition on immigration outside of research in physical sciences, tiered medical insurance, zero interest home loans, direct redistribution of liquidity to consumers, end of child support, spousal support, and marital community property, and marital credit and taxation; creation of debt-‘dole’ on the british model. removal of women from the voting pool into a separate house. mandatory service in militia (expansion of national guard’) providing both natural disaster, emergency, medical, and defense capability – with fitness requirement through the age of 60, or heavy penalties. Requirement for strict construction of law, legislation, regulation. Revocation of civil war violations of natural law. Restoration of voluntary association and dissociation. Redistribution of income taxes to the states, which then forward them to the federal government. And total revocation of the federal ability to levy taxes. As a package it will sell. Incrementally it won’t.

  • Solving the Google, Facebook Wikipedia Problem, and News in the 21st Century

    As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces. There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.

    The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile. Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not. So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons. Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world. Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice. WHY DON’T THEY?

  • Solving the Google, Facebook Wikipedia Problem, and News in the 21st Century

    As far as I can tell, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia hold the same conditional monopoly as did ATT and are just as important if not more so. Yet they are more insidious because while ATT controlled the quality and cost of our information distribution, by contrast, Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia control the quality and cost of the information itself, and that information is not subject to market forces. There is no reason that we cannot (a) heavily tax these institutions, (b) heavily regulate these institutions (c) heavily localize these institutions, and therefore (d) reduce social and political conflict conducted via these institutions.

    The minimum regulation I would place on them is that (a) no true statement can be suppressed. All non-false opinions, judgements, categorizations, can be expressed no matter how undesirable, (b) the ‘slider’ method to suppress or expose emotive language should be required. (c) individuals would have to declare their political biases, and then i) non-conforming information would be hidden from them, ii) they could not complain about non conforming that the sought out that conflicted with their profile, but instead, must fix their own profile, ii) and people cannot comment on that which is outside their profile. Facebook and Google can already do this. Easily. Wikipedia can do this, just as easily. So can newspapers. And the news producer that does so, rather than having an editorial board, will survive, the rest will not. So either you allow for both Aristocratic, nationalist, masculine, and eugenic people who look for rule of law and science, as WELL as communist, globalist, feminine, and dysgenic people who advocate social construction and pseudoscience or you are de facto creating an informational monopoly on a public commons. Between the axis of gender/class strategy, and the axis of empirical/supernatural method of argument you can define all of the major discourses in this world. Ergo, these companies can do this voluntarily or we will regulate them into utilities without the choice. WHY DON’T THEY?