Theme: Reform

  • Republicans tried to cut disability back to previous levels because of the expan

    Republicans tried to cut disability back to previous levels because of the expansion of ‘shoddy’ claims to exit work.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:54:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765350864244580352

    Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765350239960199168


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765350239960199168

  • Why did the republicans try to cut back to prior levels

    Why did the republicans try to cut back to prior levels.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:52:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765350549143298049

    Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765350239960199168


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765350239960199168

  • Are you being truthful? Why would they consider reforming disability?

    Are you being truthful? Why would they consider reforming disability?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:50:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349870353907712

    Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton @mamasaurusof2 @cmandrecyk @CookPolitical @dmataconis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349654175293444


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349654175293444

  • How Large Is The Alternative Right? How Fast Is It Growing?

    I am personally, within my lifetime, going to convert the (rather large) Alt Right into the New Right. The reasons why this is easy, has almost everything to do with geographic distribution and demographics.

    https://www.quora.com/How-large-is-the-alternative-right-How-fast-is-it-growing

  • How Large Is The Alternative Right? How Fast Is It Growing?

    I am personally, within my lifetime, going to convert the (rather large) Alt Right into the New Right. The reasons why this is easy, has almost everything to do with geographic distribution and demographics.

    https://www.quora.com/How-large-is-the-alternative-right-How-fast-is-it-growing

  • So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public

    So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:23:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765252499011928064

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very impor

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW

    (very important ideas inside)

    1-Find a Lie

    2-Ask if it is really true.

    3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away.

    4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed.

    AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW

    (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.)

    1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments.

    3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law.

    4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism.

    5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law.

    6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain.

    8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law.

    11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded.

    13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time.

    14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law.

    20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW.

    22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia.

    23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying

    28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language.

    30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies.

    33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women.

    38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek.

    43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER.

    46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law.

    50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading.

    52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique).

    54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth.

    55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON.

    58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ.

    62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse.

    I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 15:33:00 UTC

  • time for revolution. demands, not negotiations

    time for revolution. demands, not negotiations.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 13:46:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765182783723560963

    Reply addressees: @DPoppke @CookPolitical

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765163250279444480


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765163250279444480

  • Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk abou

    Q&A: —How do we shift the Overton window to the right so that we can talk about our ideas in public and on campus again?—

    Moral men need a reason to demand change under the threat of violence.

    We need to give them:

    1) a set of demands to alter the status quo.

    2) a plan of transition

    3) a means of rebellion I”m working on it.

    There is no alternative to violence. Just get others to grow a pair.

    Because we’re going to have a revolution. And the best revolution is one where the enemy is so certain of defeat that they come to the table to compromise.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:11:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”— Short answer? Empi

    Q&A: —“CURT: HOW DOES CONSERVATISM DIFFER FROM IDEOLOGY”—

    Short answer? Empiricism vs Irrationalism

    Curt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer—

    .

    Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?—

    Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration).

    I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits).

    And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy.

    Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it:

    Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy.

    A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels.

    By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why?

    Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.)

    Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes).

    We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history.

    A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science).

    Conservatism has always been scientific.

    The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair.

    So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes.

    This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 06:27:00 UTC