Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • So What’s Next?

    Mar 29, 2020, 12:06 PM

    —“So what’s next? Will secession and decentralization take root as the wave of the political future? Or are we facing even further entrenchment of the centralized state authoritarian paradigm?”— Josh Deel

    It depends if you me and 1M other men make the choice. I’m going to make the choice. Will you make the choice???

    —“How then to mobilize and move it forward? We need approx. 3-4% of the greater population to pull it off. No? Or could that number be revised downward in our given “opportunity” of circumstance(s)?”— Josh Deel

    We’d need 10-100k to start it, 2M+ to force it. 3-4% to support it, and a quarter of the people to at least not resist it, and provide intel and cover. In simple terms if all the happy christians went to DC with a set of demands, and 1M of us are mobile elsewhere creating pressure then it’s over. But we have to offer a solution that at least 1/4 of the people will want. My view is more than half will want it. That’s enough. In other words, as I understand it, you cannot resist the P-constitution unless you want to impose irreciprocity on others. If you do then we have moral license to impose irreciprocity too. Question is. Can I tolerate producing a podcast to take this to market. Can john and the others take it down market. And can we make it popular enough a conversation (“help us build a new constitution”) that we can get the numbers above.

  • RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION)

    The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility. FULL VERSION Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

  • RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION)

    The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups). “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.” There is no ideal. There are no ideals. There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility. FULL VERSION Limiting our display word and deed to: – Fully informed (truthful and complete); – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy. – Productive and; – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon); – The Demonstrated interests of Others; – Either directly or indirectly (by externality) – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection; – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation; – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability; – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles, – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

  • Half Truths Are Sources of Ignorance

    Yes I know of the seven laws of Noah. 😉 They are too primitive. They start with god (submission) rather than sovereignty ( responsibility). They don’t include truthful speech regardless of cost. They don’t prevent the great crimes of history (sophistry, false promise, baiting into hazard, fraud) Instead they are the origin of the license for the great crimes of history. They aren’t the source of good. They are the source of evil. Why? Because any half truth spreads ignorance.

  • Half Truths Are Sources of Ignorance

    Yes I know of the seven laws of Noah. 😉 They are too primitive. They start with god (submission) rather than sovereignty ( responsibility). They don’t include truthful speech regardless of cost. They don’t prevent the great crimes of history (sophistry, false promise, baiting into hazard, fraud) Instead they are the origin of the license for the great crimes of history. They aren’t the source of good. They are the source of evil. Why? Because any half truth spreads ignorance.

  • Which One of Us Denies God’s Hand?

    Apr 3, 2020, 2:08 AM

    P’s premise is sovereignty reciprocity and testifiability that produce universal calculability in human word and deed. And that faith is by definition and necessity not testifiable. Meaning that one does not bring faith to court. if it isn’t a matter for court, then do as you will. We cannot legislate faith. We can only legislate actions. We can legislate against pseudoscience sophistry and the supernatural to advance frauds. Christianity does not ask us to legislate frauds. judaism, islam, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and human biodiversity denial do ask us to. This is because our civilization has always separated law and religion under trifunctionalism. And as such we deliver unto god and Caesar’s law separately. This competition between material and spiritual has prevented the evils of jewish and muslim religion (deceits), the stagnation of the Hindu (too much mysticism), and the despotism of the Chinese (too much authority), and the crimes of the catholic church (too much corruption). So P continues the tradition of producing law law. And MEASURING DIFFERENT RELIGIONS by their violation of the law. If a religion does not violate the laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the evolutionary law of transcendence, then it does not violate the EVIDENCE of god’s hand in his own writing – the evidence written in the universe- rather than man’s misinterpretation of it. In the test of whether man has misinterpreted god’s intent, lied about god’s intent, the laws of nature, natural law and evolutionary necessity of transcendence allow us, using the evidence of gods’ hand, to determine the errors in religion. There is no error in Jesus’ teachings. It is the scientifically correct optimum. There is plenty of violation of gods laws in the bible. And every political religion (and christianity is a political religion) is far worse than the misinterpretations in the bible that does not come from Jesus’ teachings. The true religions are nature worship and ancestor worship (heathenism), hero worship (paganism), and a political religion of which christianity appears the optimum – at least, as Jesus spoke it not the many many people who have ‘interpreted’ everything other than Jesus’ word. I am bound by the necessities of physical law, the natural law and of evolutionary law of transcendence – because those are the only faultless evidence of god’s word and deed, whether one follows Divine, deist, or naturalist understandings of god. As such if you disagree with my position you must choose the words of men who erred and lied over the words of Jesus and the hand of god written in the hand of god, the physical laws of nature, the natural law of man, and the necessity of evolutionary transcendence. So which one of us denies god? You or me?’

  • The Ten Canonical Principles in The Natural Law of Sovereigns.

    Apr 3, 2020, 2:23 PM

    1. Commensurability: Definitions by Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization
    2. Truth: Satisfaction of demand for infallibility.
    3. Testimony: Due diligence against perceivable dimensions.
    4. Reciprocity: Due diligence against incentive to retaliate.
    5. Property In Toto: Measurements of Demonstrated intersets
    6. Compatibilism: Gender and class division of perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, and cooperation.
    7. Trifunctionalism: Three possible means of coercion, produces three competing specializations of elites.
    8. Perfect Government: rule of law, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for regions, classes, genders, with one family one vote – adapting to authority under threat, markets under peace, and redistribution during windfalls.
    9. Transcendence: Evolutionary necessity ‘to become the red queen’ – we may never stop nor never rest.
    10. Western Group Evolutionary strategy is “OODA” meaning technology, maneuver and initiative. This strategy is created by excellence and beauty, heroism and duty, truth and oath, sovereignty and reciprocity, rule of law and jury, and markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war – while suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, and devoting the surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples for all that result.

    That’s the core of P. The rest is application.

  • The Ten Canonical Principles in The Natural Law of Sovereigns.

    Apr 3, 2020, 2:23 PM

    1. Commensurability: Definitions by Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization
    2. Truth: Satisfaction of demand for infallibility.
    3. Testimony: Due diligence against perceivable dimensions.
    4. Reciprocity: Due diligence against incentive to retaliate.
    5. Property In Toto: Measurements of Demonstrated intersets
    6. Compatibilism: Gender and class division of perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, and cooperation.
    7. Trifunctionalism: Three possible means of coercion, produces three competing specializations of elites.
    8. Perfect Government: rule of law, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for regions, classes, genders, with one family one vote – adapting to authority under threat, markets under peace, and redistribution during windfalls.
    9. Transcendence: Evolutionary necessity ‘to become the red queen’ – we may never stop nor never rest.
    10. Western Group Evolutionary strategy is “OODA” meaning technology, maneuver and initiative. This strategy is created by excellence and beauty, heroism and duty, truth and oath, sovereignty and reciprocity, rule of law and jury, and markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war – while suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, and devoting the surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples for all that result.

    That’s the core of P. The rest is application.

  • China’s Vision for A New World Order – the National Bureau of Asian Research (nbr)

    Apr 12, 2020, 7:17 PM by Nadège Rolland In my latest report, I dissect the strands of thought underpinning China’s vision for a new world order and study its emerging features China’s leadership is determined to alter the norms that underpin existing institutions and put in place the building blocks of a new international system. A “vision” is by definition abstract, not fully formed and subject to change. In China’s case, this vision is also buried under layers of propaganda. But if we pay close attention, some key elements are discernible. 1/ The Chinese leadership believes that the existing order is “unfair” (it should allow China to have a greater role, commensurate with its growing power) and is incapable of offering “reasonable” solutions to the global needs. 2/ Instead of considering liberal democratic values as essential conditions for achieving global peace and prosperity, the CCP sees the global promotion of “so-called universal values” as the main cause for conflict and chaos – an obvious reflection of its own survival anxieties. 3/The CCP does not have any appealing substitutes to the existing set of international norms. Even at home, it is trying to bolster its legitimacy with artifices rather than a positive, clearly defined set of beliefs for the country’s overall direction. 4/The Chinese leadership’s vision for what the world should look like is based in the first instance on a negative agenda – the refutation of liberal democracy as the path to peace and prosperity – rather than a positive view of a desired future. 5/China does not need to prove that its own system can be applied universally. Demonstrating that no system is truly universal fundamentally undermines the existing international order’s core principles and undercuts any system based on universal values. 6/Once China has eroded a truly international order, it can hope to carve out a sphere of influence including large portions of the non-Western and mostly non-democratic world where its preferred worldview, rules and norms will be endorsed, followed and respected. 7/China wants to dominate this parallel system. But the 21st Century Chinese version of hegemony does not seek to replicate the old “Rule Britannia” or “Pax Americana” precedents. Chinese elites reject any form of Western influence, even when they think about models of empire. 8/Chinese elites are trying to develop modern, softened versions of the traditional sinocentric order, usually by insisting on its benevolent nature (“humane authority,” “great harmony”…). But imperialistic undertones and intimations of domination are not easy to work around. 9/The various components of Xi’s diplomacy (community of shared future, Belt and Road, global network of partnerships) point to a vision in which China’s leadership is exercised over substantial portions of the emerging and developing world,… 10/…a space free from Western influence and largely purged of the core liberal democratic beliefs supported by the West. 11/In this hierarchical system, China would be akin to a massive, dazzling star pulling smaller planets into its orbit without necessarily exerting direct control over them. 12/Its contours would not be defined along precise geographic or ideological lines, but rather by the degree of deference and respect that those within China’s sphere are willing to offer Beijing.

  • China’s Vision for A New World Order – the National Bureau of Asian Research (nbr)

    Apr 12, 2020, 7:17 PM by Nadège Rolland In my latest report, I dissect the strands of thought underpinning China’s vision for a new world order and study its emerging features China’s leadership is determined to alter the norms that underpin existing institutions and put in place the building blocks of a new international system. A “vision” is by definition abstract, not fully formed and subject to change. In China’s case, this vision is also buried under layers of propaganda. But if we pay close attention, some key elements are discernible. 1/ The Chinese leadership believes that the existing order is “unfair” (it should allow China to have a greater role, commensurate with its growing power) and is incapable of offering “reasonable” solutions to the global needs. 2/ Instead of considering liberal democratic values as essential conditions for achieving global peace and prosperity, the CCP sees the global promotion of “so-called universal values” as the main cause for conflict and chaos – an obvious reflection of its own survival anxieties. 3/The CCP does not have any appealing substitutes to the existing set of international norms. Even at home, it is trying to bolster its legitimacy with artifices rather than a positive, clearly defined set of beliefs for the country’s overall direction. 4/The Chinese leadership’s vision for what the world should look like is based in the first instance on a negative agenda – the refutation of liberal democracy as the path to peace and prosperity – rather than a positive view of a desired future. 5/China does not need to prove that its own system can be applied universally. Demonstrating that no system is truly universal fundamentally undermines the existing international order’s core principles and undercuts any system based on universal values. 6/Once China has eroded a truly international order, it can hope to carve out a sphere of influence including large portions of the non-Western and mostly non-democratic world where its preferred worldview, rules and norms will be endorsed, followed and respected. 7/China wants to dominate this parallel system. But the 21st Century Chinese version of hegemony does not seek to replicate the old “Rule Britannia” or “Pax Americana” precedents. Chinese elites reject any form of Western influence, even when they think about models of empire. 8/Chinese elites are trying to develop modern, softened versions of the traditional sinocentric order, usually by insisting on its benevolent nature (“humane authority,” “great harmony”…). But imperialistic undertones and intimations of domination are not easy to work around. 9/The various components of Xi’s diplomacy (community of shared future, Belt and Road, global network of partnerships) point to a vision in which China’s leadership is exercised over substantial portions of the emerging and developing world,… 10/…a space free from Western influence and largely purged of the core liberal democratic beliefs supported by the West. 11/In this hierarchical system, China would be akin to a massive, dazzling star pulling smaller planets into its orbit without necessarily exerting direct control over them. 12/Its contours would not be defined along precise geographic or ideological lines, but rather by the degree of deference and respect that those within China’s sphere are willing to offer Beijing.