Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • PARADIGM SHIFTS Author: William S. Lind CD: 1 – Unipolar Power (Monopoly) vs ret

    PARADIGM SHIFTS

    Author: William S. Lind

    CD:

    1 – Unipolar Power (Monopoly) vs return to balance of powers – nationalism (Markets).

    2 – An Endless Supply of Money vs Return to ‘harder’ money (markets)

    2 – Wilsonianism (Expansionary Democracy) vs Nationalism (Markets)

    3 – Cultural Marxism (Anti-Whitism) vs Nationalism (Markets)

    4 – The End of White Acquiescence.

    By William S Lind.

    The Establishment knows how to succeed in obtaining what it cares about, power and money, within the current paradigms.

    Those paradigms include America as the only real world power, before which all other nations must bow; an endless supply of money; Wilsonianism, i.e. forcing “democracy” down all other countries’ throats; and cultural Marxism, which seeks to put women over men, blacks over whites, and gays over straights (where they conflict, cultural Marxism takes precedence over democracy).

    But those paradigms are all beginning to shift. President Trump represents, at least in part, new paradigms which leave today’s Establishment irrelevant, isolated, and powerless. In response, the Establishment howls in fear and in hatred, especially hatred of a President who represents the heartland instead of the coastal elites.

    If we look at each of the above paradigms, we can see the shifts occurring. Not only does America lack the military power, money, and moral credit to dictate to every other country, all countries now face the challenge of Fourth Generation war, war waged by entities other than states.

    This challenge renders competition between states obsolete, something President Trump seems instinctively to grasp, at least in part. He knows a post-Communism Russian-American rivalry makes no strategic sense; he correctly thinks NATO is obsolete; and he may sense that states everywhere face crises of legitimacy, although of widely varying intensity.

    The Establishment howls because one of its major components, the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex must have “peer competitors”, other states it can inflate as threats, in order to justify the trillion dollars a year we spend on national security. F-35s, Ford-class aircraft carriers, and opposed amphibious landings have little relevance to 4GW.

    Meanwhile, the money is running out. The U.S., and most of the rest of the world, is heading for a colossal debt crisis. When it hits, we may not be able to afford $100 billion a year in defense, much less a trillion.

    This points to a third paradigm shift: the end of Wilsonianism. Our “defense” budget is really an offense budget. It supports a military that is supposed to force “democratic capitalism”, which is really oligarchic rent-seeking, down the throats of every people on earth — along with cultural Marxism and its definitions of “human rights”.

    Even if the money were not about to run out, Wilsonianism would be doomed from the start. Russell Kirk wrote, “There is no surer way to make a man your enemy than telling him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good.” Even Robespierre, too late, said that missionaries with bayonets are seldom welcome.

    President Trump grasps that attempts to turn places such as Afghanistan into Switzerland are foolish nonsense. Yet at the same time, he chose a neo-con, one of the people who tried to turn Iraq into a peaceful, secular democracy by invading it and destroying the state, as his national security advisor. So he still has a ways to go to ride this paradigm shift.

    ( cd: my view is that trump sees punishment until defeat and making ‘better choices’ rather than reconstruction in our demon-cratic image as his strategy and it’s working.)

    The last shift he not only grasps but rode into the White House on: the revolt of America’s heartland against political correctness, e.i., cultural Marxism.

    The Establishment either believes in cultural Marxism (most democrats) or is too cowardly to challenge it (most Republicans).

    Heartland voters are fed up with it, its advocates, and its sacred “victims” groups, most of whom distinguish themselves by their bad behavior.

    In a political battle between the coastal elites and their clients on the one hand and the heartland on the other, the heartland will win.

    Look at the percentage of whites among people who actually vote in all the swing states. The collapse of white acquiescence in cultural Marxism, both here and in Europe, may be the biggest paradigm shift of them all.

    And so, faced with irrelevance, the Establishment howls, froths at the mouth and chews the carpet, raging at President Trump. Like a madman whose derangement is killing him, it screams meaningless words, most ending in “ism”, as it dies. I’m sure the President will give it a grand funeral.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-04 12:28:00 UTC

  • 4) Trump is an ally of the alt right simply because he is pursuing a strategy of

    4) Trump is an ally of the alt right simply because he is pursuing a strategy of nationalism and the restoration of the balance of powers instead of the single superpower of America that is too expensive for Americans to continue paying for.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:24:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024043071552610306

    Reply addressees: @Aremazu19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

    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/1024025534467121153

  • UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FREEDOM by Steve Pender The founders acc

    UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH FREEDOM

    by Steve Pender

    The founders accepted democracy only because they had set what they thought were sufficient restrictions to prevent past problems of democracy.

    Only white (the same stock as the founders), male (those who bear the cost of land ownership/defense), landowners (skin in the game, proven interest in long-term settlement, majority of taxpayers) could vote in the American “democracy”.

    Universal suffrage is provably incompatible with long-term freedom since varying levels of skin in the game create voting arbitrage opportunities for the free-riding side (vote for something that benefits you, at the expense of others who pay higher cost).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 15:31:00 UTC

  • Do Natural Rights Exist? No. but We Can Create Them

    1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

  • Do Natural Rights Exist? No. but We Can Create Them

    1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest. 2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty). 3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity. 4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer). 5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREAT

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM

    1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest.

    2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty).

    3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity.

    4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer).

    5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 14:50:32 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a profile. THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING TH

    Curt Doolittle shared a profile.

    THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING THE WRITINGS OF JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ

    As far as i know this problem – these problems – arose over two centuries as the federal government – all post-napoleonic governments – increasingly took on the role of “insurer of last resort”.

    In other words, the presumption of the utility risk mitigation provided by fiat money, federal credit, and income taxes was valued over the sovereignty both individual, local and federal of our assets. And the empirical evidence is that this strategy was not only competitively necessary, but resulted in vast increases in our standards of living.

    I am just working through Anna’s writings now and I’ve noticed a few things that I want to explore:

    CONSTRUCTIVIST
    I am having a bit of trouble decomposing the logical (legal) dependencies of Anna’s arguments, but I think they are to natural law (individual sovereignty).

    Sovereignty, which requires reciprocity, which requires truth(testimony), which is itself a duty(cost), and which together leave us no other means of cooperating other than markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, and the production of commons, adjudicated by the common law of tort (property).

    This (markets in everything) is the secret to the west’s success, because both in the ancient and modern world, this system of self government adapts to changes (socks, windfalls) faster than all other known (or possible) systems of government. It makes the optimum use of human incentives. But we must understand it is an *economic* system of government: it forces continuous innovation which constantly reduces prices and increases choices.

    ECONOMIC
    1 – After the civil war, and up through the creation of the federal reserve we converted from a government concerned with sovereignty of property of individuals and states under rule of law (the gold standard system of government) justified by either natural law or common traditional law, to government concerned with the economic condition of individuals and states under discretionary rule (legislative law). Making this change was not without voluminous debate and significant conflict.

    2 – My opinion is that the court lacked sufficient economic knowledge (and under FDR sufficient sovereignty) to reform the law (demand legislation) so that rule of law was preserved AND insurer of last resort functions of the federal or state governments could be created. One of the failings of our common law system is that judges do not specialize outside of family, civil, and criminal as they do in the continental (napoleonic) system. (there are good reasons for and agains). But the court has a myopic view of history as a legal without grasping that our legal systems have poorly adopted to a world consisting almost entirely out of interests in property (distributed possession), rather than possession of property (monopoly possession). I have come to see this as the fundamental problem of adapting our ancient legal systems to the information era (post 1911).

    3 – Fiat currency is functionally nothing more than shares in the federal treasury, which in turn is merely an asset of the federal corporation, which in turn is merely a construct of the federal constitution. The problem is that (as Anna illustrates), we have opened up a host of opportunities for predation upon our individual sovereignty, and our personal property, and even our community property, thereby transforming all assets to the state, and only making use of them by license. In effect we have restored feudalism (serfdom) – just serfdom that is comfortable. And the frightening fact is that comfortable serfdom is in demand, and contrary to historical propaganda was in demand in the past also – as was voluntary slavery. Many people are happy to enter into contemporary serfdom and slavery if they have some protection of law. Yet our system no longer distinguishes between the sovereign, the serf, and the slave – thereby ignoring the differences in risk we wish (or can) bear, because of our abilities, our skills, our assets, our families, and our associations. We are taxed by income but not by risk. We are governed by serfdom not by sovereignty. And this is because the law has not kept pace with the economic structure of polities. And to a large degree I blame the Judicial community for failing to grasp the relationship between the demands upon law, and the economic “technology” that we live under.

    CLOSING
    The mistake I see in Anna’s writings is the same mistake I see in ‘gold bugs’ or other people that want to return to hard money. Hard money is a terrible limitation upon the people for no reason – resulting in hard and fast shocks that cannot be insured against (the jury is in on cyclicality of corrections but it is hard to take the position of allowing shorter devastating depressions rather than longer softer recessions) That said, we no longer make use of money as other than debt instruments (all money is merely a token without any backing other than fiat demand for it).

    The question isn’t return to gold standard, or return to fully private property (which merely weakens us from producing the higher returns of the commons). The question is how to restore sovereignty and markets in everything by rule of law given that we have a new monetary technology available to us that is no longer physical – how can we restore the state to its only necessarily useful function: as the insurer of last resort both economic(positive) and judicial (negative).

    And we must recognize that the enlightenment experiment with equality has been a failure and that the upper classes will always seek rents, the financial classes (distributors of liquidity) are now entirely unnecessary (really), and are by their very existence parasitic, and the underclasses, grown more numerous while the middle shrinks – have only serfdom as their desired order.

    There are only two social sciences: the law of tort (property), and its facility and measurement economics. The problem is macro economics seeks to circumvent the law, and the law is ignorant of macro economics.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 11:50:58 UTC

  • DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM 1 – There exists a natural l

    DO NATURAL RIGHTS EXIST? NO. BUT WE CAN CREATE THEM

    1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest.

    2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty).

    3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity.

    4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer).

    5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:50:00 UTC

  • Mosca on The Standing Army

    by Michael Churchill Mosca on of the standing army: In Gaetano Mosca’s political philosophy, there are five groups that always want to rule: priests, the rich, politicians, workers and the army. Ideally, these groups constitute a balance of social forces. An interesting question emerges: Since the army has the guns — and knows how to use them — why doesn’t the army ALWAYS rule? Why do advanced civilizations have civilian rule? Mosca has an insightful take on this, arguing that in every society there are men who are natural adventurers, who enjoy risk and violence. The standing army came about organically, as an institution to “channel” these violent impulses and contain them within a hierarchy. For this reason, it is important that armies are ruled by an elite capable of insuring that the violence is properly channeled. All modern armies today feature a strict hierarchy of rank that roughly mirrors levels of social sophistication. Majors and generals are generally smoother and better educated than privates and corporals. But this still leaves us with the question, “Why don’t those majors and generals take over?” Mosca’s answer is that since the top brass are drawn from the broader society – mirroring it, identifying with it, belonging to it – they will feel far more compelled to support it than overthrow it. Moreover, within the army’s elite there will be varying political views similar to that seen in civilian society. Mosca argues that the one thing you never want to do is democratize the army, because then there will be no systemic check on the violent impulses of the enlisted men. Seems like good advice. So then how do we account for military coups, like those in Venezuela in the 90s, and Brazil, Argentina and Chile in the 70s and 80s? What went wrong? Mosca would likely say two things happened: A) the army, being naturally reactionary, did not identify AT ALL with the ruling class in power once it became overtly socialist (Allende in Chile), so that natural brake on military ambition was removed. B) Civilian leadership completely failed, completely broke down, leaving society in chaos. Thus, as the army leadership mirrors the broad society, they sympathized with it and viewed a coup d’etat as their rightful duty. The opposite question is posed by the responses of the military during the rise to power of fascist forces in Germany and Italy during the 20s and 30s. Why did the armies of those countries not stop it? Here again, the leaders of armies identify with the broad swathe of the populace and derive their sense of honor from the role they play in upholding civil institutions. They’re not going to step in and thwart a broadly popular movement (especially because, as noted above, army leaders themselves will have widely differing views on political matters of the day).

  • Mosca on The Standing Army

    by Michael Churchill Mosca on of the standing army: In Gaetano Mosca’s political philosophy, there are five groups that always want to rule: priests, the rich, politicians, workers and the army. Ideally, these groups constitute a balance of social forces. An interesting question emerges: Since the army has the guns — and knows how to use them — why doesn’t the army ALWAYS rule? Why do advanced civilizations have civilian rule? Mosca has an insightful take on this, arguing that in every society there are men who are natural adventurers, who enjoy risk and violence. The standing army came about organically, as an institution to “channel” these violent impulses and contain them within a hierarchy. For this reason, it is important that armies are ruled by an elite capable of insuring that the violence is properly channeled. All modern armies today feature a strict hierarchy of rank that roughly mirrors levels of social sophistication. Majors and generals are generally smoother and better educated than privates and corporals. But this still leaves us with the question, “Why don’t those majors and generals take over?” Mosca’s answer is that since the top brass are drawn from the broader society – mirroring it, identifying with it, belonging to it – they will feel far more compelled to support it than overthrow it. Moreover, within the army’s elite there will be varying political views similar to that seen in civilian society. Mosca argues that the one thing you never want to do is democratize the army, because then there will be no systemic check on the violent impulses of the enlisted men. Seems like good advice. So then how do we account for military coups, like those in Venezuela in the 90s, and Brazil, Argentina and Chile in the 70s and 80s? What went wrong? Mosca would likely say two things happened: A) the army, being naturally reactionary, did not identify AT ALL with the ruling class in power once it became overtly socialist (Allende in Chile), so that natural brake on military ambition was removed. B) Civilian leadership completely failed, completely broke down, leaving society in chaos. Thus, as the army leadership mirrors the broad society, they sympathized with it and viewed a coup d’etat as their rightful duty. The opposite question is posed by the responses of the military during the rise to power of fascist forces in Germany and Italy during the 20s and 30s. Why did the armies of those countries not stop it? Here again, the leaders of armies identify with the broad swathe of the populace and derive their sense of honor from the role they play in upholding civil institutions. They’re not going to step in and thwart a broadly popular movement (especially because, as noted above, army leaders themselves will have widely differing views on political matters of the day).