Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • (A) the OBJECTIVE of the Right is to eliminate the international influence of th

    (A) the OBJECTIVE of the Right is to eliminate the international influence of the united states, so that we return to a domestic government rather than a (failed) ideological empire.

    (B) Assumes that it is not precisely americas intention to force europe to take responsibility for the defense of its territory(russia), trade routes (the seas), resource dependence (oil, gas, coal, and inputs to production), and financial system (the international information, financial, and legal system).

    (B) Assumes there is any VALUE to America in having other countries ‘like’ us rather than either respect or fear us. That is contrary to the evidence. All of it.

    (C) Assumes it is POSSIBLE for the USA to continue its global policeman and ideological advocate, when in fact, the postwar era has been proven dead by i) islamism, ii) serial failures of democracy around the world, and its replacement with state corporatism, iii) our serial failures at postwar policing, iiii) the evidence that we have been on the wrong side in the world wars, in the Arab Israeli conflict, and in the restraint of china from expansion of trade routes.

    Americans were children with a lot of postwar inheritance from the ‘adults’ in europe. While there were never any adults in the USA, unfortunately, there are no adults in europe any longer: we call them monarchies. And all of those monarchs are just waiting for the rest of the 20th century’s failed experiments to come to their natural conclusion.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-27 21:49:00 UTC

  • “People avoid responsibility while demanding liberty, failing to see that respon

    —“People avoid responsibility while demanding liberty, failing to see that responsibility naturally leads to liberty, total responsibility leads to sovereignty.”— Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-27 12:32:00 UTC

  • UM. NO. I THINK LIKE A KING OR A GENERAL AND YOU LIKE A SOLDIER, OR CITIZEN, THA

    UM. NO. I THINK LIKE A KING OR A GENERAL AND YOU LIKE A SOLDIER, OR CITIZEN, THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE.

    Many criticisms for my lack of ‘spirituality’ one way or another:

    —“your material values”—, or —“your bourgeoise values”—

    Um. My interest in material values lies in the fact that one must have wealth to afford to invent the technology, with which to arm your people, so that you may defeat enemies both biological, animal, human, conceptual, and the universe itself.

    I don’t like the church because I know it is (((a church))) not a sacred grove. I and I know it relies on conflationary (((abrahamic))) fictionalism (lies), rather than

    The greeks innovated – particularly with aristotle, zeno, and epicurus, but the athenians (unlike the spartans) were weak. It was the spartans and the Romans that invented modernity, and the greeks ‘moved eastward’ more closely to the persians, semites, and anatolians. What the Spartans and the Athenians held separately the romans combined and eliminated the weaknesses: spartan ‘pragmatism’ and athenian navy and commerce, and aristotelian/stoic(zeno) law. But they abandoned sparta’s economics, abandoned greek idealism, and abandoned stoic ‘individualism’. We are the remains of greek ‘technology’ but roman civilization, which more generally reflects germanic civilization. and I have only come recently to understand how much influence the vikings had. We tend to remember what is written, not what changed state. The vikings ‘resurrected’ europe from defeat by byzantium by the church by giving rise to the Hansa and the north sea trade route and it’s overlands to byzantium and venice.

    The romans had it right. More right than the chinese. More right than anyone else ever: (a) aristocracy performed rituals (submission) as a civic obligation, so that people could abandon their hierarchies, for which they obtained status so that others wished to do so as well. (b) the calendar was built to serve the seasons and festivals (celebration) so that the people could abandon their ‘hierarchies’. (c) the polytheistic temple system so that there were ‘gods and demigods and heroes’ for all men of all stations in that hierarchical division of labor. And so that all men could retain gods for their profession, their tribe and their nations, giving only fealty to the polity (empire) through its anthropomorphic representative in the emperor.

    They just overextended. We didn’t over extend in the prewar era of colonialism as so much as commit fratricide in our great civil war by the alliance of britain and france and russia against germany. Britain and france with their overseas colonies, russia with her asian colonies, and germany seeking to take the eastern european and some african colonies. This was the mistake: not forcing russia south and assisting germany in expanding east as she had been (and was good for the people).

    As far as I can tell, the difference between roman civilization and chinese civilization, is that china’s coastal farming was productive enough and concentrated enough, that they could unite and wall off their empire from the steppe, desert, and jungle peoples. When china over extended she stopped. When she tried to expand (prior to the european expansion) she withdrew to defend her walls from the Mongols. And she discovered enough about the world that she found nothing valuable in it enough to risk her home and her people and her civilization. The chinese are not heroic, risk-embracing and ambitious as much as defensively proud and ambitious.

    So I think as a general, not as a soldier or citizen, and this is why you see my materialism: generals worry about technology, strategy, supply lines, and training and equipping men. The truth is that men in battle are marginally indifferent in war. It is the wealth that purchases the equipment, training, supply lines, and the wealth that makes continuous research and development of technology possible that makes the difference in war.

    A soldier should defend his people with zeal perhaps – but pursue war to defend his life and kin, and for the spoils and booty that advance him as ordinary commerce cannot.

    The peace of westphalia has ended. War is a for profit industry.

    I understand the common man.

    ***But one panders to the common man. One speaks truth to power. And, one does not pander to himself if he wishes to be powerful. And saving and advancing ones people requires power.***

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 07:08:00 UTC

  • Leave men no psychological safety but sovereignty, agency, and mindfulness

    Leave men no psychological safety but sovereignty, agency, and mindfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:51:00 UTC

  • ON CONVERSION FROM OPTIMISTIC LIBERTARIANISM TO PESSIMISTIC SOVEREIGNTY (answer

    ON CONVERSION FROM OPTIMISTIC LIBERTARIANISM TO PESSIMISTIC SOVEREIGNTY

    (answer two for dagon)

    The Anglo classical liberalism of the enlightenment was profoundly optimistic about both British future, their responsibility, and the nature of man. All the enlightenment thinkers were optimistic – other than the germans. They were cautious. They handled their caution by secularizing religion and retaining the conflation of christianity, where the anglo world had deflated (separated) religion(family and polity) and law(commerce and science) into their usual markets.

    But as the world wars hit us, we lost our convictions. The marxists, bolsheviks, and socialists were rallying our people against us with the promise of achievable wealth and equality, and inverting the social order in ways that the Church attempted but never could have imagined with promise of life after death, and at least the protection from the aristocracy by the church – and where the aristocracy would have exterminated more aggressively than Henry the 8th the monasteries, and thereby freed up vast capital held frozen by the backwardness of the church. (And where we will shortly have to exterminate the church-of-state we call secular anti-aristocratic-family socialism.)

    I am, by nature, a libertarian. I hate conflict. I like cooperation. I like people to be happy. I am overly generous by nature – which I should add, has not been good for me. My great joys have been creating successful companies and watching people prosper in them.

    But as I have learned through experience at all levels of society from my personal, to professional, to entrepreneurial, to financial, to economic, and to political – and now philosophical, I have come to understand a few very key issues.

    1) Our genes drive us so all political persuasion/discourse is meaningless.

    2) No one can be converted away from their genetic strategy. Many men can be because we form a hierarchy that is interdependent and so middle and lower men require middle and upper men to form an ‘army’. Women CAN be marginally converted to meritocracy, if all required to be married to bear children or vote. But otherwise vote anti-meritocratically (equalitarian) and in effect ‘marry the state’ thereby destroying the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies that we call the family: the smallest possible tribe in which men and women are both alphas.

    3) Majoritarian democracy forces the policy of persuasion which is meaningless, and therefore forces all of us to lie cheat in public policy rather than to use the houses of government as a means for exchange between peoples with very different interests.

    4) Aristocracy(meritocracy) is incompatible with democracy since there are always fewer competent than incompetent (Pareto rule). The end result of Democracy is authoritarian communism. As such the minority strategy of opposing the aristocracy via enfranchisement with the larger middle class was used by the larger lower classes against the middle and upper. And the end result is the destruction of western civilization by the combination of abrahamic religion and democratic equality.

    5) The Abrahamic program from its origin by the jews (resistance to the aristocracy), the christians (undermining the aristocracy), and the muslims (openly conquering the aristocracy) , to the marxists (openly revolting against the aristocracy by promise of more returns) to the postmoderns (openly revolting against the aristocracy by poisoning the informational commons and the basis for meritocracy:merit not only of self but of family) – this program has been intentionally composed in both the ancient (Constantine thru Justinian) and in the modern (marx thru Derrida) as a method of destroying the aristocracy.

    6) The destruction of the aristocracy in Greece, Persia, the Levant, North Africa, and India was complete, leaving only Europe and east Asia standing. The attempt by the marxists and postmoderns has succeeded in Germany, France, and Russia. It has succeeded in Canada and Australia. But because of our dependence on the martial class in America and Britain, it has had a greater difficulty here. So the problem is that (a) the prosecutions by the romans and the nazis was not severe and complete enough to save western civlization. What has been interesting is Putin’s prosecution of them, which is why (had he not flinched in Ukraine) he was and is setting the example for the west. Whereas china has no qualms at all about suppression. The fundamental problem most of the world faces, is that other than china we are not suppressing islam as we need to: totally. Which is why I want to suppress all abrahamism totally by suppressing all false speech in public.

    So as I have learned that discourse is fruitless I have ended my interest in voluntaryism in favor of natural law and markets in everything, which solve the problem of differences in interests by the competition between total positive market and total negative law.

    And as I have learned how the abrahamists have used the art of suggestion using overloading, conflation and fictionalism, against eugenic meritocracy, truth, and aristocracy, I have changed my focus on private property to the entire suite of capital (property in toto), and changed my bias toward unregulated speech, to demand for warranty of due diligence against false and immoral speech.

    This results in basically ‘Fascism of Markets including Truth and Morality in Actions, Display, and Speech – thereby making other than meritocracy impossible to survive.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:33:00 UTC

  • REVIEW OF CATO I work full time on the cause of creating a condition of liberty,

    REVIEW OF CATO

    I work full time on the cause of creating a condition of liberty, through an existential condition of sovereignty. And while I agree that CATO tries to influence policy, I never interact with CATO. I never use research from CATO. And I think CATO’s tepid attempts at educating (as does LvMI) has been one of serial failure.

    My position on CATO is that it was formed during the ‘hopeful’ generation. And that we have now transitioned into the ‘hopeless’ generation. And we have moved rapidly into ‘hopeless’ – a cold civil war. And with the next correction or election cycle, we may easily and quickly move into a hot civil war.

    So my opinion is that CATO, its members, participants, and donors are as out of touch with the current state of the polity and the severity of the worldwide shift in demographics, economics, real power, and political trends.

    And that they are throwing money in a hole in the political water so to speak.

    Why? There is no way to obtain liberty except through sovereignty in fact, by the use of a militia as the majority component of the military, the limit of enfranchisement to demonstrated contribution to family, industry, and commons, and a constitution of the natural law of reciprocity, strictly constructed, limited to stated original intent, and textually interpreted, with judicial veto prior to asset, and return-to-legislature for those cases impossible to resolve without juridical discretion.

    LvMI starts with the presumption of an impossible condition of anarchy with minimum commons that requires a major state to protect it. Cato starts with the presumption of the possibility of successful classical liberalism despite its demonstrated failure immediately upon the Louisiana Purchase. The Heritage Foundation starts with the presumption of the possibility of reasonable persuasion of the unemployable, marginally employable, single mother, and under classes. But the science is very simple: People vote their evolutionary necessities and meritocracy is only in the interest of those capable of fruitful life in the current international condition.

    In that circumstance, the rule of law of reciprocity is adequate defense of the dependent class, but they may not be given offense against the productive classes through enfranchisement. It is not even clear that representative government is even viable beyond the regional government.

    The intellectual work to be done is in researching the means by which all discretion is removed from the federal government and devolved to the states or regions, and where the only services of the federal government are those of insurer of last resort: the military, the treasury, the insurance against hardship and catastrophe, and a judiciary limited to conflicts of trade – thereby removing powers of legislation of norms from the central government.

    If you are not working on fixing the problem of the failures of the american experiment you are simply wasting time, money, effort, and the remaining capital of western civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 18:22:00 UTC

  • There is no ‘must’ or ‘may’ for the Sovereign man. Only ‘can’ and ‘choice’

    There is no ‘must’ or ‘may’ for the Sovereign man. Only ‘can’ and ‘choice’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 12:02:00 UTC

  • The only Sovereign’s answer to ridicule, shaming, rallying, gossiping, fictional

    The only Sovereign’s answer to ridicule, shaming, rallying, gossiping, fictionalism and deceit, is violence: the duel.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 20:17:00 UTC

  • RT @ramzpaul: The days of demanding security for your ethnic state, while crying

    RT @ramzpaul: The days of demanding security for your ethnic state, while crying “racist” to others who want the same for their people are…

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 15:30:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887333723829620736

  • MARTIAL SOVEREIGNTY VS BURGHER LIBERTY Basic law of Sovereignty vs Liberty. You

    MARTIAL SOVEREIGNTY VS BURGHER LIBERTY

    Basic law of Sovereignty vs Liberty.

    You exercise your will, you don’t ask permission.

    You attack and cause your opponent to defend, you don’t request that he fence you.

    You question why your opponent is fit to live, rather than assume he has any value.

    You seek reason not to kill or enslave, not whether he wishes to cooperate or not.

    Why? Because the only answer to these questions is that PERFECT cooperation (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange) is the only condition more beneficial than that predation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 13:58:00 UTC