Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Let me read it. 🙂

    Let me read it. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 14:43:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724609838685261826

    Reply addressees: @adissidentright

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724608165074092032

    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/724608165074092032

  • (humor) Zombie Apocalypse, where people run around and take all the stuff no one

    (humor)

    Zombie Apocalypse, where people run around and take all the stuff no one else can defend, is the white version of urban rioting.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 12:51:00 UTC

  • And if not wishful thiking, little more than a middle class argument over the pr

    And if not wishful thiking, little more than a middle class argument over the preferred division of spoils. @JonHaidt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 12:40:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724578848696864768

  • Because it means the academy has been selling indulgences for the better part of

    Because it means the academy has been selling indulgences for the better part of a century now. The MF provided the tipping point. @JonHaidt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 12:33:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724577147696910336

  • Because it means the academy has been selling indulgences for the better part of

    Because it means the academy has been selling indulgences for the better part of a century now. The MF provided the tipping point. @JonHaidt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:33:00 UTC

  • NEW VIRAL VIDEO IDEA Take three men. Lamp Cord. Smartphone. Catch a “Progressive

    NEW VIRAL VIDEO IDEA

    Take three men. Lamp Cord. Smartphone.

    Catch a “Progressive” (meaning ‘liar, cheater, thief’).

    One man videos, one holds cord around neck, third interviews.

    Ask for truthful answers to politically incorrect questions.

    If they answer truthfully, ask them why they usually lie.

    If they answer truthfully congratulate them.

    Stomach Punch a few times, so cannot run, throw to ground, leave.

    Beat them severely if they answer falsely.

    Beat them more severely if they answer falsely again.

    Beat them senseless if they answer falsely a third time.

    Edit and sanitize video.

    Share with friends and family.

    Repeat endlessly.

    I wonder if this idea will catch on? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 07:53:00 UTC

  • EVOLA’S CORRECT CRITICISM OF DISRAELI LOOK, WE ROSE BECAUSE WE (ARISTOCRACY) RUL

    http://age-of-treason.com/2015/03/03/julius-evola-the-british-empire-was-a-creature-of-judaism/REGARDING EVOLA’S CORRECT CRITICISM OF DISRAELI

    http://age-of-treason.com/2015/03/03/julius-evola-the-british-empire-was-a-creature-of-judaism/

    LOOK, WE ROSE BECAUSE WE (ARISTOCRACY) RULED MORALLY.

    We must profit from moral rule, since it is a SCARCE GOOD. However, yes, Disraeli converted UK from a MORAL empire to a COMMERCIAL empire, just as all the anglo countries have done.

    THIS IS WHY WE DIE. WE WILL NOT RULE AND PROFIT FROM IT.

    We have the one collective skill that no other people has: trustworthness.

    We can profit from that skill.

    ALL LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT IS WRONG.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 07:09:00 UTC

  • Why Not Prosecute Those Who Profit from Genocide

    THE MIDDLE CLASS NEGOTIATES. ARISTOCRACY PROSECUTES. WOMEN, PRIESTS, AND STATE APOLOGIZE. [I] prosecute falsehoods. I’m agnostic in prosecuting falsehoods. I prosecute libertarian and conservative falsehoods as hard or harder than I prosecute progressive falsehoods. Why? Because libertarian and conservative literature, philosophy, and rhetoric has been a demonstrated failure in competition against socialist, feminist, and postmodern matriarchal literature, philosophy, and arguments. Why? Because women vote more consistently against THE GREAT GENDER COMPROMISES, of the west, and because women are the dominant consumers, and because women are the most pliable customers of the profiteers in the academy media, and state. No matriarchal civilizations survive. Why? It’s suicidal. We give women and those who profit from their impulses uncommon liberty, yet not adequate restraints. We prosecute profiting from the sale of all other forms of harm. Why don’t we prosecute those who profit from this kind of harm: genocide.

  • Why Not Prosecute Those Who Profit from Genocide

    THE MIDDLE CLASS NEGOTIATES. ARISTOCRACY PROSECUTES. WOMEN, PRIESTS, AND STATE APOLOGIZE. [I] prosecute falsehoods. I’m agnostic in prosecuting falsehoods. I prosecute libertarian and conservative falsehoods as hard or harder than I prosecute progressive falsehoods. Why? Because libertarian and conservative literature, philosophy, and rhetoric has been a demonstrated failure in competition against socialist, feminist, and postmodern matriarchal literature, philosophy, and arguments. Why? Because women vote more consistently against THE GREAT GENDER COMPROMISES, of the west, and because women are the dominant consumers, and because women are the most pliable customers of the profiteers in the academy media, and state. No matriarchal civilizations survive. Why? It’s suicidal. We give women and those who profit from their impulses uncommon liberty, yet not adequate restraints. We prosecute profiting from the sale of all other forms of harm. Why don’t we prosecute those who profit from this kind of harm: genocide.

  • Debating Molyneux isn’t Useful for Either of Us. Discussion Is.

    —“Honestly though, there needs to be a debate between Curt and Stefan.”— [L]ook I love Stefan Molyneux. I don’t want to debate him. I think the two of us together to could radically transform the libertarian and conservative movements for the better. I think we could have a panel discussion with the two of us, where we both answered questions from libertarians. I think what you’d find is that I answer some things differently. But the overlap is enormous. Stefan is an exceptional advocate and educator. I’m a pretty hard core philosopher. I wish I could communicate as well as Stefan. I can’t. I never will. Heck, there are already guys that are better at communicating my ideas than I am. It’s just like debating Hoppe. The argument would be terribly technical but in the end it’s matter of profound agreement (at least on my end). I would like to have a panel discussion maybe to show people how we would *say the same thing* differently. I have a luxury these guys dont. I didn’t start out with a libertarian cause. I started out trying to solve the problem of communicating the western group evolutionary strategy in ratio-scientific terms. And I’ve been working with software a long time to support myself so to speak. Software is an existentially demanding and very precise language. So habituating strict construction while avoiding rationalism and justificationism made it easier for me to fix Hoppe’s kantian arguments, and not fall into the justificationary problem Stefan Molyneux has faced. I had to attack libertarianism for three reasons: 1) I had to test my theories against criticism – I”m a scientist. There is just no other way than to get into a street fight and win without all the Queensbury rules that support the entrenched paradigm. 2) I had to end the immorality of Rothbardianism as a distraction for libertarians, NRx, and conservatives. Otherwise I couldn’t unify conservatives and libertarians again behind a single movement. I had to deprive libertines of moral ground. 3) (Honestly) I knew it would draw fire and attention and it was good marketing. I don’t think it takes any work to attack Conservatism. Movement conservatism so evidently failed, that no one even argues using it.