Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • It’s morally wrong to engage in genocide by immigration and you are a criminal

    It’s morally wrong to engage in genocide by immigration and you are a criminal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 18:11:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055884533105639425

    Reply addressees: @1963Kelli @washingtonpost

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055883985073582081

    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/1055883985073582081

  • I don’t deal in SHOULD. I deal in Rational Choice, and actions. Men decide. Men

    I don’t deal in SHOULD. I deal in Rational Choice, and actions. Men decide. Men will always decide. Because in the end, it is a minority of men willing and able to overturn the status quo that determines all. Women ride on men’s permission. That is why you are privileged: Men.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 17:51:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055879646007517185

    Reply addressees: @1963Kelli @washingtonpost

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055864113585283072

    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/1055864113585283072

  • Q: GREG: – What goal did you want to accomplish with this book? – Do you think y

    Q: GREG:

    – What goal did you want to accomplish with this book?

    – Do you think you accomplished it?

    — I see the book as providing motivation, arguments and strategy for gradually winning the discourse. Is that right?

    — What makes you think the idea of WN has reach? Especially with urbanites in the immigrant cities?

    — Can you explain bourgeoise morality( consumerism ) vs the civil society, vs the religious/spiritual models? (I think you missed the mark on that one).

    –You counsel against revisiting old regimes. Can you explain why that is? (I can explain why people are seeking a power narrative.)

    — Rhetorical Ammunition in support of which strategy?

    DIFFERENCES

    Greg: Philosophy, Education, Appeal to rational choice.

    Curt: Economics, Incentives, Law, License for Violence

    Greg: appeal to morality and reason.

    Curt: threat if reciprocity not met, licensing violence.

    Greg: we must via-positiva control culture and values. Requires permanent ideological indoctrination with all the vulnerabilities that have been seen in the 19th and 20thc.

    Curt: we must criminalize and punish that which is criminal, unethical, and immoral in display word and deed. Meaning: minority rule policed by individual self interest.

    Greg: Philosophy, Education, Religion: Via-positiva control

    Curt: Economics, Law, Markets: via negativa limits

    Greg: White Nationalism as ‘good and right’ and whites should prefer this (despite evidence they prefer doing nothing.)

    Curt: Nationalism instead of globalism, because it is the only means of forcing each of us to pay our own costs of domestication, and as such the only incentive not to exterminate, conquer and prey upon, or keep weak and powerless.

    Greg: reasons for whites to agree…

    Curt: voluntary disassociation and devolution of normative regulation to the states will create all the necessary incentives for coastals centrals, and souths to ‘go their own ways’. Collapse will occur by natural pressures of self interest.

    Greg: mobilize (something) (I don’t understand strategy)

    Curt: produce a constitution of rules, processes, and polities that are so desirable that we generate demand for change. Then threaten sufficient uprising by a tiny minority that the population and the military replace the government and enforce it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 15:35:00 UTC

  • “No one can say for sure when things will shift hard enough, but if you listen c

    —“No one can say for sure when things will shift hard enough, but if you listen close you can hear the cracks forming.

    You will know the shift is occurring when people stop talking about what they are willing to die to protect and start talking about what they are willing to do to protect.

    For the herd that voice comes from a group who is panicked and feels backed into a corner. For the herd that is the language of fear when they are left with no choice but to recognize the capacity of tolerance to carry the load is exceeded. Evidence the herd is reaching that point is easy to find.

    For the pack that voice comes from a group who is poised to be done carrying costs not their own. For the pack that is the language of forbearance being withdrawn.”—Luke Weinhagen

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 12:30:00 UTC

  • “All of the fighting age men in the US have spent the last 20 years watching a t

    —“All of the fighting age men in the US have spent the last 20 years watching a third world insurgent force using almost entirely small arms go toe-to-toe with the worlds greatest military. Only difference over here is we have more trees.”— Luke Weinhagen

    (priceless)

    Revolution Comes.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 11:11:00 UTC

  • WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ DO YOU MEAN? Traditional (Tory/Land power/Authority ), vs Whi

    WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ DO YOU MEAN?

    Traditional (Tory/Land power/Authority ), vs Whig (Liberal/Middle Class/Economic power), vs Burke (Reactionary: to the french revolution) When you say ‘tradition’ whose? The french and church (authoritarian submission) or the anglo saxon and Law (contractualism?) The vikings (and normans) were responsible for the preservation of rights of englishmen (contractualism).

    WHICH TRADITION? French, Catholic, Authoritarian that ended in the french revolution and the murder of the aristocracy, or the Anglo Saxon, Protestant, Contractualism that we succeeded with until invaded by socialists (jews and catholics) and women’s entry into the work and voting pools.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 08:22:00 UTC

  • And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social

    And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social order that you could put into operational terms, then you would. You don’t. Because if you did, the fraud and theft would be exposed for what it is: sophism for the purpose of institutional theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:37:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604316906680320

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

  • Thanks. Just to counter any misinterpretation of my side: (a) I am not a fan of

    Thanks. Just to counter any misinterpretation of my side: (a) I am not a fan of crucifying leaders. (b) the first generation of leaders (like any technology) are always burned, (c) The MARKET FOR LEADERSHIP will produce what’s needed. Heroes try, and many die, so others may not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:47:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055576702829649920

    Reply addressees: @ChrisNahr @Caine60724874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055552025843417088

    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/1055552025843417088

  • Of course it is. Which was Mao’s objective: to prevent separation of the north a

    Of course it is. Which was Mao’s objective: to prevent separation of the north and south and the devolution of the chinese empire into states. That doesn’t explain why china is circumventing Bretton Woods, and exerting power over shipping lanes when the USA pays for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 19:07:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055536264995393536

    Reply addressees: @catoletters @amconmag

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055535572599504896

    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/1055535572599504896

  • These are not serious attacks and never had any chance of success, nor were the

    These are not serious attacks and never had any chance of success, nor were the bombs constructed to do more than ceremonial damage. They are a ‘message’ for the purpose of gaining publicity. A threat in advance of future promise.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 19:03:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055535419633397760

    Reply addressees: @catoletters

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055534949690826752

    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/1055534949690826752