Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Shame on you. Solve the problem.What are you going to do about endemic black imp

    Shame on you. Solve the problem.What are you going to do about endemic black impulsivity, lying, violence, criminality, and resistance to arrest, and violence against officers so that police do not have to use life endangering force, or lethal force, to bring people into custody?

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-03 22:15:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1268305450799435778

    Reply addressees: @Mz2Much411 @diamondisnt @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1268305089720090624

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Mz2Much411 @diamondisnt @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump (You’re not your). Truth is rude or we wouldn’t require it. The most important foundation of Western Civilization is Truth Before Face, Regardless of Cost to Self Image, Status, Or Hierarchy.

    I’m just doing my civic duty of spreading the truth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1268305089720090624

  • There is plenty of reason to expect that habitually violent and criminal people

    There is plenty of reason to expect that habitually violent and criminal people who resist the police who know they’re extremely violent and criminal people, would produce police officers who in self defense must use maximum force to main maximum control for their own safety.

    Reply addressees: @Mz2Much411 @diamondisnt @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

  • There is plenty of reason to expect that habitually violent and criminal people

    There is plenty of reason to expect that habitually violent and criminal people who resist the police who know they’re extremely violent and criminal people, would produce police officers who in self defense must use maximum force to main maximum control for their own safety.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-03 21:56:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1268300545522987009

    Reply addressees: @Mz2Much411 @diamondisnt @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1268296307615162376

  • Some Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”

    SOME SAY “THE FACT THAT THE RIGHT HASN’T ALREADY STARTED A PHYSICAL FIGHT MEANS THEY ARE TOO APATHETIC TO EVER FIGHT” (FALSE – CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE THE RISK/REWARD EQUATION) The grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged rightwingers can bring America to its knees essily.

  • Some Say “the Fact that The Right Hasn’t Already Started a Physical Fight Means They Are Too Apathetic to Ever Fight”

    SOME SAY “THE FACT THAT THE RIGHT HASN’T ALREADY STARTED A PHYSICAL FIGHT MEANS THEY ARE TOO APATHETIC TO EVER FIGHT” (FALSE – CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE THE RISK/REWARD EQUATION) The grassroots Right (individuals, families) has had somewhere to run. To the suburbs, to a red state. And hope of “maybe we can win the next election”. It makes no sense to be a martyr that accomplishes nothing when those options are available as they have been. But when there is nowhere else to run and no hope of winning elections, the risk/reward calculation changes dramatically. Faced with eternal Leftist rule in America and nowhere to run, and knowing the inevitable outcome if they don’t fight, a critical mass of the grassroots Right will fight/secede/separate. And it doesn’t take huge numbers or require normies or normiecons to act. A small percentage of the already-enraged rightwingers can bring America to its knees essily.

  • Is the State Moral?

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local … … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption … … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by … … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts … … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through … … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress … … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity … … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, … … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it. I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste. That’s why no one has or does. I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior … … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

  • Is the State Moral?

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local … … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption … … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by … … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts … … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through … … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress … … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity … … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, … … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it. I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste. That’s why no one has or does. I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior … … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

  • (ESSENTIAL) HOW DOES PROPERTARIANISM ADDRESS (FILL IN THE BLANK) PROBLEM OR PROBLEMATIC/PARASITIC GROUP?

    (ESSENTIAL) HOW DOES PROPERTARIANISM ADDRESS (FILL IN THE BLANK) PROBLEM OR PROBLEMATIC/PARASITIC GROUP? A good (and common category of) question from a reader: “How does propertarianism address: 5G? The jewish meddling and takeovers of governments through TECH FREEMASONRY DEEP STATE METHODS AND TACTICS The Chemical Industry PARASITISM FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS AND CORPS perpetrated against the public!?” (Etc etc) My response: All these enemies would not be able to operate at all in a polity where propertarian rule of law is in place. Any citizen (say, you!) could go into court to stop these people/groups from operating in any non-reciprocal way. That’s the whole beauty of it. We don’t have to make a long list of enemies and say, “we’ve gotta deal with them, and them, and them, and them, and them…” Instead we just give the people the ability to challenge ANY violation of reciprocity by ANY person or group (including rich people, corporations, foreign-initiated groups, government officials/workers/groups, anybody), in court. If you’re still asking “but how are you gonna deal with x group or y movement or z lie”, you don’t understand propertarian rule of law. It gives ANY citizen the ability to use the court system to STOP and PUNISH ANY violation of reciprocity and false public speech by ANYONE. The simple answer to “how are you going to enforce it?” is just to impeach judges who depart from enforcing reciprocity (obviously requires vigilance but not hard – oversight mechanisms with layers, militia and/or monarch as “judge of last resort” – not an “all-powerful monarch rather one with very limited powers – with ultimate responsibility for deciding tough cases). This constitutional/law solution also solves a major problem for the winning right: we probably don’t have enough time to fully redpill the whole grassroots Right on everything, for example, jooish influence, before ultimate crisis point where we have to coalesce around a solution. Saying “all joos must go!” is gonna be rejected by huge numbers of grassroots rightwingers. The propertarian constitution solves this problem by punishing the parasitic behavior. When any of our enemies can’t get away with parasitic behavior and are punished for it in court the same way I’d be punished in court if I stole a car or sold a product that killed people, most of them will leave or stay away of their own accord. (Don’t think this is impossible – the reason they’re attracted like flies to exploit our current system is cuz our current system is s**t. They operate where there is opportunity. Propertarian law shuts down the opportunity to be a parasite. Under P law, if you don’t like what, say, a jooish group is doing, something parasitic, you can go sue them and you will win. And if you think the jooish group will win, you don’t understand P law.) Also, with P law in place, it will be light years easier to redpill people and create a new renaissance by applying the (currently suppressed) science we already have about humanity to the social & political realms. Because our enemies will literally not be able to speak lies about “equality” without losing millions in court. The likes of Curt Doolittle, Kevin MacDonald and Ricardo Duchesne will be household-name heros and Tahesi Coates (or whatever the hell his name is) will be flipping burgers. (Or telling his lies in a blue city-state with his books banned in our polities, IF the Left is lucky enough to still have some land.) Curt has thought through his stuff folks. People who say “we just need to get rid of the joos!” or some variation of a super-simple solution, never take into account that they would need to SELL that solution to the entire grassroots Right. Which they can’t do. Not nearly as fast as would be needed given how soon we’re gonna need a solution ready to go. YOU ARE IN CONTACT WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE (LED BY CURT) WHO THINK THROUGH THINGS VERY, VERY THOROUGHLY.

  • (ESSENTIAL) HOW DOES PROPERTARIANISM ADDRESS (FILL IN THE BLANK) PROBLEM OR PROBLEMATIC/PARASITIC GROUP?

    (ESSENTIAL) HOW DOES PROPERTARIANISM ADDRESS (FILL IN THE BLANK) PROBLEM OR PROBLEMATIC/PARASITIC GROUP? A good (and common category of) question from a reader: “How does propertarianism address: 5G? The jewish meddling and takeovers of governments through TECH FREEMASONRY DEEP STATE METHODS AND TACTICS The Chemical Industry PARASITISM FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS AND CORPS perpetrated against the public!?” (Etc etc) My response: All these enemies would not be able to operate at all in a polity where propertarian rule of law is in place. Any citizen (say, you!) could go into court to stop these people/groups from operating in any non-reciprocal way. That’s the whole beauty of it. We don’t have to make a long list of enemies and say, “we’ve gotta deal with them, and them, and them, and them, and them…” Instead we just give the people the ability to challenge ANY violation of reciprocity by ANY person or group (including rich people, corporations, foreign-initiated groups, government officials/workers/groups, anybody), in court. If you’re still asking “but how are you gonna deal with x group or y movement or z lie”, you don’t understand propertarian rule of law. It gives ANY citizen the ability to use the court system to STOP and PUNISH ANY violation of reciprocity and false public speech by ANYONE. The simple answer to “how are you going to enforce it?” is just to impeach judges who depart from enforcing reciprocity (obviously requires vigilance but not hard – oversight mechanisms with layers, militia and/or monarch as “judge of last resort” – not an “all-powerful monarch rather one with very limited powers – with ultimate responsibility for deciding tough cases). This constitutional/law solution also solves a major problem for the winning right: we probably don’t have enough time to fully redpill the whole grassroots Right on everything, for example, jooish influence, before ultimate crisis point where we have to coalesce around a solution. Saying “all joos must go!” is gonna be rejected by huge numbers of grassroots rightwingers. The propertarian constitution solves this problem by punishing the parasitic behavior. When any of our enemies can’t get away with parasitic behavior and are punished for it in court the same way I’d be punished in court if I stole a car or sold a product that killed people, most of them will leave or stay away of their own accord. (Don’t think this is impossible – the reason they’re attracted like flies to exploit our current system is cuz our current system is s**t. They operate where there is opportunity. Propertarian law shuts down the opportunity to be a parasite. Under P law, if you don’t like what, say, a jooish group is doing, something parasitic, you can go sue them and you will win. And if you think the jooish group will win, you don’t understand P law.) Also, with P law in place, it will be light years easier to redpill people and create a new renaissance by applying the (currently suppressed) science we already have about humanity to the social & political realms. Because our enemies will literally not be able to speak lies about “equality” without losing millions in court. The likes of Curt Doolittle, Kevin MacDonald and Ricardo Duchesne will be household-name heros and Tahesi Coates (or whatever the hell his name is) will be flipping burgers. (Or telling his lies in a blue city-state with his books banned in our polities, IF the Left is lucky enough to still have some land.) Curt has thought through his stuff folks. People who say “we just need to get rid of the joos!” or some variation of a super-simple solution, never take into account that they would need to SELL that solution to the entire grassroots Right. Which they can’t do. Not nearly as fast as would be needed given how soon we’re gonna need a solution ready to go. YOU ARE IN CONTACT WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE (LED BY CURT) WHO THINK THROUGH THINGS VERY, VERY THOROUGHLY.

  • “But You Are Counting Your Legions Before They Are Hatched?”

    “BUT YOU ARE COUNTING YOUR LEGIONS BEFORE THEY ARE HATCHED” They will hatch because they will have extremely, extremely strong incentive to hatch. They will have no choice. Also it doesn’t take anywhere near all of them to hatch, to accomplish the objective of separating from the left & parasitic elites. (Because of fragility of system & ease of 4G warfare.) In addition, telling people “it’s not possible” (besides the fact that it’s a lie) just projects weakness & accomplishes the exact opposite of what is needed – for our enemies to FEAR us and FEAR the consequences of not letting us separate. There is only one way out of this. Voting in 2020 is at best a temporary stopgap (if that). We have been colonized by hostile foreigners in league with a minority of hostile traitors in our own group. Together they outnumber us for voting purposes (or will, irreversibly, very soon). The only way out of this is for our enemies to be so afraid of the consequences of not letting us separate, that they agree to let us separate. And the more we TALK about those consequences (in direct or indirect ways), (stating our demands and painting a picture of the consequences for our enemies if they are not met), the more fear we quicker and easier our victory is likely to be. The more fear instilled (in normies, anybody/everybody that could be hurt or inconvenienced by a conflict) by TALKING, the less need the grassroots Right would feel the need to instill fear by other means. TALKING ABOUT CIVIL WAR INCREASES EASE OF REACHING OUR GOALS AND THE REDUCES THE LIKELY SEVERITY OF IT. WEAK TALK (BLACKPILLING) IS TOTALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.