Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • We are europeans. There is no agreement that can supercede the natural law of se

    We are europeans. There is no agreement that can supercede the natural law of self determination by self determined means, by tests of sovereignty in demonstrated interest, and reciprocity in display word and deed. This is the origin of natural rights and human rights. It is not man’s law. It is a law of nature, and if there is one, nature’s god. Yet, violating this one rule is what all empires depend upon for survival: depriving others of the right to self determination by self determined means.

    There never has been a postwar threat to RU security. Instead, RU has been a threat to it’s neighbors. And no governmnet has a right to conquer and rule another and remove it’s right to self determination. And while we have little interest outside of europe, other than maintaining the energy markets, aggression against Ukraine was the last straw.

    There shall be no ‘next’ Russian empire. And Russian security like the security of all sovereign people must be obtained by alliance in reciprocal defense of borders. Russia is too untrustworhty at home and abroad for that agreement until it has a change of government. Yes, we should have worked to integrate RU into NATO but this is as much RU’s fault as the West’s. There will be no RU in the future without integration with the west. If not, then CN will take asia, RU population will continue to contract, and it will be limited to west of the urals again, and surrounded by enemies of three different civilizations on three different sides.

    I don’t make a lot of errors. And this isn’t one of them.

    Reply addressees: @BernieRakocevic @Lavrovskyi

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 02:15:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632203174428721155

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632198872197103616

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above.

    That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?

    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within.

    That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.

    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 00:27:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632176029958643713

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above.

    That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?

    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within.

    That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.

    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 00:27:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632176029782401024

  • “I agree that you’ve been harmed, I agree you have a claim, I agree to assist yo

    –“I agree that you’ve been harmed, I agree you have a claim, I agree to assist you in restitution, punishment, and prevention of repetition or immitation. But that’s the extent of it. We aren’t peers, we aren’t friends, and we aren’t family. Just because I’m acting in your interest doesn’t mean I’m your side, doesn’t mean I’m one of you. But loyalty to what’s right and just prevails. And that loyalty is enough.”–

    The point being that loyalty to what’s right is enough to unite in the prosecution of an enemy. Otherwise, we don’t have to agree on anything at all. We won’t. And probably can’t. And there is no need to. The only need to agree is if you desire to impose your will against others, just as the enemy seeks to impose their will against you.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 00:20:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632174203234287616

  • “I agree that you’ve been harmed, I agree you have a claim, I agree to assist yo

    –“I agree that you’ve been harmed, I agree you have a claim, I agree to assist you in restitution, punishment, and prevention of repetition or immitation. But that’s the extent of it. We aren’t peers, we aren’t friends, and we aren’t family. Just because I’m acting in your interest doesn’t mean I’m your side, doesn’t mean I’m one of you. But loyalty to what’s right and just prevails. And that loyalty is enough.”–

    The point being that loyalty to what’s right is enough to unite in the prosecution of an enemy. Otherwise, we don’t have to agree on anything at all. We won’t. And probably can’t. And there is no need to. The only need to agree is if you desire to impose your will against others, just as the enemy seeks to impose their will against you.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 00:20:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632174203137818625

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt

    Reply addressees: @IAmAsaJ

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126636798750720

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096

  • WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY? What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not government

    WHAT WESTERN HEGEMONY?
    What hegemony? The USA insures all PEOPLE (not governments) have the right to free trade, secure borders, and human rights, and natural rights, in order to prevent the reconstruction of empires that abused all of the above. That was the ‘trade’ the USA/UK offered after the world wars: “We will sacrifice our modern economies to pay for policing the world until the age of agrarian empires is over and the age of federations of sovereign nations and people with natural rights has completed the transformation to states and federations under free trade and the internaltional-rules-order (reciprocity), creating a condition where world wars made necessary by empires is never created again.”

    Where has the USA or NATO interfered where it was not to preserve this promise for all human beings?
    Why should any group of people in any government have the right or ability to deprive other people of self-determination, by self-determined means, by the natural law of reciprocity, and the human rights and obligations necessary to create and preserve that reciprocity?

    You can’t make an argument against it that doesn’t justify the extermination of you and yours (or anyone) for doing so. It’s not possible.

    The only complaint that’s possible is that the west’s experiment with ‘liberalism’ meaning placing the individual’s wants above those of the family’s needs, has been a failure because it creates decadence that destroys countries from within. That doesn’t change anything other than a few constitutional rules, and you get everything the rest of the world wants, EXCEPT the ability to rule those who do not want to be ruled by you. And the right to call upon the world for rescue if any group tries to rule you against your will.

    There is no possible moral argument against this policy.
    The fact that the USG and EUROPE don’t state it as clearly as I did, and instead harp on liberty and democracy is merely internal propaganda whereby our own governments try to implement policies we don’t want.

    Go ahead and argue with me. All you can say is that as the world’s police, we have made mistakes because we have too optimistic an opinion of less developed people’s abilities, development, and behavior.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 21:11:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632126637125824514

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632122738595844096

  • Islam is entropic. It has caused consistently since the 800s, continuous devolut

    Islam is entropic. It has caused consistently since the 800s, continuous devolution, dysgenia, stagnation, decay, corruption, poverty, and the inability to form durable governments, rule of law, large organizations.
    And this is despite having the two great river systems of food production, and the silk road trade system, and the intersection of four continents, making it the optimum region for knowledge production and accumulation.
    But instead, islam teaches ignorance in exchange for peace of mind (mindfulness). Christianity would be as bad if not for germanization. Hinduism is hobbled by the caste system, diversity, and population size. Buddhism has a less significant effect. Confucianism and Stoicism and eventually Humanism have achieved the advancement the more superstitious religions of sedation have failed to mirror.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 16:50:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631698570616229889

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631695581935435786

  • It would be better for everyone else if you’d leave, because Islam is antithetic

    It would be better for everyone else if you’d leave, because Islam is antithetical to western realism, naturalism, reason, logic, empiricism, science, law, education, institutions, republicanism, democracy, culture, religion (as secular as it may be), ethics, morals, high trust, and the innovation, adaptation, and prosperity that results, at the cost of continuous Christian forgiveness, European heroism in truth-before-face, and duty, commons, and polity before self or family, and the adversarial competition, stress, agency, and hierarchy, that together produce our rapid evolution and prosperity.
    Islam works to produce psychological security by the exactly opposite means as Europeanism, and even supernatural Christianity is finally disappearing as Europeans return to their natural religion: Man and Nature.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-03 14:30:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631663385740754944

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631601828021301248

  • If every group is separate then the rule of law is the same for all, but each st

    If every group is separate then the rule of law is the same for all, but each state produces different policies.
    My whole point is separation into ‘a thousand nations’ allied militarily in federations, is the only way to give everyone what they need.
    I’m not sure how that’s not clear.

    Now, as y’all said today, it’s not clear that giving the left their own states isn’t abandoning responsibility for people who don’t know better. So is it immoral to suggest separation instead of conquest and domestication? In essence, separation is analogous to throwing the kids lost kids into a vast orphanage instead of finishing school, and letting them suffer.

    Maybe that’s the moral proposition instead.

    If it is, then I haven’t got there yet. Mostly because my understanding of genetics, is that you don’t want them in the gene pool because those genes are really really bad and might take hundreds of years to pacify.

    WHat I do know is that I want to do my work and I don’t want to put up with arrogant, opinionated, annoying, rude people that poison the well of discourse while I do it – regardless of what side they’re on. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-02 23:17:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631433538728783874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1631431389265395714