Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • SORRY FASCISM WON: AUTHORITARIAN STATE CAPITALISM = NATIONAL SOCIALISM = FASCISM

    SORRY FASCISM WON: AUTHORITARIAN STATE CAPITALISM = NATIONAL SOCIALISM = FASCISM

    Fascism didn’t fail. Fascism won. The entire world has chosen fascism: National Socialism with it’s extreme intolerance for competition. EVERY polity in the world is moving to ending political competition as dead weight, and is forcing all competition into the marketplace where it is constructive. Those groups that choose fascism (national socialism, or what we call, in order to preserve the gated institutional narrative ‘state capitalism’), are dominating (china, japan, korea) are reducing costs by enforcing fascism (state capitalism, national socialism). I mean, the american left is fascist which is ironic as hell. The american right is not, it’s reciprocal. which is ironic as hell. That said, the chinese tried communism and then moved to fascism, and the movement toward democracy ended in 92 right after the wall fell.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-10 06:56:00 UTC

  • Took a lot of time to kick the muslims out of Spain, and the Ottomans out of the

    Took a lot of time to kick the muslims out of Spain, and the Ottomans out of the balkans, and it took the Inquisition to find the holdouts. It’s the same process this time around. Except more enjoyable.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-10 01:07:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061062831855071232

    Reply addressees: @IngrahamAngle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061059712106577921

    IN REPLY TO:

    @IngrahamAngle

    Racist. https://t.co/RfaiNbIMXq

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061059712106577921

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    In working through a strategy, which I usually do while just walking around, driving, listening to others, or writing, I do not shy from unethical and immoral options any more than I do moral or costly options. Once you find a solution the problem lies only in finding a solution that is not UNETHICAL or IMMORAL. This is the problem with moralizm. You limit yoru scope of conception. Or, you are too weak of character to eliminate the unethical and immoral choices until you find an amoral or moral means of achieving the same end.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1541861477 Timestamp) The difference is, that because I look for negative externalities, frauds, thefts, exchanges, positive transfers, and positive externalities I CALCULATE that an action is immoral, amoral, or moral, and you INTUIT it. I have the AGENCY to consider all possibilities and choose the moral, amoral, or the immoral as required. This is the lesson of sun tzu, machiavelli, and aristotle – as well as every other general: morals are not truths but utilities, not knowledge but habits. The great books of wisdom and strategy are written so that we do not make the mistakes of christians and allow ourselves to be conquered, for having forgotten how to fight. They are written to ensure that we are civilized by reason not by habit.. I have agency. I am not an animal. My intuitions provide information only. My reason rules my decisions. Moral, amoral, immoral, as needed.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    When I negotiate in a hostile environment I take the position of holding the moral high ground and ‘stay on message’ creating evidence of a narrative of holding the moral high ground. Most of the time we are punished or sued for honest errors, and get away with our most dishonest and immoral plans. The secret of legal success is holding the moral high ground and betting that the jury will side with you for doing so. I usually go all in and risk the jury. When my peers (board) disagree with me, they lose. Always. I never do a deal where I think I might get sued where I can’t construct a narrative of holding the moral high ground. And the secret is … largely, because you always try to actually do so. its simply the optimum business strategy. There will always be people who think your errors are plans, and don’t see the immoral plans you either did or didn’t take. But build a reputation for never surrendering, favoring litigation, and holding the high ground and it works.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    When I want to “kill”a company (cause it to collapse) I try to recruit people with grudge, or at least make relationships with people in the company who have a grudge. Every company does something or other totally innocently that is illegal. Then I construct a narrative of intent, and spread it. Then I get insiders to conduct a lawsuit. I have done this a half dozen times. Why? People are selfish and proud and easily provoked to revenge, even at high cost.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    When I want to buy an overpriced company I open locations or offices or sales teams at its fringes. Most companies cannot tolerate a 20% decline in sales. If you can cause a 20% decline in sales you can cause an 80% decline in purchase price. Mostly because talented people will flee to you. This is why you want free capital, and not to create too much debt or take too much profit. Most companies extract rents and profits and debt to the point where you can’t use capital to extract high ratio wins through acquisitions of people, operations, and customers at windfall discounts. The number of long established companies I have bought this way would astound you.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Studying legal papers and theory you quickly learn that law is ignorant of economics and scale. You learn that the problems lawyers and the courts face are problems of economics and scale. You learn that they are trying to solve a social science problem with a crude instrument that changes slowly. Jurist and Lawyers have seen the atomic but not the aggregate. and so it creates a kind of disciplinary blindness. The problem with the profession is that while we have common and continental law, we have lost or only just discovered natural tort law, which solves problems of juridical decision making, where conflating the law with legislation and regulation and to some degree command, create all those problems of interpretation.

  • Lesson of Rome

    ( I can’t afford to “woo” women without getting myself in trouble one way or another. So I am just complimentary with all of them – as my mother taught me to be. And following her advice, “Find something nice to say” is pretty much good advice all the way around. It’s just absolutely necessary for women and merely helpful for men. 😉 )

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    In working through a strategy, which I usually do while just walking around, driving, listening to others, or writing, I do not shy from unethical and immoral options any more than I do moral or costly options. Once you find a solution the problem lies only in finding a solution that is not UNETHICAL or IMMORAL. This is the problem with moralizm. You limit yoru scope of conception. Or, you are too weak of character to eliminate the unethical and immoral choices until you find an amoral or moral means of achieving the same end.