Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Defining Revolution. Is Huntington or Aristotle (Or another) Right?

    —“A revolution is a rapid, fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominant values and myths of a society, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership. and government activity and policies. Revolutions are thus to be distinguished from insurrections, rebellions, revolts, coups, and wars of independence. A coup d’etat in itself changes only leadership and perhaps policies; a rebellion of insurrection may change policies, leadership, and political institutions, but no social structure and values; a war of independence is a struggle of one community against rule by an alien community and does not necessarily involve changes in the social structure of either community. What is here called simply “revolution” is what others have called great revolutions, grand revolutions, or social revolutions. Notable examples are the French, Chinese, Mexican, Russian, and Cuban revolutions.”— Samuel Huntington

    [B]y Huntington’s criteria, is it revolution I (we) pursue? I did not think so. But at this point I do. For the restoration of truth telling, the suppression of political parasitism, the conversion of information to a commons, the imposition of strict construction, and the imposition of market government, and the eliminationgn of politicians, all are fundamental changes in the postwar feminist/socialist epoch. Even if they are restorations of the anglo saxon order.

  • Sometimes, we must make hard choices.

    Sometimes we must make hard choices. Because there are no easy choices left to make. When we do, that which we valued above all the day before, we may not value the day after. I am as much a fool as any other fellow. My folly is in things that others find trivial. Just as others folly is in things I find trivial. But I am as guilty of folly as the next man.

  • Sometimes, we must make hard choices.

    Sometimes we must make hard choices. Because there are no easy choices left to make. When we do, that which we valued above all the day before, we may not value the day after. I am as much a fool as any other fellow. My folly is in things that others find trivial. Just as others folly is in things I find trivial. But I am as guilty of folly as the next man.

  • You are not safe. We will have no mercy.

    “[D]ear Leftists. You are not safe. You never were. You never can be. That is your greatest folly. We have been patient. But we will come for you. And when we come for you, we will have no mercy.

  • You are not safe. We will have no mercy.

    “[D]ear Leftists. You are not safe. You never were. You never can be. That is your greatest folly. We have been patient. But we will come for you. And when we come for you, we will have no mercy.

  • Our Roles In Revolution

    1) Ideas required of Philosophers, Prophets and Kings. 2) Strategy required of Leaders. 3) Plans required of Organizers. 4) Belief is required of Followers. —“Your list is complete, because the reverse is true.. If you have ideas, you become a philosopher If you have a strategy, you become a leader If you produce plans, you become an organiser. If you have belief/faith in others you can be a follower… There is nothing stopping one from being all these things at once… If I have belief and can create ideas, plans and strategies, I make a good soldier for any organisation.” —Tobias Darby

  • Our Roles In Revolution

    1) Ideas required of Philosophers, Prophets and Kings. 2) Strategy required of Leaders. 3) Plans required of Organizers. 4) Belief is required of Followers. —“Your list is complete, because the reverse is true.. If you have ideas, you become a philosopher If you have a strategy, you become a leader If you produce plans, you become an organiser. If you have belief/faith in others you can be a follower… There is nothing stopping one from being all these things at once… If I have belief and can create ideas, plans and strategies, I make a good soldier for any organisation.” —Tobias Darby

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • We Gave Them The Choice. They Chose Poorly. But We Are Morally Free.

    [W]e gave our own women a choice. We have the rest of the world a choice. They chose poorly. The experiment failed. We can morally abandon hope. We can return to evidence. We can exchange but not convert. We can cooperate but not advance. We can use high trust internally but pragmatism with others. We can act morally but not optimistically.