Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • @Weiss_Drache (continued from above comment ….) Worse, as far as I can tell wi

    @Weiss_Drache
    (continued from above comment ….)

    Worse, as far as I can tell with the present failure of liberalism, the success at repeating class bolshevism with race (identity) bolshevism, creating the same conflict as Marxists in Europe, and bolsheviks in Europe, and communists in China, the restoration of the conflict of civilizations and the balance of power between civilizations, has resulted in fascism (meaning ethnonationalism, ethnocentric secular state religion, civilization-states instead of federations, intermixed vs mixed economies, the organization of the population as commercial military order within the economy, and radical intolerance for hyperconsumption, deviancy, and feminization, is sweeping the world, meaning fascism has won the debate of the industrial age.

    So the narrative is going to collapse from the empirical evidence alone. It’s certainly going to collapse with the end of the boomer generation. The only question is whether the Jewish race-bolshevism, of the woke-pc-anti-white pseudoscientific and sophomoric religion, succeeds in the west, resulting in the third-worlding of European civilization, continuing the Abrahamic destruction of six civilizations of the ancient world, or whether the ‘fascists’ win restoring western civilization so that it can equally compete with the other macro civilizations.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:49:14 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696157755247848

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696155632141287

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    @Weiss_Drache Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were imitations of the Jewish bolshevik use of camps of Russia, or that the prisoners were put to work as forced labor, or that by the end of the war the prisoners were starved to death or murdered in large numbers because the state decided no longer to pay for their maintenance and care? As far as I know the only debate is over whether the jews were practicing corruption by the usurpation of institutions of cultural production (as they had repeatedly elsewhere), whether the numbers of dead were dramatized, whether or not there was use of gas chambers, whether the original intent was relocation or extermination, and that the natural economics of any such program by a country losing a war would be to maximize resources directed to the people and military rather than ‘undesirables’, resulting in the camps we saw at the end of the war. In other words, who is being honest or dishonest? what is the truth. The truth is rather obvious from the evidence. The untruth is rather obvious from t he evidence, and the motivated reasoning, and motivated propaganda. AFAIK every objector is just demanding the truth. (And yes, there may be some fking crazies who deny it all, just as there are crazies that fictionalize it all. ) As far as I can tell when the postwar generation has died off, which will occur shortly, the public understanding will adjust to the evidence, and the evidence is pretty clear that camps were created with the intent of relocation, that the war caused need for slave labor, then drove deprivation, starvation, and killings. That smaller numbers died than claimed. That postwar propaganda was used for political purposes. That the Germans were organizing to prevent the expansion of Jewish bolshevism from Russia into Germany (and anglo liberalism as well). That the postwar jewish marxists moved from germany to the usa and converted from class warfare that caused russian and german conflict, to race warfare that caused broader european and american social conflict. As such, there was no different intention of a purge of the jews this time than any other, or any different from the exit of the Moors from Spain, and that the original rather optimistic nature of the camps degenerated as the war pressed on for rather ordinary reasons that would occur and have occurred in history as resources are depleted. As far as I know, that’s the empirical evidence, and it’s all rational, it’s not dramatic, or especially ‘evil’ at all. It’s nothing compared to the Albegentsian crusades, the Inquisition, or even the protestant use of claims of witchcraft as a proxy for continuing the dominance of Protestantism over catholicism and other ‘heretics’. ( continued in next comment … )

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696155632141287

  • @Weiss_Drache Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were imi

    @Weiss_Drache

    Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were imitations of the Jewish bolshevik use of camps of Russia, or that the prisoners were put to work as forced labor, or that by the end of the war the prisoners were starved to death or murdered in large numbers because the state decided no longer to pay for their maintenance and care?

    As far as I know the only debate is over whether the jews were practicing corruption by the usurpation of institutions of cultural production (as they had repeatedly elsewhere), whether the numbers of dead were dramatized, whether or not there was use of gas chambers, whether the original intent was relocation or extermination, and that the natural economics of any such program by a country losing a war would be to maximize resources directed to the people and military rather than ‘undesirables’, resulting in the camps we saw at the end of the war.

    In other words, who is being honest or dishonest? what is the truth. The truth is rather obvious from the evidence. The untruth is rather obvious from t he evidence, and the motivated reasoning, and motivated propaganda. AFAIK every objector is just demanding the truth. (And yes, there may be some fking crazies who deny it all, just as there are crazies that fictionalize it all. )

    As far as I can tell when the postwar generation has died off, which will occur shortly, the public understanding will adjust to the evidence, and the evidence is pretty clear that camps were created with the intent of relocation, that the war caused need for slave labor, then drove deprivation, starvation, and killings. That smaller numbers died than claimed. That postwar propaganda was used for political purposes. That the Germans were organizing to prevent the expansion of Jewish bolshevism from Russia into Germany (and anglo liberalism as well). That the postwar jewish marxists moved from germany to the usa and converted from class warfare that caused russian and german conflict, to race warfare that caused broader european and american social conflict. As such, there was no different intention of a purge of the jews this time than any other, or any different from the exit of the Moors from Spain, and that the original rather optimistic nature of the camps degenerated as the war pressed on for rather ordinary reasons that would occur and have occurred in history as resources are depleted.

    As far as I know, that’s the empirical evidence, and it’s all rational, it’s not dramatic, or especially ‘evil’ at all. It’s nothing compared to the Albegentsian crusades, the Inquisition, or even the protestant use of claims of witchcraft as a proxy for continuing the dominance of Protestantism over catholicism and other ‘heretics’.

    ( continued in next comment … )

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:48:41 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696155632141287

  • (continued from post….) Worse, as far as I can tell with the present failure o

    (continued from post….)

    Worse, as far as I can tell with the present failure of liberalism, the success at repeating class bolshevism with race (identity) bolshevism, creating the same conflict as Marxists in Europe, and bolsheviks in Europe, and communists in China, the restoration of the conflict of civilizations and the balance of power between civilizations, has resulted in fascism (meaning ethnonationalism, ethnocentric secular state religion, civilization-states instead of federations, intermixed vs mixed economies, the organization of the population as commercial military order within the economy, and radical intolerance for hyperconsumption, deviancy, and feminization), is sweeping the world, meaning fascism has won the debate of optimum political organization of the industrial and scientific age. Simply because it is the optimum organization of human, institutional, informational, material, and territorial capital – the most scientific government possible. The only difference is whether you can produce a high trust polity like the europeans and rely more on rule of scientific law, or are stuck with less evolved, lower trust polities like the rest of the world, that need more authoritarianism, because they’re less adaptive.

    So the narrative is going to collapse from the empirical evidence alone. It’s certainly going to collapse with the end of the boomer generation. The only question is whether the Jewish race-bolshevism, of the woke-pc-anti-white pseudoscientific and sophomoric religion, succeeds in the west, resulting in the third-worlding of European civilization, continuing the Abrahamic destruction of six civilizations of the ancient world, or whether the ‘fascists’ win restoring western civilization so that it can equally compete with the other macro civilizations.

    At least that’s the science.
    Not that either side of the fence isn’t selective in their tolerance for the science.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:45:17 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696142244779559

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696138112274496

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    HOLOCAUST TRUTH Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were imitations of the Jewish bolshevik use of camps of Russia, or that the prisoners were put to work as forced labor, or that by the end of the war the prisoners were starved to death or murdered in large numbers because the state decided no longer to pay for their maintenance and care? As far as I know the only debate is over whether the jews were practicing corruption by the usurpation of institutions of cultural production (as they had repeatedly elsewhere), whether the numbers of dead were dramatized, whether or not there was use of gas chambers, whether the original intent was relocation or extermination, and that the natural economics of any such program by a country losing a war would be to maximize resources directed to the people and military rather than ‘undesirables’, resulting in the camps we saw at the end of the war. In other words, who is being honest or dishonest? what is the truth. The truth is rather obvious from the evidence. The untruth is rather obvious from t he evidence, and the motivated reasoning, and motivated propaganda. AFAIK every objector is just demanding the truth. (And yes, there may be some fking crazies who deny it all, just as there are crazies that fictionalize it all. ) As far as I can tell when the postwar generation has died off, which will occur shortly, the public understanding will adjust to the evidence, and the evidence is pretty clear that camps were created with the intent of relocation, that the war caused need for slave labor, then drove deprivation, starvation, and killings. That smaller numbers died than claimed. That postwar propaganda was used for political purposes. That the Germans were organizing to prevent the expansion of Jewish bolshevism from Russia into Germany (and anglo liberalism as well). That the postwar jewish marxists moved from germany to the usa and converted from class warfare that caused russian and german conflict, to race warfare that caused broader european and american social conflict. As such, there was no different intention of a purge of the jews this time than any other, or any different from the exit of the Moors from Spain, and that the original rather optimistic nature of the camps degenerated as the war pressed on for rather ordinary reasons that would occur and have occurred in history as resources are depleted. As far as I know, that’s the empirical evidence, and it’s all rational, it’s not dramatic, or especially ‘evil’ at all. It’s nothing compared to the Albegentsian crusades, the Inquisition, or even the protestant use of claims of witchcraft as a proxy for continuing the dominance of Protestantism over catholicism and other ‘heretics’. ( continued in comments … )

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696138112274496

  • Boost of @DrRicardoDuchesne The logic of Gregory Clark’s widely acclaimed book,

    Boost of @DrRicardoDuchesne The logic of Gregory Clark’s widely acclaimed book, A Farewell to Alms (2007), is succinctly simple and insightful: the quality of life for the vast majority of humans across the world — in terms of living standards, exposure to diseases, life expectancy, sanitation, working conditions — barely improved between 10,000 BC and 1800. Hunter gatherers were slightly better off than post-Neolithic peoples in terms of diet, working hours, and leisure. Humans in all post-Neolithic societies thereafter (except for a tiny elite) remained trapped in a Malthusian world where technological advances merely produced more people growing food in less fertile lands, driving down living standards, generating diseases, and bringing inevitable declines in population. The only way to eke out a living above mere subsistence was through limitations on fertility.

    “Jane Austen may have written about refined conversations over tea served in china cups […] small elites had an opulent lifestyle, [but] the average person in 1800 was no better off than his or her ancestors of the Paleolithic or Neolithic”. “Over the long run” income “is more powerful than any ideology or religion in shaping lives”.

    England was the first nation to escape this Malthusian trap “due largely” to the adoption by aristocratic families of “bourgeois values of hard work, spendthrift, patience, honesty, rationality, curiosity, and learning”. Darwinian pressures were stronger on the poor, leading to fewer surviving children, whereas the wealthy classes had two times as many surviving children in the years 1250-1800, leading to the genetic spread of bourgeois values across England.

    Adam Smith, and all the economists who followed him since, are wrong in thinking that “people are the same everywhere” in their inclination to behave in a “bourgeois way” the moment new institutional frameworks [lower taxes, security of property and freer markets] are created offering them incentives to invest in better technology. What happened is that the higher survival rate of segments of the aristocracy with bourgeois values eventually changed the genetic character of the population of Britain, creating a new people with psychological traits for thriftiness, hard work, and prudence — replacing the old values of aristocratic impulsiveness, violent temperaments, spendrift, and “leisure loving”.

    So what could be wrong with this incredibly neat, cogent, and logical explanation? The book ends with the observation that “there is little evidence of gains in happiness from gains in income, life expectancy, or health by societes as a whole” once societes reached the levels of income of the hunter gatherers who were slightly better off on average than humans from the Neolithic revolution to 1800s. History was all for naught.

    This account leaves out the meanigfull side of history: the high achievements before 1800 by Europeans in architecture, painting, music, philosophy, science, conquest of the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:44:51 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696236911717319

  • HOLOCAUST TRUTH Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were i

    HOLOCAUST TRUTH

    Does anyone really deny that the camps existed, that they were imitations of the Jewish bolshevik use of camps of Russia, or that the prisoners were put to work as forced labor, or that by the end of the war the prisoners were starved to death or murdered in large numbers because the state decided no longer to pay for their maintenance and care?

    As far as I know the only debate is over whether the jews were practicing corruption by the usurpation of institutions of cultural production (as they had repeatedly elsewhere), whether the numbers of dead were dramatized, whether or not there was use of gas chambers, whether the original intent was relocation or extermination, and that the natural economics of any such program by a country losing a war would be to maximize resources directed to the people and military rather than ‘undesirables’, resulting in the camps we saw at the end of the war.

    In other words, who is being honest or dishonest? what is the truth. The truth is rather obvious from the evidence. The untruth is rather obvious from t he evidence, and the motivated reasoning, and motivated propaganda. AFAIK every objector is just demanding the truth. (And yes, there may be some fking crazies who deny it all, just as there are crazies that fictionalize it all. )

    As far as I can tell when the postwar generation has died off, which will occur shortly, the public understanding will adjust to the evidence, and the evidence is pretty clear that camps were created with the intent of relocation, that the war caused need for slave labor, then drove deprivation, starvation, and killings. That smaller numbers died than claimed. That postwar propaganda was used for political purposes. That the Germans were organizing to prevent the expansion of Jewish bolshevism from Russia into Germany (and anglo liberalism as well). That the postwar jewish marxists moved from germany to the usa and converted from class warfare that caused russian and german conflict, to race warfare that caused broader european and american social conflict. As such, there was no different intention of a purge of the jews this time than any other, or any different from the exit of the Moors from Spain, and that the original rather optimistic nature of the camps degenerated as the war pressed on for rather ordinary reasons that would occur and have occurred in history as resources are depleted.

    As far as I know, that’s the empirical evidence, and it’s all rational, it’s not dramatic, or especially ‘evil’ at all. It’s nothing compared to the Albegentsian crusades, the Inquisition, or even the protestant use of claims of witchcraft as a proxy for continuing the dominance of Protestantism over catholicism and other ‘heretics’.

    ( continued in comments … )

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:44:14 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696138112274496

  • Untitled Image Post

    Untitled Image Post

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 19:19:45 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107696041849514184

  • @Wanderers_Choice Yeah… I’m fking slow but I’m catching on… fk

    @Wanderers_Choice Yeah… I’m fking slow but I’m catching on… fk.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 04:27:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107692535289306044

  • @WesternChauvinist1 The FBI (who I have more experience with than I’d like) cons

    @WesternChauvinist1 The FBI (who I have more experience with than I’d like) consists of an overloaded minority of competent guys who follow orders, and a not-so-competent majority of ‘cops’ who do the footwork – often on loan from local and state police departments who hire avg IQ of just 105.

    Most crime isn’t difficult. I’ve organized prosecution with postal, justice, fbi, and irs, and you know, it’s actually pretty hard to get them to act on someone. The crimes they need to solve are those that remove the career criminals and networks from society. Or those criminals that threaten the illusion of government control, and public safety – almost all of which is cultural, not admnistrative.

    The problem in my experience (much like working with justice, vs intel, vs DOD) is that like the rest of life, you end up dealing with the nitwits who want to show that they have the metal to climb the ladder into midwits which their intellect prevents them from, and they engage by throwing you into ‘the process’ with other nitwits and midwits, and the people with talent work on what really matters.

    So the few competent people provide the illusion of competency at the extremes while the nitwits and midwids use process to grind the population like every other bureaucracy. And this is just another example of why the ‘professional bureaucracy’ theory fails when the demographic distribution of the population can no longer supply the ratio of competent people the job requres – because the population is oversupplying people who are nitwits and midwits.

    (Yes I have worked for or with Justice, CIA, and DOD – as well as a good number of the Fortune 150.)

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 04:27:31 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107692533432125517

  • It looks like ethnonationalists are going to need a safe space away from groyper

    It looks like ethnonationalists are going to need a safe space away from groypers – who are equally evil in their use of discourse suppression, doxxing, and cancelling.
    We need a safe place for smart people. And for not so smart people who just want the truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 04:17:29 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107692494001527957

  • @josefbosch (Elegantly written. 😉 )

    @josefbosch (Elegantly written. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2022-01-27 04:16:02 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107692488302834825