Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • I’m a lifetime 1%’er, have founded a dozen tech companies, lived around the worl

    I’m a lifetime 1%’er, have founded a dozen tech companies, lived around the world, retired in my 40’s and have accumulated knowledge and experience that is beyond your comprehension.

    The fact that I try to understand you nit-wits by debating on social media is just research.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 12:55:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267801980359098371

    Reply addressees: @24kdazzle @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267800105731620864

  • You feel. You don’t think. It’s what separates your gene pool from ours: the fem

    You feel. You don’t think. It’s what separates your gene pool from ours: the feminine equalitarian hyper-consumptive dysgenic herd instinct vs masculine meritocratic capitalizing eugenic packs. We can afford to separate. You will have your Johannesberg future,and we civilization.

    Reply addressees: @TravestyinUSA @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

  • You feel. You don’t think. It’s what separates your gene pool from ours: the fem

    You feel. You don’t think. It’s what separates your gene pool from ours: the feminine equalitarian hyper-consumptive dysgenic herd instinct vs masculine meritocratic capitalizing eugenic packs. We can afford to separate. You will have your Johannesberg future,and we civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 10:45:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267769407562006528

    Reply addressees: @TravestyinUSA @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267767674790084611

  • The Making Of A Slave by Willie Lynch

    Sep 30, 2019, 1:53 PM

    Lisa Outhwaite: “Have you ever read The Making Of A Slave by Willie Lynch? It’s a reproduction of a speech supposedly given by Willie Lynch, slave-owner, around the early 1700s, in Virginia. It’s a guide on how to produce hard-working but docile slaves. Essentially he describes in detail on how to condition the female slave – it all works via the female. He would take a female slave, preferably one pregnant or with young children, and force her to watch the beating into submission of the most confident or masculine of the male slaves. The natural tendency in women to seek the most dominant protector and provider then suffers a crisis – she cannot rely on her own men for survival. This instinct for provision, that is at its most profound during pregnancy or when she has young children, is then transferred onto the slave owner. Despite his horrific abuses, he is seen as the dominant male and therefore the source of all security. The woman then is entirely submissive to him but, more importantly, she will raise all subsequent offspring to be obedient as that, to her mind at least, is the only way to secure their survival.  … The relentless ridiculing of Western men within our media works in a similar fashion. Western women have shifted loyalty over to the slave-owner – the state. She then raises her children to respect this new source of provision and protection.”

  • Yes. Men work in packs. That’s fine. “Leadership” across the spectrum understand

    Yes. Men work in packs. That’s fine. “Leadership” across the spectrum understands the packs, and the class organization of the packs.

    We have a plan. It will work if people show up. And I think they will.

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter

  • Yes. Men work in packs. That’s fine. “Leadership” across the spectrum understand

    Yes. Men work in packs. That’s fine. “Leadership” across the spectrum understands the packs, and the class organization of the packs.

    We have a plan. It will work if people show up. And I think they will.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 23:12:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267594966118936578

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267594507694092299

  • Libertarian Means ‘Useful Idiot”

    PLEASE STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT ON BEHALF OF THE LEFT: LIBERTARIAN MEANS ‘USEFUL IDIOT”

    —“For me the last part best manifests itself within the ideas of libertarianism.”—psionin @psionin

    Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t understand that the only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity is rule of law, producing markets for everything, including commons, or what we call ‘government’. Rothbardians turned ‘libertarianism’ from Classical Liberalism under Rule of Law to Ghetto Ethics of diasporic peoples having no, and taking no, responsibility for commons. It’s just common property parasitism rather than private property parasitism. So Rothbardians destroyed the term liberty as the left destroyed the term liberal. Either we have a militia in which every man holding the franchise defends rule of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, and produces commons necessary for survival of the polity – or not. If not, then the polity cannot survive competition in the market for territories, population and social, economic, and political order. Which is why there are no libertarian polities, and never will be. Libertarianism is just demand for a commune of private rather than common property at best, or an excuse to fool high trust european peoples into hosting parasitic peoples who specialize in profit from baiting into moral hazard, under the pretense of doing no harm. So please stop being a useful idiot. I use Sovereigntarian, or rule of law of reciprocity, or rule of law monarchy, or classical liberal. Libertarian in the hayekian sense means Classical Liberalism. Libertarianism in the Rothbardian sense just means “useful idiot”. Edit OCTOBER 5

  • Libertarian Means ‘Useful Idiot”

    PLEASE STOP BEING A USEFUL IDIOT ON BEHALF OF THE LEFT: LIBERTARIAN MEANS ‘USEFUL IDIOT”

    —“For me the last part best manifests itself within the ideas of libertarianism.”—psionin @psionin

    Libertarianism is just common property marxism. So “For me” means you don’t understand that the only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity is rule of law, producing markets for everything, including commons, or what we call ‘government’. Rothbardians turned ‘libertarianism’ from Classical Liberalism under Rule of Law to Ghetto Ethics of diasporic peoples having no, and taking no, responsibility for commons. It’s just common property parasitism rather than private property parasitism. So Rothbardians destroyed the term liberty as the left destroyed the term liberal. Either we have a militia in which every man holding the franchise defends rule of law under sovereignty and reciprocity, and produces commons necessary for survival of the polity – or not. If not, then the polity cannot survive competition in the market for territories, population and social, economic, and political order. Which is why there are no libertarian polities, and never will be. Libertarianism is just demand for a commune of private rather than common property at best, or an excuse to fool high trust european peoples into hosting parasitic peoples who specialize in profit from baiting into moral hazard, under the pretense of doing no harm. So please stop being a useful idiot. I use Sovereigntarian, or rule of law of reciprocity, or rule of law monarchy, or classical liberal. Libertarian in the hayekian sense means Classical Liberalism. Libertarianism in the Rothbardian sense just means “useful idiot”. Edit OCTOBER 5

  • Excerpts for Emphasis by Lucas Cort

    Oct 14, 2019, 8:47 PM EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT by Lucas Cort Important parts I’d like to emphasize: “We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.” “So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.” “At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).” “So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons. With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.” “So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism. There is more to it but that’s most of it. “This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit. “

  • Excerpts for Emphasis by Lucas Cort

    Oct 14, 2019, 8:47 PM EXCERPTS FOR EMPHASIS BY LUCAS CORT by Lucas Cort Important parts I’d like to emphasize: “We just were suckered yet again by the marxists into the false dichotomy of unfettered capitalism – monopoly of the middle class, or unfettered socialism – the monopoly of the underclass, rather than the successful european invention of rule of law, an unfettered monopoly of the upper, aristocratic, or martial class that derives its income from suppression of parasitism resulting in commission we call taxation.” “So in the twentieth century we destroyed (a) rule of law of tort, destroyed (b) the limits on reproduction of the underclasses, (c) destroyed the monetary and accounting system, (d) destroyed homogeneity of the population, and (e eliminated the monarchy and created a conflict for access to power to circumvent the market and obtain privileges and rents by the state, and (f) ended the prohibition on libel, slander, duel, hanging, fighting, civic defense and policing – all in order to accommodate those peoples not majority middle class (g) ended the family as a system of measurement by which resource consumption was measured.” “At the highest level we can disambiguate government into Rule (decisions), Government (production and administration of commons), Treasury (revenue and expenses), and insurer of last resort (both negative like military and positive like care taking).” “So there is no one static form of government producing the commons necessary for the current conditions, but one rule of law under which the production of commons varies according to the demand for commons. With P-law. we can produce any system of rule, production of commons, treasurer, and insurer of last resort.” “So I proposed a strictly constructed rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort, a cabinet of professionals, subcontracted bureaucracies, houses for the classes and genders randomly selected like juries, requiring property and service, that have right of veto over taxes, fees. In this system no one is insulated from the law, and we create a market for the suppression of parasitism. There is more to it but that’s most of it. “This system scales up and down from authoritarian to redistributive as circumstances permit. “