Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • The New Standard on Social Media – Use Extra Caution

    [O]ver the years, I’ve been excessively careful at (a) avoiding hate speech – (violating FB policy), and (b) not crossing the line from educating, informing, and advocating, and developing a constitutional alternative in public – to planning or incentivizing action (violating the law). What I do is expressly legal in America and has a long time honored tradition back to Thomas Paine. Over the past year we (John in particular) have experimented with directly addressing the coming revolution as deterministic, and imminently triggerable. And that we should be prepared for it with Arguments, Organization, and a Ready Constitutional Solution to the coming conflict. However, I didn’t count on, or adequately react to, the escalation in shootings in New Zealand and the USA.  In my view of the world I interpreted these events as the normal escalation to the civil war I’ve predicted for years. In other words, I viewed them as supporting data. My experience with these matters, which goes back to the tampering era, is that it’s the media that creates these events, and only media’s silence that can stop them. Now, anyone who follows me for long enough knows my strategy and plan.  And knows the difference between the King of the Hill game we’re playing to educate and inform. But it was very easy to cast this information as providing incentive to individual actors. And we must understand that it is rational for social media platforms to do so. They should however, give us our PERSONAL data back when they close an account, meaning any image, video, or text that we upload. There are legitimate liability reasons they may prefer not to, but we (meaning the political and legal ‘we’) have to choose between depriving people of their property (diary) and limiting the liability of the platform.  And limiting the liability of the platform is the choice I advocate. Of the risks to us, the risk of loss of our property is greater. In context, had I understood the change at FB  – and had they announced this change – I should have taken down the potentially offensive content by careful search-and-delete, but honestly – as usual – I didn’t adequately interpret the neuro-commoner and cortico-normative interpretation of recent events. So it’s not that I so much care about being dropped from the platform for what I consider reasonable reasons in the given social and political climate.  It’s that I don’t have 90 days of work, and I am not sure what I composed during that 90 days. It’s that simple. I want my data. So we want to repeat here again, that: … (a) individual violent action is not helpful to a reform movement. Don’t do it. Stop anyone who might. … (b) if we must act, we must act as one – en mass – not one by one; no matter how frustrated. And yes, I ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ the rage building up to that weekend, I just assumed it was me misinterpreting the flow in sentiments. … (c) If we act as one – en masse – it must be to show up  – en masse – and make our demands. … (d) Those demands must be amenable to all but fringe actors – in other words the mainstream.  And ours are pretty hard to argue with by any measure. … (e) If our demands are not met, then we have cause for action – as a group. … (f) But the problem is until those demands are made, and the threat is real, the state and the antifa-communist left have no incentive to compromise. … (g) even if the compromise we present, give everyone but the left extremists what they want. My provocative speech, provocative assertions and provocative questions, as well as my use of King of the Hill games – as those who follow me are aware – are for marketing, educational, and strategic purposes: to restore the discourse from the pseudo moral to that of natural law.  To train men once again to debate in truth, duty and reciprocity, with immunity to ridicule, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, rally and disapproval as a substitute for argument – a substitute that does little more than obscure the underlying fraud: attempted theft by use of the coercive violence of the state. Reasons; … a) Demonstrating that men must be taught by the means they prefer (dominance play) … b) That the rothbardian libertarian movement’s capture of the liberty movement had to be defeated through exposure of it’s failure so that we could return the discourse to one of sovereignty under the law, under rule of law, insured by every man acting as a soldier, warrior, sheriff and judge. I had to return ‘violence’ as did our founders, to the discourse on liberty. … c) So that men were taught the reason for their traditions morals and institutions – that they were a strategy of natural law that is the optimum strategy for not only our people, but for all mankind. … c) Restore confidence that if they chose to fight a civil war, that the rule of law (conservatives) would win. (Keep hope alive, and not regress in to desperate acts.) And that I use the public and social media as a means of running experiments on what people currently think, did think, and how they interpret various arguments and prose. I use social media as my laboratory – and it is the best laboratory that I have found. People say what they feel in King of the Hill games.  It’s the optimum research platform for political thought. Unfortunately, as usual, I over-achieve, over work, and over-invest in over-precision, and take too long to do everything  – and my understanding at present is that the Overton window has not only caught up to me and my work, but that it may be too late and I may not finish before what I see as a deterministic explosive conflict triggered by an as yet unpredictable but ever closer event. All I know is that between immigration, the left’s gain influence because of it, and the news media’s influence because of the opportunity for capturing attention and therefore advertiser revenues, that seeking power on one end and seeking to prevent loss of sovereignty on the other – no society, nation, empire, or civilization has survived a mass migration like this in human history without collapse and civil war. I am very good at what I do. I will not err in this matter. Thanks Curt

  • When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law

    —“Your version of Propertarianism requires oppression; denial of equal political rights and full free speech – your dude Mark is already posting how your society will require the first amendment to only allow speech your “truth-judiciary” greenlights.”— N6 @SignHexa

    [P]ropertarianism (Natural Law) would restore Defamation & extend commercial liability and warranty to the content of economic, political, and scientific speech, made to the public, and convert Free Speech to Free Truthful (meaning Scientific) and Reciprocal Speech. No More Lies. How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public? How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum? How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral? Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exchange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’? You see you have nowhere to go. 1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.So;Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment? You see, we are happy to let you continue to spread your favelas in your urban “Plantations” (ghettos in training), but we are not willing to let you take our Ethnic groups, our Civilization, our Institutions, our Culture, and our Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom with you. But you are not willing to Reciprocate by Separation (Devolution or Secession) because you cannot survive on your own without the vast middle – the central achievement of western men: a middle class civilization of Reciprocity, Contract and Law: Markets. So you leave us no choice but civil war. You are exposed for what you are: a mob of undomesticated, ignorant, barbaric, thieves, ungrateful for the prosperity, freedoms, provided for you by the middle classes of the ancient and modern world, and happy to return to the gutter of equality in poverty you came from. One needs equal protection UNDER the law to have ‘RIGHTS’. But may only have political ‘POWER’ having demonstrated OBSERVANCE of that law, and achievement under that law: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Voluntary Cooperation in every aspect of life. (You don’t) So you do not want rights, you want power to violate the rights of others. There is only one natural law, one right, from which all other rights descend both logically, operationally, and empirically: Reciprocity. Because other than reciprocity one can only harm, steal & defraud. Now, do you see what I did there? I used categorically, logically, empirically, operationally consistent, fully accounted, speech to end your ability to engage in False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Undue Praise, using Sophism, Critique, and GSRRM. That is what I teach people. I teach: – The Natural Law, – The Science of Testimony, – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit, – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility; And their application to: – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

    [pullquote]
    I teach:
    – The Natural Law,
    – The Science of Testimony,
    – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
    – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
    And their application to:
    – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.
    [/pullquote]

    Now you are a naturally dishonest, deceitful, polluter of the informational commons as a practitioner of Abrahamic False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Pilpul and Critique. A useful idiot for smarter men. But…. I am quite willing to bet, even my life, that the majority is not like you, but ethical and moral, and when given the choice of a truthful reciprocal commons where genders, classes, races can conduct exchanges (disciplined behavior for redistribution) in Government – We win. Because the truth is that the reason people are unhappy is YOU and the rest of the Useful Idiots who took the genealogy of Abraham > Marx > Stalin > Alinsky > Feminists > Postmodernists > Political Correctness to create conflict between genders, classes, races. When you offer, as did the jews, christians, and muslims, ignorance, poverty, and decline during the last abrahamic dark age. And you are in the process of creating the next – in a long oscillation between the prosperity created by western man’s truth, reciprocity, and markets… … and the ignorance, poverty, suffering, of those who destroy them. The only problem facing western man in the ancient world and in the modern, is that we lacked a book of parables (histories) and scriptures (laws) beyond which no man or woman may tread. That’s not true any longer. We have our “scripture” of the ancient and modern world. We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law. Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities. Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation. Political power that is Egalitarian (open to all of merit and observance of the law) not Equalitarian (independent of merit and observancy of the law). The only possible counter proposition is that a given group is of such failure in genetics, ability, habits, culture, religion, and institutions, that it cannot engage in productive, voluntary cooperation with others. Meaning they were demonstrably inferior, and those who could compete were demonstrably superior, and that the central problem is one of self perceived status as inferior. The solution is separation, separate political, economic and status systems. Which is how we evolved.��So when John and I get to that point, of making a series of videos that explain our position vs yours. And present a constitution that is pure, and another than is tailored to the condition in the west, it is very hard for me to see that you and yours win a moral majority.

  • When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law

    —“Your version of Propertarianism requires oppression; denial of equal political rights and full free speech – your dude Mark is already posting how your society will require the first amendment to only allow speech your “truth-judiciary” greenlights.”— N6 @SignHexa

    [P]ropertarianism (Natural Law) would restore Defamation & extend commercial liability and warranty to the content of economic, political, and scientific speech, made to the public, and convert Free Speech to Free Truthful (meaning Scientific) and Reciprocal Speech. No More Lies. How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public? How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum? How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral? Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exchange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’? You see you have nowhere to go. 1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.So;Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment? You see, we are happy to let you continue to spread your favelas in your urban “Plantations” (ghettos in training), but we are not willing to let you take our Ethnic groups, our Civilization, our Institutions, our Culture, and our Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom with you. But you are not willing to Reciprocate by Separation (Devolution or Secession) because you cannot survive on your own without the vast middle – the central achievement of western men: a middle class civilization of Reciprocity, Contract and Law: Markets. So you leave us no choice but civil war. You are exposed for what you are: a mob of undomesticated, ignorant, barbaric, thieves, ungrateful for the prosperity, freedoms, provided for you by the middle classes of the ancient and modern world, and happy to return to the gutter of equality in poverty you came from. One needs equal protection UNDER the law to have ‘RIGHTS’. But may only have political ‘POWER’ having demonstrated OBSERVANCE of that law, and achievement under that law: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Voluntary Cooperation in every aspect of life. (You don’t) So you do not want rights, you want power to violate the rights of others. There is only one natural law, one right, from which all other rights descend both logically, operationally, and empirically: Reciprocity. Because other than reciprocity one can only harm, steal & defraud. Now, do you see what I did there? I used categorically, logically, empirically, operationally consistent, fully accounted, speech to end your ability to engage in False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Undue Praise, using Sophism, Critique, and GSRRM. That is what I teach people. I teach: – The Natural Law, – The Science of Testimony, – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit, – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility; And their application to: – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

    [pullquote]
    I teach:
    – The Natural Law,
    – The Science of Testimony,
    – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
    – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
    And their application to:
    – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.
    [/pullquote]

    Now you are a naturally dishonest, deceitful, polluter of the informational commons as a practitioner of Abrahamic False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Pilpul and Critique. A useful idiot for smarter men. But…. I am quite willing to bet, even my life, that the majority is not like you, but ethical and moral, and when given the choice of a truthful reciprocal commons where genders, classes, races can conduct exchanges (disciplined behavior for redistribution) in Government – We win. Because the truth is that the reason people are unhappy is YOU and the rest of the Useful Idiots who took the genealogy of Abraham > Marx > Stalin > Alinsky > Feminists > Postmodernists > Political Correctness to create conflict between genders, classes, races. When you offer, as did the jews, christians, and muslims, ignorance, poverty, and decline during the last abrahamic dark age. And you are in the process of creating the next – in a long oscillation between the prosperity created by western man’s truth, reciprocity, and markets… … and the ignorance, poverty, suffering, of those who destroy them. The only problem facing western man in the ancient world and in the modern, is that we lacked a book of parables (histories) and scriptures (laws) beyond which no man or woman may tread. That’s not true any longer. We have our “scripture” of the ancient and modern world. We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law. Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities. Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation. Political power that is Egalitarian (open to all of merit and observance of the law) not Equalitarian (independent of merit and observancy of the law). The only possible counter proposition is that a given group is of such failure in genetics, ability, habits, culture, religion, and institutions, that it cannot engage in productive, voluntary cooperation with others. Meaning they were demonstrably inferior, and those who could compete were demonstrably superior, and that the central problem is one of self perceived status as inferior. The solution is separation, separate political, economic and status systems. Which is how we evolved.��So when John and I get to that point, of making a series of videos that explain our position vs yours. And present a constitution that is pure, and another than is tailored to the condition in the west, it is very hard for me to see that you and yours win a moral majority.

  • Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other

    Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-19 13:16:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163439484802883584

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163439186885709824

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law.

    Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163439186885709824

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law.

    Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163439186885709824

  • You see you have nowhere to go. 1. You want what you want regardless of the cost

    You see you have nowhere to go.
    1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.
    2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.
    So;
    Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-19 12:39:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163430319560810499

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163429651731091456

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exhange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163429651731091456

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exhange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163429651731091456

  • Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of

    Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exhange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-19 12:36:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163429651731091456

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163429196045193216

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163429196045193216

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163429196045193216

  • How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in b

    How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-19 12:32:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163428510603632642

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163427114567262209

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163427114567262209

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1163427114567262209

  • I want to restore natural law where people like you must trade for what they wan

    I want to restore natural law where people like you must trade for what they want, not steal it by force using the government. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-18 20:58:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163193493642260482

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163172359165108226

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163172359165108226

  • I don’t have to disagree over opinions.I can disagree on facts: irreciprocity is

    I don’t have to disagree over opinions.I can disagree on facts: irreciprocity is a fact. The only reason NOT to use violence is reciprocity. That’s why we invented it as the foundation of western civlization and western law: sovereignty and reciprocity and you want to destroy it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-18 17:53:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163146899391680514

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163102208751210500

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163102208751210500

  • Taxation is obtained by force. A price is paid voluntarily. One either creates c

    Taxation is obtained by force. A price is paid voluntarily. One either creates commons by paying for them or stealing from others to create them. What you mean is you want parasitism, predation, irreciprocity, and to achieve it by force, through the proxy of the vote.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-18 17:52:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163146597083095042

    Reply addressees: @SignHexa @NoahRevoy @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163101943528603649

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163101943528603649