The more video of antifa as violent underclass leftists the better it is for the opposition.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 19:37:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162810595130904576
Reply addressees: @stillgray
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162799932006264832
IN REPLY TO:
@ianmiles
I love how she’s wearing part of a BDSM getup.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162799932006264832
It is antifa that’s the problem. Otherwise a bunch of middle class white boys would be just engaging in rah rah. Antifa uses violence as their signature method. Even if it’s just mock assassination by milkshaking. Leftism can only be a hate group. It’s just theft. Nothing more.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 19:35:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162810241483968514
Reply addressees: @AndyBCampbell
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162729050453921793
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/1162729050453921793
How much violence has been done by antifa (white underclass communists of both genders) vs any bunch of nationalists (white middle and working class rule of law, christian, males?) I mean. We have profiles of these people. Antifa is a communist terrorist org.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 19:29:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162808714551857152
Reply addressees: @Rashoz2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162805064894840832
IN REPLY TO:
@Rashoz2
So, Trump wants #Antifa labeled terrorists, but looky here. Another case of 45 suppirting white supremecist mysoginistic incels.
Proud Boys an ‘extremist’ group, FBI says https://t.co/ZB5OLkdB8A
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162805064894840832
What’s going to happen when you try to ban the guns and every city has 1,000 of those guys working together, and the police run back to their barracks?
Because that’s where we’re going. The right isn’t vocal. It’s male. It just acts, and acts only as a last resort.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 17:24:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162777241803264004
Reply addressees: @dyllyp
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161796183590785024
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/1161796183590785024
A militia is avery able bodied man between 16 and 60.
No. You don’t get to choose this fundamental right. If you do, those men will eliminate all your rights, fundamental or not. Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Judge, Jury, and Markets in everything. That’s meritocracy.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 16:17:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162760344906997760
Reply addressees: @TheBoltUpright @BaconTwo4Actual @dyllyp
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1162019468924637186
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/1162019468924637186
Jefferson’s Virtue Of Violence
30 Apr 2010
—“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush (1800)
Freedom is created by, and maintained by, the use of violence, and a man’s capacity for violence is his political wealth. The promise he will use his violence to create freedom, is met with the lack of his need to use it for any purpose whatsoever. It is a wealth sparely spent with high returns.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 13:33:52 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102632576263562333
The Threat Of Revolt, The General Strike, And The Myth Of Non-Violence
28
Monday
Dec 2009
Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized ≈ Leave a comment
A tactic used by the vocal left is the threat of violence, or revolt if their needs are not met. The tactic of revolt is ancient. This modern version of revolt is a product of The Myth Of The General Strike. (I am referring to Burnham’s treatment) The contemporary version is the Economic Armageddon and Political Upheaval of the classes.
The opposing argument is the libertarian argument for private property, and private capitalism, and the Randian version of Atlas shrugging.
Both of these are myths of the general strike.
The argument, or myth in any of it’s versions, is disingenuous. Workers will eventually relent, be replaced, or the businesses close. Entrepreneurs will be replaced by others. It is the state who would suffer it’s loss of legitimacy in the event of failure. But a new group would take over in government, and life would go on.
An analysis of history tells us that it is much easier for the minority with wealth to pay another minority to violently oppress the peasantry, and to obtain their compliance going forward with commercial incentives and rewards, than it is for a peasantry to organize a movement of a general strike. In fact, the government conducts all general strikes, because without government suport and threats of government violence on business people, they would largely be irrelevant.
When a ruling class loses it’s will for violence, the society loses it’s binding mythology. It simply opens it’s ranks for a different group to take over the ruling class, and redefine the existing network-map of property rights, and the dispensation of them. However, provided that the ranks of the elite are open to absorb those ambitous people from all classes, and the elite retain sufficient willingness to use violence, the myth of the revolt is specious. Because people simply need leaders in order to revolt.
Before an elite allows itself to be displaced, it commits fraud. They verbally ally themselves with ‘the people’.
All societies determine the scope of private and group property differently.
(more…)
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 19:50:14 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102628393880515362
(…more)
Implicit in your postings (all of them) is a ‘freedom’ that you take for granted, yet do not understand. That is that we grant men free speech, in substitution for withholding our violence, so that we may seek the truth, not simply seek to achieve our ends – violence is a much easier tool for achieving ends. And since a state can only dispense violence — it is its only tool — that violence, and the state, are a continuation of that exchange of violence for seeking truth, not seeking ‘to win’. Therefore if you do not debate rationally, men need not withhold their violence against you. And if they do, they simply allow you to steal from the social order.
In other words, if you are not seeking truth and are name calling, then you are both stealing from the public wishing well by which we all pay for the act of free speech so that we may seek truth — not so that we may get what we want. And if it is just to get what we want, then not only can the weak revolt, and return to violence, but so can the strong. Some of us are possessed of petty interpersonal violence, some of us capable of protest and rabblery, some of us capable of slaughter and civil war. That the weak threaten violence is a humor, since the strong are more capable both of its execution, and of paying a minority handsomely to oppress or kill the discontents.
You may be one of those people for whom degradation of our ‘group’s’ competitive ability and therefore status and prosperity is acceptable. And if that is the case, then again, you steal from those who seek to perpetuate our advantage and prosperity, by failure to participate in argument.
You may be one of those people for whom this is a mask for envy and laziness and simply wants others to take care of you rather than earn for yourself and others.
You may be one of those people who is willing to consume cultural capital for current ends, and who is willing to steal from the sacrifices that were made by those generations that came before us.
You may be one of those people that thinks, despite the vast ocean of data, that people are infinitely plastic in their behavior, rather than that humans behave in very clear and established manners across all states, nations, civilizations and times, and therefore are a utopian.
I don’t know which of these errors you’re making. But I do know that your failure to engage in an argument, is to hide behind an electronic connection as a means of stealing from your fellow man.
(more…)
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 12:03:39 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626559149003354
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626555839185831
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
A NOTE ON ARGUMENT – A SUBSTITUTION FOR VIOLENCE Nov 2009 Paine, We have free speech, logic and rhetoric so that we may make arguments, not a polysyllabic variant of ten year old girls trading insults. I realize that you may resort to these tactics because you are incapable of seeking a truth via argument. I also realize that you post sufficiently in this forum with a small number of other apologists, that you feel justified in your alternate reality, and lack of intellectual rigor. But that does not mean that you are contributing to the dialog, or conducting an argument. Altruism is incalculable (as in unknowable), and does not allow multiple people to cooperate QUANTITATIVELY toward any end requiring risk and action, nor in measuring and understanding outcomes, and it’s result does not produce status differentiation, which is a necessary component of the mating ritual. You are applying the method of the family wherein altruistic actions are perceptible and create an economy of altruistic exchange, rather than the economy wherein such exchanges are imperceptible, and therefore, absent a currency that allows measurement. Calculable ends are not just a matter of preference but of necessity. Status attainment is not just a matter of preference but of necessity. Incentives are not just a matter of preference but of necessity. And the management of the worlds resources in time and space is not a matter of preference but of necessity, since the velocity of that set of exchanges and application in the fulfillment of human needs and wants is just as important as the volume of them. In effect you are simply immature, and are applying the epistemological processes of the family to the extended order of human beings, when numerically, you cannot KNOW about large numbers of people what you can KNOW about a family. Marx was effectively a luddite. And you are as well. We are only similar to one another as farmers and tribal hunter gatherers. But in a vast division of knowledge and labor spread across billions we are increasingly unequal in ability, when ability is judged as the increase in production that decreases prices, and the voluntary coordination of people so that they can act to reduce prices. We can redistribute some of these rewards, as long as the process of doing so is CALCULABLE enough so that status, incentive, and individual calculability are maintained. But we cannot be ‘fair’ as you mean it, because that kind of fairness is not possible to know, comprehend, or calculate. Most often class warriors like yourself simply seek to create a status among their peers by political means that cannot be established by material means. ( more … )
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626555839185831
A NOTE ON ARGUMENT – A SUBSTITUTION FOR VIOLENCE
Nov 2009
Paine,
We have free speech, logic and rhetoric so that we may make arguments, not a polysyllabic variant of ten year old girls trading insults.
I realize that you may resort to these tactics because you are incapable of seeking a truth via argument. I also realize that you post sufficiently in this forum with a small number of other apologists, that you feel justified in your alternate reality, and lack of intellectual rigor. But that does not mean that you are contributing to the dialog, or conducting an argument.
Altruism is incalculable (as in unknowable), and does not allow multiple people to cooperate QUANTITATIVELY toward any end requiring risk and action, nor in measuring and understanding outcomes, and it’s result does not produce status differentiation, which is a necessary component of the mating ritual. You are applying the method of the family wherein altruistic actions are perceptible and create an economy of altruistic exchange, rather than the economy wherein such exchanges are imperceptible, and therefore, absent a currency that allows measurement.
Calculable ends are not just a matter of preference but of necessity. Status attainment is not just a matter of preference but of necessity. Incentives are not just a matter of preference but of necessity. And the management of the worlds resources in time and space is not a matter of preference but of necessity, since the velocity of that set of exchanges and application in the fulfillment of human needs and wants is just as important as the volume of them.
In effect you are simply immature, and are applying the epistemological processes of the family to the extended order of human beings, when numerically, you cannot KNOW about large numbers of people what you can KNOW about a family.
Marx was effectively a luddite. And you are as well. We are only similar to one another as farmers and tribal hunter gatherers. But in a vast division of knowledge and labor spread across billions we are increasingly unequal in ability, when ability is judged as the increase in production that decreases prices, and the voluntary coordination of people so that they can act to reduce prices. We can redistribute some of these rewards, as long as the process of doing so is CALCULABLE enough so that status, incentive, and individual calculability are maintained. But we cannot be ‘fair’ as you mean it, because that kind of fairness is not possible to know, comprehend, or calculate. Most often class warriors like yourself simply seek to create a status among their peers by political means that cannot be established by material means.
( more … )
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 12:02:48 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626555839185831
( … )
Militial participation requires no more than the personal use of violence to protect property rights. The use of the militia is to create and preserve property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of democratic government is not to create laws, but to create physical commons. The use of public intellectuals, is to carry on the public debate over which commons we may choose to invest in, and which not. The use of ‘religion’ and literature is to teach us these necessary and immutable laws of human cooperation so that we never forget them – and by forgetting them lose our freedom.
You cannot obtain the right of private property at a discount. It is an extremely costly right to possess. It is an extremely costly right to maintain. Those who attempt to gain freedom – property – at a discount, will obtain an inferior product to those who pay for a better one. And the only currency of freedom -property – is violence.
Be armed. Be willing. Be vigilant. And Act.
—–
Curt Doolittle
Kiev, 2013
“Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-16 11:04:36 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626326990301651
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626324305161814
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE by CURT DOOLITTLE on SEPTEMBER 7, 2013 THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly of control over property obtained by voluntary exchange production or homesteading – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you may not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation. THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY IS VIOLENCE The source of property is the use of violence to create, obtain, and protect it. Only those who performed militial service created private property. Only those who performed militial service obtained private property. Only those who perform militial service will keep private property. A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else. The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE. Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests. We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display. Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible. Defense of property does not require words. It requires actions. FREEDOM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MILITIA The only free people are, and must be, a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication. A militia is synonymous with enfranchisement. No one else has paid for his or her right of property. They merely free ride on the expenses of others. Therefore, political democracy is synonymous with militial participation. No other meaning is possible. All other attributions are acts of theft by fraud. ( … )
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102626324305161814