Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • I always thought that the “Democratic” ideal confused people. A society survives

    I always thought that the “Democratic” ideal confused people. A society survives by the smallest number of men willing and able to engage in civil war to end it.Usually takes only 1-3% of the male population. There are 500% more than necessary. (And they have 80% of the weapons.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 18:30:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055526983222857728

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055519904668020736

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    USA: 6% HARD RIGHT, 8% HARD LEFT? Well, that means that 10% of the ethnically european population is hard right. That’s more than either the christianization of rome 9%, or the nazis in germany 7% or the Bolsheviks in Russia ~3%.
    @GlennF @FortuneMagazine
    http://fortune.com/2018/10/22/far-right-americans-just-six-person-study-says/

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1055519904668020736

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    USA: 6% HARD RIGHT, 8% HARD LEFT? Well, that means that 10% of the ethnically european population is hard right. That’s more than either the christianization of rome 9%, or the nazis in germany 7% or the Bolsheviks in Russia ~3%.
    @GlennF @FortuneMagazine
    https://t.co/wXQFlBAVVE

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1055519904668020736

  • I mean, there are waaaaaaay more acts of violence against whites by people of co

    I mean, there are waaaaaaay more acts of violence against whites by people of color than their are the other way around. Women are the primary beneficiaries of the modernity white men produced. So if it’s no longer in our interests, why not reverse it again?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 17:46:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055515847291269129

    Reply addressees: @1963Kelli @washingtonpost

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055502371231395840

    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/1055502371231395840

  • THAT’S 500% MORE THAN NECESSARY USA: 6% HARD RIGHT, 8% HARD LEFT? Well, that mea

    http://fortune.com/2018/10/22/far-right-americans-just-six-person-study-saysUM. THAT’S 500% MORE THAN NECESSARY

    USA: 6% HARD RIGHT, 8% HARD LEFT? Well, that means that 10% of the ethnically european population is hard right. That’s more than either the christianization of rome 9%, or the nazis in germany 7% or the Bolsheviks in Russia ~3%.

    I always thought that the “Democratic” ideal confused people. A society survives by the smallest number of men willing and able to engage in civil war to end it.Usually takes only 1-3% of the male population. There are 500% more than necessary. (And they have 80% of the weapons.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:51:00 UTC

  • “We have a strong claim to counter invade Mexico for facilitating an invasion by

    —“We have a strong claim to counter invade Mexico for facilitating an invasion by their inability to stop this caravan and their direct invasion over the past 4 decades. Move the border further and further down until the wall is just a few hundred miles or Panama canal”–Steve Pender

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:11:00 UTC

  • EXPLAINING RECIPROCITY TO A NEWB —“…If I see someone being raped, but do not

    EXPLAINING RECIPROCITY TO A NEWB

    —“…If I see someone being raped, but do nothing to help….”—

    Then by law, “You failed to remove the bad”.

    Incremental Suppression: the discovery and canonization of ‘bads’ (violations of reciprocity) by use of the one law of reciprocity (tort), the jury, and an independent professional judiciary, provides the most rapid means possible of continuous incremental suppressions of free riding, parasitism, and predation

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity: the demand for Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests (property), Free of Imposition of Costs upon the Demonstrated Interests (property) of others by externality.

    Remove the bad: Every man a warrior, sheriff, juror, legislator of the one natural law of reciprocity.

    |WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is no state to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrates reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort.

    —“You’re conflating “good””—

    Anything that is not bad is good. Bads can be known. The preferential, the good (reciprocal preferential), are preferences. Whether they are preference or good is an opinion. Whether they are ‘bad’ and a violation of reciprocity is not an opinion. It is a fact (by Logical Necessity).

    —“Sacrifices”–

    No animal, including humans, demonstrates altruism, only kin selection, option buying, status acquisition (opportunity gain and discount), and reciprocity (debt) payment against status loss (and therefore opportunity loss). We cast this self interest as virtuous in order to acquire more of such behavior by grant of status to heroic display.

    —“…being good…”—

    Man is, by all evidence, amoral – preying upon or cooperating with as suits his self interest. Given a long time frame, it is in one’s self interest to cooperate because of the outsized returns on cooperation versus predation and boycott. One is ‘virtuous’ because all ‘virtues’ decrease the opportunity costs of cooperation and provide discounts on those higher returns. The fact that we attribute status (pay for with opportunity discounts [trust, recommendation, referrals], is merely compensation (investment) in the production of reciprocity by those with most evidence of it.

    QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

    I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job.

    😉 lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 08:27:00 UTC

  • No. We’re Frustrated that We Can’t Solve the Problem with A One-Time Cost

    October 23rd, 2018 2:48 PM NO, WE’RE FRUSTRATED THAT WE CAN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH A ONE-TIME COST

    —“You’re mad because you have to take basic security measures for your family and property?”— Joseph Michael (Proletarian)

    [A]ctually, we’re frustrated why we can’t just eliminate the reasons for having to take basic security measures – and remain distinct from second and third world countries. We never had to do that before. Most of us never had to lock our homes or cars, or worry if we dropped our wallets they’d be ‘found and taken’. Why should we pay those costs of self defense constantly, instead of paying the cost of deportation? Security is an ongoing cost, and deportation (or capital punishment for that matter) is a one-time-cost, and those one-time costs were extremely beneficial for our ancestors. I mean, there no reason not to return to taking advantage of the local oak tree. Economics in everything: – Every Property Owner a Sheriff. – Using Extra-Judicial Punishment. – Stand Your Ground Doctrine. – Castle Doctrine. – Zero Tolerance 😉

  • No. We’re Frustrated that We Can’t Solve the Problem with A One-Time Cost

    October 23rd, 2018 2:48 PM NO, WE’RE FRUSTRATED THAT WE CAN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH A ONE-TIME COST

    —“You’re mad because you have to take basic security measures for your family and property?”— Joseph Michael (Proletarian)

    [A]ctually, we’re frustrated why we can’t just eliminate the reasons for having to take basic security measures – and remain distinct from second and third world countries. We never had to do that before. Most of us never had to lock our homes or cars, or worry if we dropped our wallets they’d be ‘found and taken’. Why should we pay those costs of self defense constantly, instead of paying the cost of deportation? Security is an ongoing cost, and deportation (or capital punishment for that matter) is a one-time-cost, and those one-time costs were extremely beneficial for our ancestors. I mean, there no reason not to return to taking advantage of the local oak tree. Economics in everything: – Every Property Owner a Sheriff. – Using Extra-Judicial Punishment. – Stand Your Ground Doctrine. – Castle Doctrine. – Zero Tolerance 😉

  • It’s Not Just Density but Cost of Defense of Commons

    October 24th, 2018 7:36 AM IT’S NOT JUST DENSITY BUT COST OF DEFENSE OF COMMONS

    Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Gregory J. Martin (a1) and Steven W. Webster (a2) https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.44 Abstract Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.

  • It’s Not Just Density but Cost of Defense of Commons

    October 24th, 2018 7:36 AM IT’S NOT JUST DENSITY BUT COST OF DEFENSE OF COMMONS

    Does residential sorting explain geographic polarization? Gregory J. Martin (a1) and Steven W. Webster (a2) https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.44 Abstract Political preferences in the United States are highly correlated with population density, at national, state, and metropolitan-area scales. Using new data from voter registration records, we assess the extent to which this pattern can be explained by geographic mobility. We find that the revealed preferences of voters who move from one residence to another correlate with partisan affiliation, though voters appear to be sorting on non-political neighborhood attributes that covary with partisan preferences rather than explicitly seeking politically congruent neighbors. But, critically, we demonstrate through a simulation study that the estimated partisan bias in moving choices is on the order of five times too small to sustain the current geographic polarization of preferences. We conclude that location must have some influence on political preference, rather than the other way around, and provide evidence in support of this theory.

  • THE CHALLENGE OF ACTING AS PROSECUTOR

    October 23rd, 2018 3:56 PM THE CHALLENGE OF ACTING AS PROSECUTOR

    —I may seem like kind of an asshole but my REAL problem is generally not going hard enough. I give people too much benefit of the doubt. I give them too many chances. As a result. They hurt others.”— Ely Harman

    —“People confuse you being right with you being an asshole.”— Alba Rising

    [W]e don’t need prosecutors to be nice. We need them to produce justice: Restitution, Correction, and Prevention.