Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • WE WILL END HISTORY HOW WE STARTED IT: WITH VIOLENCE. (by James Augustus Berens)

    WE WILL END HISTORY HOW WE STARTED IT: WITH VIOLENCE.

    (by James Augustus Berens)

    We Will Bring About The End Of History.

    Not through submission but through sovereignty.

    Not through permission but through demand.

    Not through falsehoods but through truth.

    Not through discretionary rule but through rule of natural law.

    Not through majority monopoly ascent but through minority market consent and dissent.

    Not through supernatural monotheism but through historical polytheism

    Not through indulging the meek, feeble minded and vulgar but through the promotion of the strong, wise and beautiful.

    The Hebrews had it backward: man has not fallen from God’s grace; he has transcended the primitive through domestication of his underclasses and his alpha males.

    Man wasn’t cast from the Garden for eating from the tree of knowledge; we built the garden through the inter-generational accumulation of informational capital.

    We had the prefect government, but we failed to anticipate and protect ourselves from the industrialization of misinformation, deceit and pseudoscience.

    History ends with the completion of the western project: The Truthful Society.

    We must demand truth by leaving our enemies no alternative but to compete in the market for association, cooperation, production, information, reproduction, commons, dispute resolution, and rule.

    The alternative is to fall into another dark age from which we may never recover: to submit once again to the dark forces of mysticism, ignorance, deceit, and dysgenia.

    –James Augustus Berens

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-23 07:46:00 UTC

  • they still dont get it. if they go after trump and he keeps us engaged its us th

    they still dont get it. if they go after trump and he keeps us engaged its us they must fear not him. and worse, the fact that if we take to the streets so to speak, it will be a revolution not a demonstration

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 12:58:00 UTC

  • THREE HONEST DEBATERS GHENGIS KHAN — THOMAS JEFFERSON — MOTHER THERESA ——-

    THREE HONEST DEBATERS

    GHENGIS KHAN — THOMAS JEFFERSON — MOTHER THERESA

    ——————————————————————————————

    VIOLENCE………………..EXCHANGE………………….SUBSIDY

    RIGHT…………………………CENTER………………………LEFT

    FATHER…………………………SON…………………..SISTER/MOTHER

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-22 12:22:00 UTC

  • HOW TO PROSECUTE RATHER THAN CONVINCE We have moral cause (genocide). We have mo

    HOW TO PROSECUTE RATHER THAN CONVINCE

    We have moral cause (genocide).

    We have moral authority (a century of lies).

    We have sufficient violence.

    We have opportunity (loss of any credibility in the honesty of our opponents.)

    So, we have means, motive and opportunity.

    PROSECUTION

    1) Prosecute people to demonstrate that they are liars and thieves.

    2) Ask why they will not trade with you instead of lie, cheat and steal.

    3) Tell them that if we disagree and they force no costs upon us, our kin, and our civilization, then that is merely an agreement to disagree. If they wish to trade what we wish for what they wish then that is merely an agreement to cooperate on means, even though we seek different ends. But if they will not respect what is ours and leave us in peace, will not compromise by trade, and instead seek to impose costs upon us, our kin, and our civilizations, by proxy via the force of government, or by deceit, or by conversion, or by invasion, or by violence, then it is only rational that we will resort ourselves to violence, displacement, deportation, enslavement, and truthfulness.

    We are left with no choice but to prosecute enemies by punishment, expulsion, enslavement, or death.

    This is what I mean by prosecution.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-21 11:14:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE CONVINCE THE LEFT? WE DON’T. We do not seek to convince. We seek to pr

    HOW DO WE CONVINCE THE LEFT? WE DON’T.

    We do not seek to convince.

    We seek to prosecute.

    If you fail to convince you walk away.

    if you fail to prosecute you die.

    if you succeed in prosecution, you punish.

    If punishment fails, you kill.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-21 09:08:00 UTC

  • We don’t change minds by argument. We change ability to influence us regardless

    We don’t change minds by argument. We change ability to influence us regardless of mind, by organized application of violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-20 13:05:00 UTC

  • “Yes, men are indoctrinated to negotiate first, rather than to take by force fir

    —“Yes, men are indoctrinated to negotiate first, rather than to take by force first, and negotiate, or compensate last. Many, maybe most men, have this problem. But once you set down the framework, give them the “It’s not your fault” reframing, and give them some contract examples and case studies — without fail they say, “fuck I knew that!” or “fuck I used to do that!” or “fuck, I used to be like that!” And they revert quickly, usually with massive success.”— James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 20:58:00 UTC

  • ***My feeling is that the cuckolding of our men has so pussified them that inste

    ***My feeling is that the cuckolding of our men has so pussified them that instead of convincing or negotiating as our first choice, the idea that fighting should be the FIRST choice, and that convincing and exchanging only when they are more preferable is something very difficult to restore to our moral framework.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 20:03:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT: IS LIBERTARIAN FASICSM POSSIBLE?” (no, but…) —“Curt! Could Liber

    Q&A: “CURT: IS LIBERTARIAN FASICSM POSSIBLE?” (no, but…)

    —“Curt! Could Libertarian-Fascism or even Anarcho-Fascism be a thing?”— Felicity J. Sharpe

    Both libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are impossibilities.

    Market fascism in the sense that rule of law under proper in toto imposes markets in all areas of life, is certainly possible and that’s what I articulate. But the fantasy that you escape paying for commons that you benefit from is just not gonna happen.

    What can happen is that we can prevent being forced to pay for commons that harm us. And that’s the best we can do.

    So yes we can have market fascism, meaning markets in everything, and non imposition of costs. Can we have libertarian or anarchy capitalism’s parasitic free riding? No they’re impossible

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 17:24:00 UTC

  • MORE ON MARKET FASCISM What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Stat

    MORE ON MARKET FASCISM

    What’s the difference between MARKET FASCISM and the Status Quo?

    There are two differences:

    1) Since markets regulated by natural law are the only POSSIBLE means of preserving sovereignty, and voluntary cooperation free of parasitism, then any attempt to perpetuate an alternative is an act of attempted fraud.

    So the difference is that under Market Fascism, there is no tolerance for criticism of the sovereign market order just as no tolerance for cannibalism, murder, theft, fraud, and conspiracy. Becuase tolerance for such crimes itself a crime. You may only propose exchanges.

    You can use the court to pursue an involuntary imposition of costs that violates natural law. But you may not propose an imposition of costs that violates natural law.

    In other words, you must constrain yourself to function within the markets in word and deed.

    2) Since you must fully account for the consequences of any action, the externalities produced by your action must not privatize the commons or socialize your losses. This means that you must be more careful in profiting from the ignorance of your fellow citizen shareholders.

    In other words your opportunity to profit from arbitrage is limited.

    These are simple, but far reaching demands.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-19 14:51:00 UTC