Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • That in itself is a reduction (deception). That people retaliate against the use

    That in itself is a reduction (deception). That people retaliate against the use of force is obvious. The question is what scope of what do they retaliate against? Is it intersubjectively verifiable property or is it the full suite of demonstrated interests?

    I can easily show…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-26 18:56:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916204770827898940

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916202979369140399

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DavidAcostaJua1

    @curtdoolittle @DRolandAnderson @LudwigNverMises There’s nothing circular in “do not initiate force.”

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1916202979369140399

  • You can’t reject the need to organize at scale – you can only suppress ‘criminal

    You can’t reject the need to organize at scale – you can only suppress ‘criminality’ (parasitism and predation) as scale produces anonymity and invisibility.

    We can’t do without a decision network to coordinate behavior.

    Stagnation is death.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-26 01:41:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915944295431082360

    Reply addressees: @slenchy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1915928383092937027

  • That’s bs. I was covered in sweat from the heat, and I neither wet my pants nor

    That’s bs. I was covered in sweat from the heat, and I neither wet my pants nor hid, nor was I frightened. I was laughing and telling jokes with the BLM guys. The BLM had paid the organizer, the organizer asked me to return his microphone, and the police had surrounded us with vehicles on both sides, and I wasn’t going to ask my people to fire on anyone. It would have been a disaster. Instead I learned that you idiots were exactly the nitwits the left claimed you were, and we decided to drop you permanently and move on with normies. You’re still disaffected outcasts without political influence and we’re still gaining influence – just with a better calibre of people. It’s not complicated. Your behavior explains why you fail.

    Reply addressees: @OpartyW @p_w_dr_ @zielony_kvas

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-21 08:49:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1914240037866360832

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1908271629547024481

  • RT @SecRubio: Over the last decade, Americans have been slandered, fired, charge

    RT @SecRubio: Over the last decade, Americans have been slandered, fired, charged, and even jailed for simply voicing their opinions.

    That…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-16 20:44:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912607981755388291

  • RT @SecRubio: Over the past half decade, our own governing ruling class nearly d

    RT @SecRubio: Over the past half decade, our own governing ruling class nearly destroyed America’s long free speech history. Today, we are…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-16 16:37:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912546001283604792

  • Q: “CURT: HOW DOES NLI’S CASE AGAINST FACEBOOK DIFFER FROM THE FTC’S CASE?” The

    Q: “CURT: HOW DOES NLI’S CASE AGAINST FACEBOOK DIFFER FROM THE FTC’S CASE?”

    The FTC case is arguing against anti-competitive practices of Meta as a consequence of its acquisitions.
    The NLI case is more substantive in that we argue that social networks of such dominance are functioning as “Common Carriers” and as such constitute necessary social, economic, and political infrastructure necessary for the preservation of a democratic polity. And as such while meta may prohibit criminal and immoral (seductive) content consistent with the general application of the existing law, that they may widely distribute content that is apolitical and of demonstrated common interest, but it may not suppress content within networks of those that subscribe to one another with the intention of consuming political or other content conforming to their wants and needs.
    While the FTC may pursue their case as an orthogonal attack on these companies, it is our (NLI) opinion that directly addressing this issue and if necessary escalating it to the supreme court is the only durable solution to the problem.

    Reply addressees: @ErnestoGeorgi

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-15 23:12:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912283040098971650

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1912279196505715160

  • It was brilliant and typically trumpian art of the deal. Use shock and awe, prov

    It was brilliant and typically trumpian art of the deal. Use shock and awe, provoke a response worldwide. Accept early offers. Punish retaliation. Isolate the enemy.

    When the left does it by false promise and lying trip does it by hyperbole.

    Both are manipulative. But Trump…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-10 21:57:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1910452132823892473

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1910091577990525260

  • Correct, just as in law we distinguish between administrative violation, tort, c

    Correct, just as in law we distinguish between administrative violation, tort, crime, and treason, as well as responsibility, accountability, restitution, punishment, and prevention.

    My argument was intended to explain why people shouldn’t vote who don’t demonstrate the…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-10 19:11:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1910410253172379772

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1910409363128279411

  • EXPLAINING TRUMP’S WORLD RESTRUCTURING BY SHOCK Trump is reorganizing world secu

    EXPLAINING TRUMP’S WORLD RESTRUCTURING BY SHOCK

    Trump is reorganizing world security and trade. He is doing it quickly and unpleasantly (to get it over with) using security and tariffs – because asking and negotiating didn’t work. To create the world order we have had three phases:
    1 – Bretton Woods Order: Subsidizing the world recovery, and limiting authoritarian communism. (Cost: burning our industrial advantage)
    2 – Neoliberal Order: Subsidizing world finance and ending the authoritarian communism. (Cost: burning our middle and working classes.)
    3 – Trump’s Restoration of Traditional Order: Ending the subsidies, redistributing the cost of world order, whether defense or transport and trade. (Cost: disruption of alliances, economy, and ‘deep state’ – all of which were creations of the Anglo-USA remains of the British empire at the end of WWII.)
    Retrospectively the world wars were the necessary end of agrarian land empires and the emergence of federations of industrial nation states. The generals were correct in their criticism claiming we ended World War II early. We assumed islam was defeated, and we failed to defeat the communists in China and the authoritarians in Russia. While islam will be readily defeated with little effort if exported from our lands, and while russia will shrink dramatically by depopulation. The chinese only slightly less so.
    The end of ’empires’ and the conversion to alliances of Nation States – likely by race and civilization, will continue only after the remaining empires are defeated. The USA assumes they will outlive the ability of these empires as we did the communists. But chinese fascism (not communism) has been so successful at massive industrialization and trade capture that the outcome of the ‘debate’ may still be in question.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-03 19:49:43 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1907883229627166930

  • Trump is reorganizing world security and trade. He is doing it quickly and unple

    Trump is reorganizing world security and trade. He is doing it quickly and unpleasantly (to get it over with) using security and tariffs – because asking and negotiating didn’t work. To create the world order we have had three phases:

    1 – Bretton Woods Order: Subsidizing the world recovery, and limiting authoritarian communism. (Cost: burning our industrial advantage)

    2 – Neoliberal Order: Subsidizing world finance and ending the authoritarian communism. (Cost: burning our middle and working classes.)

    3 – Trump’s Restoration of Traditional Order: Ending the subsidies, redistributing the cost of world order, whether defense or transport and trade. (Cost: disruption of alliances, economy, and ‘deep state’ – all of which were creations of the Anglo-USA remains of the British empire at the end of WWII.)

    Retrospectively the world wars were the necessary end of agrarian land empires and the emergence of federations of industrial nation states. The generals were correct in their criticism claiming we ended World War II early. We assumed islam was defeated, and we failed to defeat the communists in China and the authoritarians in Russia. While islam will be readily defeated with little effort if exported from our lands, and while russia will shrink dramatically by depopulation. The chinese only slightly less so.

    The end of ’empires’ and the conversion to alliances of Nation States – likely by race and civilization, will continue only after the remaining empires are defeated. The USA assumes they will outlive the ability of these empires as we did the communists. But chinese fascism (not communism) has been so successful at massive industrialization and trade capture that the outcome of the ‘debate’ may still be in question.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-04-03 19:47:31 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1907882677702995968