Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • ATTENTION IS THE FEMININE MIND’S TEST OF SUCCESS –“This Supreme Court has lost

    ATTENTION IS THE FEMININE MIND’S TEST OF SUCCESS
    –“This Supreme Court has lost the people’s trust”–@NoahBookbinder

    Noah, (all);
    That’s pure Sophistry, in pursuit of deceit by social construction. (Which is your much deserved reputation.)

    Trump never had your trust because you’re not only politically but ethnically hostile to western civilization’s demand for personal responsibility for self, private, and common, in exchange for sovereignty, autonomy, meritocracy, and participation in decision making.

    But your feminine cognitive bias cannot overcome the need for authority to bring about by deception, social construction, coercion, and command what cannot be brought about by voluntary exchange under sovereignty autonomy and meritocracy.

    There is no difference between a middle eastern priest, a rabbi, a leftist academic, a leftist public intellectual, and a leftist politician all of whom use the false promise(socially constructed fraud), that if given power, that they will produce equality when, in the end they produce ignorance decay dysgenia and destruction.

    There is no existing female polity, no surviving jewish polity that wasn’t given by europeans – and the jury is still out on survival, not much of a islamic economy, government or army, and no successful marxist, society, polity state, or civilization.

    Because you’re simply wrong. Why? Just like women, you’re operating by the demand for attention not the pursuit of good or excellence.

    In other words attention is your objective not the excellent the good or the true.

    (And yes we even have the cognitive science to back it up)

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @NoahBookbinder

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 18:35:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795886650817409024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795496732698026277

  • Largely, in the long term yes. IN the short and medium and long term we need the

    Largely, in the long term yes. IN the short and medium and long term we need the structural reforms I’ve proposed.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 18:15:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795881599713591586

    Reply addressees: @OKFootball2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795881136301748526

  • “Q: Curt: Do you have a guide on how to stage a revolution?”– No joke: The FBI

    –“Q: Curt: Do you have a guide on how to stage a revolution?”–

    No joke: The FBI has repeatedly asked (threatened) me over further discussion of that topic. So I’ll publish it as ‘The Course and Conduct of A Revolution’ if and when the time comes. At present, it’s more important that we finish the work of (a) what we are demanding and why it’s just, and (b) the legal, constitutional, institutional, procedural and policy reforms (c) such that if a revolution does begin we know what to fight for and what to do if we win (d) in order to remove maximum resistance from the moral population, and increase the government’s inability to resist.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @R__Credo

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 15:33:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795840797775937536

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795832044209283290

  • THE CAUSE OF WOMEN’S BEHAVIOR AND SOLUTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WOMEN INTO ECO

    THE CAUSE OF WOMEN’S BEHAVIOR AND SOLUTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WOMEN INTO ECONOMY AND POLITY
    ( Update: I should have completed the argument. 😉 )

    –“So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement,… https://twitter.com/Lord__Sousa/status/1795598031234253048

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 23:49:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795603381823639565

  • Where Feminism Went Wrong – from Rights to Sedition – and What to Do About It (T

    Where Feminism Went Wrong – from Rights to Sedition – and What to Do About It

    (The best explanation you will find anywhere)
    The first generations of feminism from (a) women’s rights to (b) women’s suffrage movement converted into (c) first wave feminism, again primarily legal rights – especially in marriage – and voting rights.
    Until this point it’s fully christian and a just adaptation to women’s capacity outside the home after the industrial revolution, the availability of education, and sufficient suppression of scarcity because of the industrial revolution that people had the freedom to even imagine any form of self sufficiency outside of a family structure.
    But, beginning with (d) Second Wave Jewish feminism, by Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir. starting in the 1960s went beyond rights to privileges obtained by political means – sedition against the institution of the family and wester civ. In other words, the conversion of marxist means of sedition by the working classes to marxist sedition by women.
    Then (e) Third Wave Feminism of Rebecca Walker, Judith Butler, bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watson), continued the marxist means of sedition adopted into feminism by Jewish feminists, and expanded it from sex marxism (women’s rent seeking) into continues sedition by claiming the sexes and gender roles are irrelevant and instead of a our historical informal and formal institutions creating a compromise between the sexes, claiming it was oppressive.
    When, as unpleasant as it sounds, the opposite was true, paternalism was a male responsibility to the rest of the polity for “domesticating a naturally anti-social, anti-political, anti-economic sex into equal responsibility for self, private and common, by prohibiting externalizing costs upon others.”
    Which was a set of outcomes that were predicted, because of women’s natural inability to restrict impulses for hyperconsumption, hypergamy, hyper-attention, hyper-manipulation, and the use of anti-social warfare to obtain what they could not by merit alone – and all of which now come to fruition as the destruction of intersexual cooperation, mating, reproduction, family, and family as the first institution of production of citizens capable of persisting our high trust civilization, and the resulting possibility of a participatory (democratic) polity in the absence of arbitrary authority.
    Why? women always vote to evade responsibility rather than to demand it’s adoption and demonstration. “Get men to pay for it.”
    So what is the female strategy, what is the marxist strategy, what is the feminist marxist strategy, and what is the woke race-marxist strategy?
    It’s a revolt against the demand for responsibility for self, private and common, necessary to produce a western civilizational polity capable of the suppression of authority by mutual insurance of self determination by self determined means, by insurance of sovereignty in one’s demonstrated investments and autonomy in their use of self and those investments without imposing on those of others.
    In other words its the reversal of the process of human domestication that made advanced civilization possible by the claim domestication of the animal impulse is oppression rather than training necessary for political participation that was made possible only because of those demands for responsibility.
    Then (f) fourth wave feminism by instinct rather than instruction, Digital activism and the use of social media to use gossiping rallying shaming undermining and canceling to circumvent the court and common law process. This is effectively the institutionalization of the female method of not only social and political warfare, but of the female method of government.
    (Though that statement might take more explanation that I’m able to go into at the moment – I hope most of you will grasp it as a contrast of the male use of adversarial combat in court with the female use of warfare by rallying in public without the constraints of the court to testifiability, equity, and liability)
    SUMMARY
    a,b) Pre-Feminism: Women’s Suffrage and Women’s Rights Movements focused on legal rights, suffrage, and basic equality. Economic rights outside the home.
    c) First-Wave Feminism: Legal and institutional equality, especially suffrage. Irresponsibility for marriage.
    d) Second-Wave Feminism: Broader social equality, workplace, reproductive rights. Privileges over men. Irresponsibility for self regulation, especially of reproduction.
    e) Third-Wave Feminism: Diversity, intersectionality, individualism. Privilege over white men, and extension of irresponsibility to others in order to obtain more privileges over men.
    f) Fourth-Wave Feminism: Digital activism, combating sexual harassment, and utilizing social media for mobilization. Use of new technology to scale undermining to canceling, which is specifically a violation of our ancestral common law, that one is limited to court when one’s actions impose a material consequence upon others.
    ANALYSIS
    Why is it that none of these explanations of the feminist movement after equal legal rights and equal voting rights, are not seen through the lens of the female means of social warfare to obtain by seduction, victim claiming, undermining, and sedition, to justify female limited ability and will for self regulation of impulses and emotions, in order for her to evade responsibility for capitalization of private behavior and the necessary public norms to produce responsibility for that capitalization, to justify her instincts for hyper-consumption, hyper-attention, hypergamy, and to hide under cover of victimization, in favor of and the antisocial, anti-economic, and anti-political consequences that are the foundation the marxist means of sedition, then applied to anti-male, anti-responsibility, anti-western civilization, for exactly the same reasons.
    With the result that all informal capital (knowledge, tradition, and behavior) and formal capital (institutions, including the work force, business and industry, education and the academy, and all political organization) are collapsing for the simple reason that women have claimed oppression instead of domestication, and the consequence of men’s failure to domesticate women, and women domesticate themselves across generations, has resulted in what is very close to civil war and civilizational collapse, including civilizational collapse by birth rates.
    WHAT TO DO?
    Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in white collar roles.
    So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.
    So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.
    SOLUTION
    I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)
    And from that perspective, the problem is fixable. It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. 😉
    Affections, As always, CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:58:21 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1795575365282246951

  • Trump is notoriously successful at preserving his negotiating position. When he

    Trump is notoriously successful at preserving his negotiating position. When he says he can stop the war he means it, and he can. What we read into this statemetn is that he would surrender ukrainian territory to Russia. As far as I know this isn’t his objective. If on the other hand the two eastern provinces were lost, the southern restored, and crimea restored, this would be a compromise that was in Ukraine’s interest, and would get ukraine into NATO.

    Reply addressees: @PaulNiland

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 16:16:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795489352396496896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795487296663306285

  • Hindsight is always 20/20. And while the anglo/french betrayal of the Munich Agr

    Hindsight is always 20/20. And while the anglo/french betrayal of the Munich Agreement, in an effort to appease hitler because they were tired of war was against the interests of the Czech people, a people who cannot and never could defend themselves, the Czech people and the government in exile didn’t exactly ask the Allies to stay away – just the opposite.

    At the time, everyone was more afraid of germany than russia. That reversed only after the Soviets obtained the tech for nuclear weapons from a jewish spies in the USA.

    So I mean, yeah. Hindsight.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @antigg860413 @evansrc717 @SteveSchmidtSES @IHeartUkraine

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 03:42:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795299507757813760

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795214391115161787

  • WHY IS THERE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WHY WILL IT NEVER CHANGE? –“When you vote

    WHY IS THERE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WHY WILL IT NEVER CHANGE?

    –“When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President.  You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors.”–

    REASONS FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
    The electoral college consists of a number of citizens of the state according to the number of federal representatives including the house and the senate.

    Each candidate, but in reality each party, selects a number of electors – basically, among the people most active in the campaign for the individual and the party.

    Most states require electors to vote the popular vote, but at least two states use proportional distribution to the candidates.

    So you’re voting for the group of electors chosen by the people with the most knowledge of the candidate, the party and the platform.

    Why? Defense against influence and manipulation from out of state actors. Defense against the abuse of the voting process by radicals or corruption or special interests – it’s too many people of too much understanding of cause and consequence to bribe in one way or another.

    The Electoral College was established for several reasons:

    1. (Legitimacy) To balance the power between small and large states.
    The Electoral College was a compromise that balanced the influence of states with varying populations. It aimed to ensure that both smaller and larger states had a role in selecting the President, thus preserving the federal structure of the government where both national and state interests are considered.

    2. (Legitimacy) To ensure a broad regional consensus in Presidential elections.
    The system was designed to ensure that candidates needed to gain support from a variety of regions, preventing dominance by a single, populous region or state. This encouraged Presidential candidates to campaign across the entire country and consider a broader range of interests.

    3. (Competency) To provide a check against direct democracy and prevent potential tyranny of the majority.
    The Founding Fathers were wary of direct democracy due to concerns about the potential for mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. They believed that a pure popular vote could lead to unqualified candidates being elected based on fleeting popular sentiments or demagoguery.
    So, the Electoral College was seen as a buffer between the population and the selection of the President, allowing for a more informed and deliberate decision-making process by electors who would theoretically be better informed about the candidates and their qualifications.

    In other words, the USG was not designed to advance the majority but to protect the minority against the majority.

    THE USE OF “COMMONALITY” AND “CONCURRENCY”

    1. Commonality in the Law (Common Law) of Dispute Resolution (Via Negativa)
    Commonality refers to the empirical method of determining legal principles and dispute resolutions based on the consistent findings of courts across various classes and regions. This ensures that judicial decisions are incrementally refined, consistent, and precise.
    – Empirical Basis: Commonality relies on the aggregate findings of courts, making legal principles grounded in real-world applications and experiences across diverse contexts.
    – Incremental Refinement: Through repeated application and scrutiny, legal principles and precedents are continually refined, ensuring greater precision and consistency over time.
    – Universal Application: By drawing from a wide range of cases and regions, commonality ensures that legal principles are universally applicable and not biased toward any particular class or region.
    – Example Definition: “Commonality in the law of dispute resolution refers to the empirical method of deriving legal principles from the consistent findings of courts across various classes and regions. This approach ensures that judicial decisions are incrementally refined, consistent, and precise, reflecting a universal standard of justice.”

    2. Concurrency in the Production of Voting and Legislation (Via Positiva)
    Concurrency refers to the empirical method of producing voting outcomes and legislation through the common assent or veto across different regions and populations. This ensures that the legislative process accurately reflects the empirical desires of the population.
    – Empirical Reflection: Concurrency captures the true will of the people by requiring widespread agreement or veto, making the legislative process a genuine reflection of the population’s desires.
    – Protection Mechanism: This method protects the interests of minorities from the arbitrary discretion of authorities and safeguards majorities from potential excesses of the majority’s impulses and follies.
    – Balanced Governance: Concurrency ensures balanced governance by integrating diverse regional and population-based inputs into the legislative process, preventing unilateral decisions that could undermine the common good.
    – Example Definition: “Concurrency in the production of voting and legislation refers to the empirical method of deriving legislative outcomes through common assent or veto across different regions and populations. This approach ensures that the legislative process accurately reflects the desires of the population, protecting minority interests and limiting the impulses of the majority.”

    These definitions emphasize the empirical nature of both commonality and concurrency, highlighting their roles in creating a just and balanced government that protects minority interests and limits the potential excesses of majorities.

    The purpose of these rules is:
    1 – the production and preservation of the legitimacy of the government and the courts.
    2 – the production of legitimacy in ‘settled law’ and ‘settled legislation’ – meaning the public acceptance of the legitimacy in the law in court, public, or political activism.
    3 – the defense against the majority passions and majority incompetency.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-27 21:21:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795203648466702336

  • You are viewing the future through the lens of your ability not that of those wi

    You are viewing the future through the lens of your ability not that of those with more. All trump would need to do is make it easier to for the right to bring about teh restoration (changes) desired. The right will do the rest.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-27 20:25:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795189653936517212

    Reply addressees: @josh61597760 @evansrc717 @SteveSchmidtSES @IHeartUkraine

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795188130531643822

  • “If Trump is elected our American Experiment is over and our country will devolv

    –“If Trump is elected our American Experiment is over and our country will devolve”–
    You are wrong. And I will win every single argument made by every single person regardless of who makes it.
    Even before doing so, why do you think you possess the ability, knowledge, and understanding to make such a proclamation? What evidence of life competence has convinced you that you have the capacity to grasp matters of great complexity and import?
    Every civilization develops a set of rentiers that burden the population, and it’s almost always the a secular or religious clerisy consisting of credentialists.
    We are at the point where we need a reformation on the level of the roman reforms, or we will have a civil war that will end up worse than both right or left imagine.
    That war is within the next seven or eight years. (I was too early in my prediction).
    Trump will continue four strategies.
    1 – Using the press against themselves and feeding you this nonsense thus advancing his claim that neither the press nor the academy nor the organs of state are truthful, meritocratic, and preserving the constitution, which itself is just a statement of natural law. Your reaction is just evidence that you are a ‘useful idiot’.
    2 – Throwing the bums out so that we purge the leftist’ march thru the institutions of western cultural production’ by the false promise of any superior alternative.
    3 – Repatriating vast numbers of people who are a burden on our institutions, but more so on our culture, education, and especially the lower and working classes.
    4- Repatriating industry so that as the world descends into another very certain world war between those who are seeking empires, and those who are seeking to produce federations of nation states.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @evansrc717 @SteveSchmidtSES @IHeartUkraine

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-27 19:54:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795181872542019584

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795137708114821453