Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Strategic Options in Warfare

    1. If you want to overturn the government directly it might rally people against you but it’s possible to siege the capital. I wouldn’t recommend it. That’s a left tactic.

    2. If you want to start a secession movement and take the center of the country, you take Texas because it has sufficient population, sufficient military resources, ports, a power grid, and one of the two mints. You move north using texas as a base, and cut off the rest of the country – but you have to do it fast.   I don’t favor holding territory on the defense, it’s better to keep in constant motion.

    3. If you want to take over the country you raid one of the more vulnerable immigrant or leftist cities, and overload it’s resources, and move on to the next in short order, leaving fires, power, water, communication, rail, and road (air doesn’t matter), although preventing landings at least is trivial.

    4. If you want to win quickly you issue demands that people actually prefer to the current order, issue incentives to police, military, guard, and ‘civilian actors’, and then do three to four cities at once. It’s impossible to react to that.  And it only takes ‘thousands’ per city.

    Communication is more important than power. Power more important than money, money more important than transport, transport more important than political figures.

  • “No Matter Who Wins 2020 There Will Be Blood

    by Daniel Roland Anderson This is not only likely, it’s becoming inevitable. Yeah, it still irritates me that you (Curt) got there early and took the heat, and now it’s nods and/crickets depending on the crowd. “The president will call for mobilizing the National Guard. Some governors will refuse, and army units now overseas will be sent home to deal with the growing unrest. Mistakes will be made and there will be gunfire in the streets; people will die on both sides. The president will desperately call for martial law. ” “Many Army, National Guard, and police will defect, or desert, or simply refuse orders.” “What will happen after that is anybody’s guess.” LINK: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/no_matter_who_wins_in_2020_there_will_be_blood.html

  • “No Matter Who Wins 2020 There Will Be Blood

    by Daniel Roland Anderson This is not only likely, it’s becoming inevitable. Yeah, it still irritates me that you (Curt) got there early and took the heat, and now it’s nods and/crickets depending on the crowd. “The president will call for mobilizing the National Guard. Some governors will refuse, and army units now overseas will be sent home to deal with the growing unrest. Mistakes will be made and there will be gunfire in the streets; people will die on both sides. The president will desperately call for martial law. ” “Many Army, National Guard, and police will defect, or desert, or simply refuse orders.” “What will happen after that is anybody’s guess.” LINK: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/no_matter_who_wins_in_2020_there_will_be_blood.html

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”— https://propertarianism.com/2019/09/25/q-what-is-your-opinion-of-monarchy/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 15:27:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176880921728946179

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

      [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

      [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • “WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”— Monarchy (which is a purely christian euro

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    Monarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=472317706698458&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 14:43:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176869721817436161

  • RT @StefanMolyneux: Men of the West! You have ONE JOB over the next few weeks. C

    RT @StefanMolyneux: Men of the West!

    You have ONE JOB over the next few weeks.

    Convince the women in your life to stop voting Liberal.

    P…

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 11:11:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176816560784203778

  • LEADERS LIE: THE TRUTH ABOUT LYING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS – BOOK AND VIDEO LI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGEWHY LEADERS LIE: THE TRUTH ABOUT LYING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS – BOOK AND VIDEO LINK

    by John J. Mearsheimer

    VIDEO

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGE

    AMAZON LINK

    https://www.amazon.com/Why-Leaders-Lie-International-Politics/dp/0199975450

    In Why Leaders Lie, Mearsheimer provides the first systematic analysis of lying as a tool of statecraft, identifying the varieties, the reasons, and the potential costs and benefits. Drawing on a wealth of examples, he argues that leaders often lie for good strategic reasons, so a blanket condemnation is unrealistic and unwise. Yet there are other kinds of deception besides lying, including concealment and spinning. Perhaps no distinction is more important than that between lying to another state and lying to one’s own people. Mearsheimer was amazed to discover how unusual interstate lying has been; given the atmosphere of distrust among the great powers, he found that outright deceit is difficult to pull off and thus rarely worth the effort. Moreover, it sometimes backfires when it does occur. Khrushchev lied about the size of the Soviet missile force, sparking an American build-up. Eisenhower was caught lying about U-2 spy flights in 1960, which scuttled an upcoming summit with Krushchev. Leaders are more likely to mislead their own publics than other states, sometimes with damaging consequences. Though the reasons may be noble–Franklin Roosevelt, for example, lied to the American people about German U-boats attacking the destroyer USS Greer in 1940, to build a case for war against Hitler-they can easily lead to disaster, as with the Bush administration’s falsehoods about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

    There has never been a sharp analysis of international lying. Now a leading expert provides a richly informed and powerfully argued work that will change our understanding of why leaders lie.Updated Sep 25, 2019, 10:51 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 10:51:00 UTC

  • He is trying to govern, achieve his goal, and leave a legacy, and he still has h

    He is trying to govern, achieve his goal, and leave a legacy, and he still has hope. When he loses hope, then he ‘might’. Otherwise we must act even if he doesn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 10:29:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176805912775921665

    Reply addressees: @johnnyrockett01 @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176748132283179019

    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/1176748132283179019