Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • PROPERTARIANISM —“Finishing what the founders were trying to achieve, after 24

    PROPERTARIANISM

    —“Finishing what the founders were trying to achieve, after 240 years of gradual cascading failure of buggy ruling software.”—Steve Pender

    .

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 11:47:00 UTC

  • GETTING IT DONE My understanding of the current situation is that the previous g

    GETTING IT DONE

    My understanding of the current situation is that the previous generation of the alt right is dead, and that certain people need to disappear for progress to be made without them boat-anchoring everyone.

    There are, as always, three different clans that reflect the possible means of exercising power…

    authoritarian <–> market <-> religious

    … with overlap, and as in all things, that these clans have common genetic interests, but uncommon methods of achieving them.

    My preference is that this is the standard we all approach the clans with, and that we agree to fight the status quo from three angles. But that we do not try to determine which order is best, since all orders are necessary, to serve the three power structures, and the elites in each of the three power structures.

    The reality is that there are limited options available to us. And that those options will favor a legalistic solution as the lowest cost price of entry. That religion has zero hope of anything other than obtaining exclusivity, and that authority requires individuals to emerge capable of that roles – and we have none outside of the military.

    We have anglos (north and west) the anglo scots irish (the south), and the germans and the scandinavians (the center). The evidence is that of them, the only ones who fight and have military experience are the southerners. The germans never fight. The scandinavians are still cucks, and the anglos are too privileged to do much.

    We have a potential of going mainstream, while the religious can follow us if we gain momentum, they can do nothing on their own. All the authoritarians can do is form special forces (prosecutors of enemies) so to speak. That is all that can happen.

    Our (and my) position is that we are better off ‘leaving the alt right behind’ as a failed movement, and will gain normie cred if we either do so, distance ourselves from, or are ‘enemies’ of the hard right.

    This election is basically our last demographic and political chance so I am not terribly interested in pragmatisms.

    This sh-t has to get done.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 20:10:00 UTC

  • THIS IS HOW REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE: FULL MOBILIZATION. (repost) We don’t need ‘one

    THIS IS HOW REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE: FULL MOBILIZATION.

    (repost)

    We don’t need ‘one-ness’ in argument. We need one ambition: CHANGE. The change you fight for will depend on your believe in what can be accomplished. Some within the process (evidence is contrary) and some using rebellion to overwhelm the existing process (anglos have this history of constitutional revision in times of change), and some of us with revolution so that the threat of chaos will force the existing process of change. and some want to burn the house down and see what rises from the Joker’s ashes. (That strategy always seems to fail).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 15:39:00 UTC

  • I don’t want to take over the government. I want to pass amendments

    I don’t want to take over the government. I want to pass amendments.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-08 03:02:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093706666699296768

    Reply addressees: @MisterWebb @TheOldOrder1 @PaddockSperg @laceyxcensored @SarinSquad @FashyxLacey @Jameswoods271

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093706073767272448

    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/1093706073767272448

  • ANOTHER LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Here is an other legit criticism via Richard Heathe

    ANOTHER LEGITIMATE CRITICISM

    Here is an other legit criticism via Richard Heathen:

    The catastrophic failure of our constitution to protect us from marxism, socialism, neoconservatism, postmodernism, and feminism under the pressure of universal enfranchisement and FPTP representative, majoritarian democracy, has soured all faith in our institutions, and driven the desire for a strong man – which is what history tells us will always happen.

    But I view this as an understandable but unnecessary fear. I will agree that democracy was a terrible tragedy, but the vulnerabilities were within our system, and they can be corrected and amended. We have the longest running governments in the modern world among the english speaking peoples, and the reason is that our form of government is contractual and open to continuous reform without catastrophic bloodshed – well, at least, we survive it.

    We can produce the most intolerant government in history with the greatest defenses of our people by simply providing market incentives to prosecute those who violate those those intolerances. I have more faith in our use of the courts and the law to circumvent the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies, than I do of the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies being constrained by their adherence to the law.

    More later.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-07 22:14:00 UTC

  • by John Mark The only thing I’d clarify about this is that there are a couple ar

    by John Mark

    The only thing I’d clarify about this is that there are a couple areas where the Left has been operating in reality better than the Right. So:

    1. Copy the Left’s tactic of gossip rally ridicule shame? No. Maybe to help win an election as a short-term play to buy us time, but not as a long-term solution. (The solution is outlaw pollution of the informational commons with lies.)

    2. Copy the Left’s understanding that identity politics wins, and that racial identity is a more powerful petsuasive force for most people (especially nonwhites) than any political ideology or set of ideas? Yes. The Right has tried to be race-blind with disastrous consequences. The Left’s reality-based success with this (colonize us with nonwhites & play identity politics with them) fools many right-wingers, because the Left lies about race, but their *actions* & strategy are more in line with reality in this area than the Right’s have been. We must learn from them in this area. (Race matters in political persuasion for nonwhites, more than anything else. We must deal with this reality.)

    3. The Left understands that it is all about holding the reins of power, not about “principle” or teaching people. Whoever makes the rules, rules. Whoever makes the rules, gets what they want. They go straight for the jugular: power. Without regard for anything else. Meanwhile, the Right has been trying to “be principled” and teach people (to explain/educate our way to victory). This is a mistake – truth matters not unless truth-enforcers have power and make the rules. Principles mean nothing without the power to enforce them. The Right must learn from the Left in this area.

    4. The Left knows how to be intolerant, to punish its enemies swiftly and harshly. Certain parts of the Right have tried to embrace tolerance (libertarians, classical liberals), with the predictable result that classical liberals and libertarians have zero power. The Right must learn from the Left in this area.

    What confuses the Right is that everything that comes out of the Left’s mouth is a lie. Their communication is all gossip rally ridicule shame (feminine). And we rightly say, “That is not us.” But then we look around and say, “Why do they have all the institutional power?” Well, because their *actions* (strategy/tactics) have been more in line with reality than the Right’s.

    So yes, the alt-right’s “let’s do ridicule better than the Left” is not our long-term answer. But we must recognize the areas where the Left has operated in reality better than we have, and course correct. Without losing our essence (truth).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 22:36:00 UTC

  • WHY? —“The argument that the right hasnt been doing it right and needs to lear

    WHY?

    —“The argument that the right hasnt been doing it right and needs to learn from the Enemy because they evolve rapidly is outright wrong. The right has known for hundreds of years how to remove enemies. The issue isnt the application of force or the tactics involved. Its the balls to act [in concert at scale]. We suffer from either inaction or over action. People who want to sit around all day and hash and rehash and do nothing, or people who lash out in all directions and only accomplish getting their name on a federal watchlist and local police radars. Utilizing left wing tactics doesn’t give us any ground, it only dilutes any attempts at meaningful change.”—Dylan Knowles

    Organized. Concerted. Effort.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 18:36:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM” –> “CRITICAL NATURALISM”? —-“Would you consider renaming Pr

    “PROPERTARIANISM” –> “CRITICAL NATURALISM”?

    —-“Would you consider renaming Propertarianism to “Critical Naturalism”?”— Kash

    That’s Very Smart. I Never thought of that.

    Hmm….

    That would change it from a legal category of name to a philosophical category of name.

    Hmm…

    Well it’s true right? In philosophical terms it would be categorized as “critical naturalism”.

    Although, what is the difference between the law and critical naturalism?

    I ‘m not sure there is any.

    So why are critical naturalism and the law of tort not identical?

    I mean, that’s my underlying argument: that the west differs from the rest because across the ages of political-philosophical-religious propaganda, the law of “sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty” remained constant.

    So I would call the Law a discipline that relies on critical naturalism. I would call propertarianism the natural law that relies on critical naturalism.

    So yes. I think the brand name has stuck, but yes I’d (a) accept that as a truthful description of the philosophical category (b) use the term myself as a philosophical category, (c) maintain the position that the law is the only complete and parsimonious category, and that the attempt to produce science is a long term attempt to unify western law (our civilizational cult) with western philosophy (middle class propaganda).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 11:28:00 UTC

  • Most of my work is focused on making this particular kind of deception an act of

    Most of my work is focused on making this particular kind of deception an act of fraud.The the rest is to (a) the formal construction of law, (b) require the court to approve the constitutionality of legislation, (c) force the court to return undecidable legislation to the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:41:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087404880757690370

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087399669121118210

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare Please give an example of false or irreciprocal speech as I don’t understand your useage.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087399669121118210

  • A series of constitutional amendments yes.This is the anglo model of revolution,

    A series of constitutional amendments yes.This is the anglo model of revolution,and why it is the oldest surviving government. Under rule of law we reform the contract every so many generations in order to eliminate the tendency of the state and its benefactors from rent-seeking

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-21 17:26:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087401124477448195

    Reply addressees: @OctaveFilms @vdare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087395536519467008

    IN REPLY TO:

    @OctaveFilms

    @curtdoolittle @vdare And I still don’t follow what would be a win in concrete terms, prohibiting free speech notwithstanding.

    Do you want a constitutional amendment?

    Don you want more financial regulations?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1087395536519467008