Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • Raise the cost of the status quo. Nullification. Reconstitution. Secession. Revo

    Raise the cost of the status quo. Nullification. Reconstitution. Secession. Revolution, Civil War. Tactics Differ. Result The Same. #NRx

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-17 15:55:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666645725971877888

  • Not how you get that. How else do you stop an invasion

    Not how you get that. How else do you stop an invasion.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 23:06:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665304854491852800

    Reply addressees: @willwilkinson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665304594054971394

    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/665304594054971394

  • Retweeted Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich): Paris is learning a lesson. A nation is n

    Retweeted Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich):

    Paris is learning a lesson. A nation is not its soil. A nation is the people. Paris for Parisans and Syria for Muslims. Nationalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 18:01:00 UTC

  • THE JUDICIOUS USE OF FEAR AND VIOLENCE How do we prevent the rise of the corpora

    THE JUDICIOUS USE OF FEAR AND VIOLENCE

    How do we prevent the rise of the corporate state over the interest of kin, tribe and nation? Fear. The purpose of kings is to deny people an alternative. It is not that kings are good. It is that no government is good. The only goods are the market for goods and services in which competition provides incentives to produce and consume; the market for commons in which prevention of privatization provides incentives to invest in long term returns; and the ostracization from both markets if one fails to consume, product and invest. The most moral use of violence is in the prevention of parasitism leaving man only productivity as a means of survival. An armed militia provides power-seekers fear. The sheriff and judiciary provide abusers with fear. The king is merely evidence that the militia, sheriff, and judiciary succeed in the use of fear. For it is the judicious use of fear that eliminates the need for judicious use of violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 13:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: No, I am an Aristocratic Libertarian, not a Bourgeoise Libertarian

    [I] do not possess the values of a bourgeoise libertarian, but an aristocratic, martial, advocate of personal liberty. I have been accused of being an aristocratic and intellectual snob for my entire life. It was only by gradually learning to ‘fit in’ after university, and as a necessity of conducting business with common people, and our relocation to rather parochial Seattle, that incrementally forced me to tone it down out of pure utility. So I don’t hold to the fallacy that consumption is a penultimate good in its own. And while I advocate wealth, cooperation and decidability, it’s because I view cooperation as a means of constructing the voluntary organization of experiment, innovation, production, distribution and trade that produces wealth and technology with which a minority of warriors and generals can hold the hordes – often wealthy hordes – at bay. This is the ancient info European (Yamnaya) social economic and military evolutionary strategy. To use advanced technology and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers: to pacify and transform the world. So I see all competitively advantageous products of man as weaponry to be used against competitors. My cognitive process like my heritage is martial. Until I learned economics – the language of equilibria, I used martial terminology – the language of competition. We need kings, generals, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and warriors. But, I do not need the same intuitions as an individual warrior or captain. I need the intuitions of a general and King. Wars are won by logistics. That is why.

  • Q&A: No, I am an Aristocratic Libertarian, not a Bourgeoise Libertarian

    [I] do not possess the values of a bourgeoise libertarian, but an aristocratic, martial, advocate of personal liberty. I have been accused of being an aristocratic and intellectual snob for my entire life. It was only by gradually learning to ‘fit in’ after university, and as a necessity of conducting business with common people, and our relocation to rather parochial Seattle, that incrementally forced me to tone it down out of pure utility. So I don’t hold to the fallacy that consumption is a penultimate good in its own. And while I advocate wealth, cooperation and decidability, it’s because I view cooperation as a means of constructing the voluntary organization of experiment, innovation, production, distribution and trade that produces wealth and technology with which a minority of warriors and generals can hold the hordes – often wealthy hordes – at bay. This is the ancient info European (Yamnaya) social economic and military evolutionary strategy. To use advanced technology and professional warriors to defeat superior numbers: to pacify and transform the world. So I see all competitively advantageous products of man as weaponry to be used against competitors. My cognitive process like my heritage is martial. Until I learned economics – the language of equilibria, I used martial terminology – the language of competition. We need kings, generals, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and warriors. But, I do not need the same intuitions as an individual warrior or captain. I need the intuitions of a general and King. Wars are won by logistics. That is why.

  • Putin would be the most popular politician in the world if he had offered (he st

    Putin would be the most popular politician in the world if he had offered (he still could) to pay Ukraine for the territories (under threat that he could take them otherwise) and he could have kept ukraine in his orbit. Instead, he impoverished ukraine further, and drove her forever to europe, broke the postwar consensus on borders that was the principle necessary to prevent another world war, demonstrated that the only guarantee of sovereignty is ownership of nuclear weapons, generating new demand for proliferation, pivoted the USA and NATO back to Russia, created justification to expand american military spending, and dramatically harmed his people and their economy. He panicked and he flinched and he confirmed eastern europe’s fears: that he is an irresponsible threat to civilized peoples. Worse he has restarted the propaganda war, and saturates his people with fabricated news on purpose. Not of utopian fantasy like american politicians but out of nihilism.

    It would be terribly easy to fix this problem and he lacks the will to do it. Fix ukraine with discounted gas, stop lying and propagandizing, and just assert that he’s right in his opposition to the USA’s intrusions, the fallacy of democracy, and western hedonistic (barbaric) western culture – and keep suppressing home dissidents. It’s not like most of the world doesn’t agree with him outside of left leaning western pseudo-intellectuals.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 16:08:00 UTC

  • PUTIN KILLS THE AMBITIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER Putin just killed the new world

    PUTIN KILLS THE AMBITIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    Putin just killed the new world order for us. And as long as he does not attempt to expand his borders then I am all in.

    The western attempt to spread democracy, human rights has failed.

    We have spread consumer capitalism, Aristotelian thought (scientific thinking), medicine, technology, rule of law – technologies that are culturally independent.

    But our attempt to remake the world in the neopuritan vision has been as catastrophic abroad as it has been at home.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 11:42:00 UTC

  • A CONVICTION, A THREAT, A PROMISE. —“I am not concerned with should, I am conc

    A CONVICTION, A THREAT, A PROMISE.

    —“I am not concerned with should, I am concerned with shall. Not in persuasion but compliance. Not in compromise but in defeat. Not in tolerance but in deportation. And should deportation fail, in hanging, impaling, crosses and pyres – from the merely utilitarian to the most dramatic. There is a vast difference between convenience and conviction, between discount and premium. Between action and excuse for inaction. Should’s, requests, demands, are a convenience by which to obscure a discount, by justifying inaction – and creating a theft from one’s ancestors, ones peers and all generations that might follow. And so there is plenty rope and pyre for such lairs, cheaters, and thieves as well. Act, or perish at the hands of those who do.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:22:00 UTC

  • Here you go, borders and Europe – presentation by our former conservative PM

    Here you go, borders and Europe – presentation by our former conservative PM.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 12:02:00 UTC