The Choice Episode 0022: Following the Founders : A Suit Against The Sate: I Don’t Think I’m Influential. But If I Am Then I’ll Use It.

Welcome to The Choice – In this episode: Following the Founders. A suit against the State. I Don’t Think I’m Influential. But if I am then…  This is Curt Doolittle

This is a message for  activists, politicians, Law enforcement, and the FBI.  It provides context for my efforts on behalf of my people, my country, civilization and mankind.

I don’t think I or we have any influence. We spent a year and a half trying to turn the dissident disenfranchised and increasingly agitated Right into a political movement. Through at least 2018, the online dissident right, led by the conversion of conservative libertarians, was looking for solutions. The rest of the right was continuing their century of defeat. So we thought we could give this dissident movement a positive political ambition rather than letting them continue imitating the left through online agitation. However, while were making USE of the dissident right – the only available energetic conservatives activists other than the Christians – our solution benefits everyone other than the globalists, the financial sector allies of the globalists, the state allies of the financial sector and the globalists, and the academy and media that propagandize for the state, financial sector, and globalists … all of them intentionally plotting and conspiring, or engaged in a conspiracy of common interest, in their more than a century of warfare against the institutions of western civilization that have dragged mankind into prosperity in modernity.

We tested the political waters this summer by Avoiding the left’s tactics of “baiting the right into hazard” a violence that they instigated (using Alinsky’s Double Standard technique). But the online dissident right – a combination of fundamentalists, white nationalists, and nazis – canceled us – demonstrating that the right has become the left – just as I said it would. And in doing so they’ve made it impossible to conduct adult discourse. They’ve poisoned the well of social media – the optimum platform for us – for an alternative position, party or policy program. The dissident right has achieved what the left baited them into achieving – their own failure.

I can, and john can, take the blame for (1) thinking it was possible to unite the right, (2) failing to explain our strategy of ‘not taking the bait’. (3) launching the political movement where we thought we’d be free of antifa violence. (4) showing live video for what was intended to be a soft launch among devoted followers – without recognizing that both the christian and nazi communities would attack any non-violent political activity, in an attempt to prevent the civil war they all want by making the possibility of, and want of avoiding that war, a public certainty. And in doing so creating a platform for public discourse on political solutions.

So we failed like everyone else has failed. And because we failed I don’t think we have influence. Even if the FBI seems overly convinced that we do. So why is that? Let’s walk through this a bit.

Our plan was (a):

  1. Non-aggression.
  2. Not Taking the Bait.
  3. Show compassion (love) for the plight of the underserved (opposition).
  4. Use the attention to spread the message, and stay on message.

And (b) giving a speech asking for three things:

  1. Limiting demonstrations to nonaggression
  2. Restoration of defamation by libel or slander regardless of demonstrated cost.
  3. Adding political speech to protected speech and political identity to protected class.

The purpose of these three demands is to make civic discourse on our political future possible, and to protect social media, media, entertainment, and politics from economic threats by cancel culture.

I explained that historically, Europeans were limited to competition in markets, disputes in courts, or resolutions of insults in judicially sanctioned fighting or duel. This continued the European tradition of open truthful, transparent, public conflict, debate, and resolution by the jury of peers.

And that cancel culture has created a political weapon violating the necessary function of such open debate in a democracy, by taking advantage of four legal loopholes:

  1. our prohibition on normative discipline demanding conformity to norms and
  2. our prohibition on the duel
  3. our softening of libel and slander to demonstrated harm, and
  4. our right of free speech, not free, reciprocal, and truthful speech.

And I took a moment to remind the audience that only Europeans had converted testimonial speech in court, and military speech when reporting, into normative speech, and converted the behavior of the jury into the commons. This is the singular reason for European civilizations unique tradition of truth before face in public – or at least before peers or jury.

Now, The authorities say we have influence; When they visit me it’s usually to ask if I know someone or if an individual or group is a threat. I try to be helpful. I am open and public in everything I do – and I never touch any organized violence – because that is the difference between activism and action.  That’s the legal line and that’s what’s in the legal code. I will bring people together in mass. But I will not support any other action. It will only fail. It just fulfills the bait into hazard the left wants to construct its continuous false narrative of anti-masculinity.

Recently the FBI came to investigate me, Or rather, an FBI agent who knew what he was doing, and a CT state police detective that is punching far above his intellectual weight. They threatened me. From their conversation I know who spent time undermining me with the FBI – hell hath no fury like a psycho woman scorned – but we get reported regularly. This time it was because another group of followers who spun off last year were at the Capitol on the 6th. Apparently they have influence too.

I had planned to go to the Capitol on the 6th, but once I understood it was a Proud Boys sponsored event I decided (a) it was likely to be ridiculous and disorganized, and (b) I didn’t want to step on another group’s toes as we did in Richmond on July 4th and get people on the right mad at us again without reason. I could have brought a few people, and given my ‘free speech’ speech again. And if I’d been there I might have gone into the capitol and given the speech there. That would have been something more intelligent than a bunch of kids taking selfies.

But … that’s an opportunity lost.  And no, I don’t consider the capital event meaningful when they were justly rebelling against what they justly felt (whether or not it’s true – I don’t know) a stolen election. Not when we were subject to a year of terrorism by BLM and Antifa and nothing at all was done. Nothing. Just the opposite. They were assisted by the government. And heavily by private organizations heavily funded, with the sole stated purpose of destroying the united states, and complieting the marxist project.

Next, they start visiting my family and threatening me through them. To the point where they’re saying they’re looking for any reason to arrest me. Even if it’s failing to recycle a can. Soros, Atifa, the leftists that have inserted themselves into BLM, and over two hundred organizations are systematically trying to undermine our rule of law, burning buildings, aggressing against citizens with random violence, and tearing down statues. Ok, so, I research, write, and educate on the formal logic of natural law. Or what the vernacular incorrectly terms ‘strict construction’. An I specifically follow the same strategy of the founders, which is licenced in the declaration and preamble of the constitution.

But, so, while I don’t think I have, or we have, any influence at all, I am, we are, going to try to use it if so, by explaining our strategy for everyone who hasn’t been following me since the beginning.

I’d worked on early artificial intelligence and applied algorithmic law in the 80’s. I started working on a value-neutral language of ethics and politics back during the first gulf war, in response to the democratic party adopting the Alinsky tactic of just parroting talking points and not answering the interviewer’s questions. It bothered me that conservatives were bumbling idiots continuing the long-standing failure of pointlessly appealing to ethics and morality that isn’t shared by the left, as a means of arguing with them. Combatting this technique is what made fox news originally successful. But didn’t stop the left’s undermining of our civilization from within.

So, If we were to have value-neutral speech it must also be truthful. The law uses lists of criteria for legal judgments. Work on morality had been easy. But work on truth led me to understand the problem of demarcating truthful speech, and the legal criteria for doing so. That in turn led me to understand how first, libertarians were lying. Then how the left was lying. Then how the right was lying. And from there to complete the logic of the social sciences by determining what it was they were all lying about. In other words I just identified everyone’s lies and frauds and produced a method of exposing them as lies and fraud in court.

My later work was on economics, because economics is one of the most effective methods of lying, given that economics and wishful thinking has replaced morality and empirical evidence as the justification for policy. I worked on ‘cycles of lies, cycles of generations, business cycles, economic cycles, and institutional, demographic, and civilizational cycles. I had a pretty complete picture of the past ten thousand years and how our current crisis is a repeat of previous crises.

And so while I suspected it in the 1990’s, I have been predicting a civil war since the early 2000s.

When I first started blogging – I found as much push back from the public on the prediction of the 92 failure of the republican party, the 2001 correction, the 2008 correction, the lost decade of the teens, as I did the certainty of political upheaval and civil war and possibly world war between 2019 and 2024.

Even by 2016 the commentariat was ridiculing me. But over the past few years, talk of civil war is an increasingly infrequent opinion, observation, and prediction. So, at this point, I was as prescient as I’ve been in other predictable cycles.

Until 16 I avoided political discussion and stuck with strategy, policy, economics, and law.

In 16 it was clear that there would be civil war if clinton was elected.  So I changed my timeline.

Today the stress is escalating … for example,  the recent shooting in pennsylvania

( …  ad lib … )

My strategy is consistent.

  1. Everything I do is calculated, methodical, and deliberate. Far more so than you would imagine.
  2. I deliberately refer to violence because the libertarians converted conservative moral obligation to use violence to ensure one another’s sovereignty, to enlightenment and victorian moral appeal to man’s best nature – thus undermining the first principle of western civilization: that it is only through universal reciprocal insurance of sovereignty in our demonstrated interests, that what we call freedom and liberty are existentially possible. it is the only criteria under which the law, not men, is sovereign, and the only method by which man adapts to the laws of nature rather than seeking to evade them. And this is the single first cause, of European civilizational success.
  3. I’m deliberately adversarial because I’m drawing attention to the consequence of removing adversarialism from education, civil behavior, and civic life: every man must be a sherrif if the gains of western civlization are to be preserved and our evolution continued.
  4. I’m deliberately prosecutorial because I’m drawing attention to the consequence of the failure of philosophical and civil discourse by the presumpion that the left is engaging in honest reciprocoal discourse, debate, or argument. They are not. Their strategy is just deceit and fraud from top to bottom.
  5. I’m deliberately baiting moral conflict because it is only moral conflict humans demonstrate their true beliefs – thereby overcoming the pseudoscience of survey and testing in the behavioral sciences.
  6. I’m deliberately producing and teaching the formal logic of both testimony and deceit so that the great problem of our age – the industrialization of lying – can be discussed in rational and scientific terms. While our conflict is largely one of ignorance, the conservative right cannot speak the truth because it is a postwar taboo. And the progressive left must lie, because they are engaged in a vast social, political, and civilizational crime.
  7. I’m deliberately prosecuting taboos because taboos prevent truthful discourse on the first causes of our thousands of years of political conflict.
  8. I’m deliberately framing discourse as true/false, testifiable/untestifiable, AND CRIMINAL/or not because that frame exposes that almost everyone is lying to conduct one political crime or another.
  9. I deliberately researching and teaching by conducting king of the hill games to demonstrate the necessity of competition for the teaching of males – if we want them to invest in the economy, society, polity, norms, traditions, and institutions. And because it is the only frame of discourse where we speak the truth.
  10. I’m deliberately discussing civil war because I know for certain, without question, that it will occur – and because I know, with equal certainty, that we will not be able to prevent that war, or its escalation to a world war, without sufficient public certainty of the likelihood and consequences of such a civil war, that it is possible to conduct a peaceful national debate over our conflicting futures, and how to satisfy all parties.
  11. Everything I do is to make possible that public discourse – a discourse that is actively suppressed by all sides – by baiting both sides into the discourse that they avoid having, and where both are marching ever blindly into the bloodiest house to house civil war in human history.

To make that conversation rational, requires a proposition that is open to concrete discussion:

  1. A moral license – Moral men, particularly Christian men, need a moral license to demand political change.
  2. A set of demands – Moral men, particularly Christian men, need to offer a set of demands that satisfy the vast majority, and that if refused, can only be refused for ideological or immoral reasons – therefore justifying revolt.
  3. A plan of transition – Moral men need to understand how to move from one state of affairs to another – because we all fear what we do not understand.
  4. A means of insurrection – Moral men need a moral means of altering the status quo – to draw attention to the solution, to control and hold the discourse on the solution

To make revolt, insurrection, or revolution constitutional, legal, and moral requires imitating the Founders’ extra-political, extra-institutional, civic construction, by civilian citizens, of a Suit against the state, for crimes by the state against some or all of the people.  That’s what the federalist papers and the declaration consist of: a suit by a subset of the people against the state, where the people are the jury, and the jury makes the decision. That’s western civlization’s strategy. That’s the reason for the successful evolution of the english model for over a thousand years, and the grermanic model for even longer. My work is a suit, by the people, against he state, and a constitution as the judgement of the court of the public against the state, and the remedies demanded by the people – the plaintiffs – whether against the state or the state and its allies.

As such, in imitation of the founders, I have, we have:

  1. Conducted this discourse openly in the public for years – thousands of pages of what are equivalent to the letters of the revolutionary period
  2. Created (nearly completed) an Indictment of the state and its special interests.
  3. Created a Declaration of Reformation structured as was the Declaration of Independence
  4. Created a Preamble that adds what the original preamble implied but left unstated.
  5. Created a set of Constitutional Amendments that fix the eight major failings of the original constitution that have allowed its undermining by sophistry and artifice. Chief among these is explicitly defining natural law; reciprocity and testimony, the criteria for basic rights, and enumerating those basic rights, such that they are inviolable.
  6. Created a proposed reorganization (plan of transition) from the present federal government, back to the original pre-civil war government, of a federation of states on the ancestral European model where the federal government is limited to emergency and defense, adjudication of conflicts between states, and fulfilling the church’s role as insurer of last resort. Thereby restoring sovereignty to the states in matters of civic behavior, norm, tradition, and the institutions of cultural production.
  7. Created a proposed set of policy changes that repair the damages to individual, family, religion, education, banking and finance, the economy, health care, the interior, and military strategy. Most of these policy changes are known, but because of special interests, the reforms cannot be brought to the floor for votes.
  8. Created a ‘threat’ of what extreme policies might emerge if we must war instead of settle – providing motivation for settlement.

My work tries to RESTORE the constitution to its intentions of an alliance of states under a weak federation, in the thousand-year history of the holy roman empire, an the successful Germanic and English model of a rule of law of the natural common law, an independent judiciary, and houses of government as a market for commons.

What I do is legal in the United States. (for now). What’s illegal is planning, organizing, and committing crimes. I have a long-standing policy of separating activism from action. And I have a long-standing policy of stating that we only act as one, not as individuals or small groups. It’s counter-productive.

The only way to avoid violence is to organize on a scale that the chance of violence by either side is untenable for both sides.  So if you have ‘designs’ that conflict with this strategy, then do not contact me regarding it. I don’t want to know. And I consider it harmful. Ok? When we DO ask you to show up, DO show up. And show up ready to play Gandhi until we have no choice but to go viking.

That is the only path to the moral high ground. There is NO OTHER PATH no matter how horrific you see the present injustices, crimes, and war of genocide against our people. The way we win is to demand the same protections for political identity as we do for religious, racial, and sex identity – and to have an honest discussion over the future and policies – and to go our own ways. Until we can’t do that because they have demonstrated their criminality in open discourse.

So if you, the FBI, the police, the state, or any man living thinks I am, pursuing other than just and moral goals for my people, my country, and mankind, in repetition of the founders, then you must find some reason to do so that is not simply justifying your own lies, immorality, and criminality – a criminality that by the founding documents themselves licenses the revolution you claim you are justly preventing.

Because everything I have done in every dimension is working to restore truth in display word and deed in public political discourse … and to restore reciprocity and proportionality in the constitution, law, government, and policy …. to a people who have suffered through seventy years or more of continuous lying by all parties. Parties that are abusing a population insufficiently educated to evaluate the false promises of the left – that their utopia violates formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of the universe and can never, under any circumstance succeed – only destroy civilizations of the modern world as has Islam destroyed all civilizations of the ancient world.

And our people have suffered through the unspoken truth of the right – that the European tradition, and the reason for European excellence, is one of systemic soft eugenics by the use of markets in all walks of life, and the suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for them, and the genetic pacification by hanging, war, or starvation, of those who fail.

The entirety of the left’s program from Marx to the present is nothing but systemic hatred of and undermining of European civilization for our discovery adaptation to and application of the laws of the universe and claiming Europeans are oppressors rather than liberators from those laws, by the use of those laws.  The price of adherence to those laws and the benefits of doing so is the suppression of reproduction of the unproductive.  And there is no escape from it any more than there is an escape from natural selection. Genetic load accumulates. A population is no different from a body. It dies if it cannot get rid of genetic error.

I simply state this truth so we know the cost and consequences of the political choices we make – or fail to make by informed and rational choice.

We have seen, contrary to the left’s promise, that we would all come together, what we have found in the most equalitarian societies that the sexes pursue their instincts more so. And there is a natural conflict between the reproductive, therefore social, and therefore political instincts.  And all of us are a blend of masculine and feminine instincts. This is why there is an approximate split in the population by predictable means: traits.

The masculine right chooses wisely for the long term, the feminine left chooses for the short term. The difference is that we are socially, economically, and politically incompatible because of these differences. And we are wealthy enough to pursue those different strategies.  So the only solution is separation by social, economic, and political means – even if we continue to share military and strategic common interests.

So contrary to the left’s false accusation of oppression and the rights false promise of the possibility of an aristocracy of everyone, meaning a majority middle class society, the west domesticated itself over five thousand years, and discovered, innovated, and adapted faster than all other civilizations combined, and was matched only by china whose much slower pace finally stagnated in the late medieval period just as Europeans came out of the supernatural dark ages of the Abrahamic religions.

And so all civilizations OTHER than Europeans failed to maintain natural selection. And our traditions vary because of the west’s success, and the rests’ failure.  Yet the left has spent since the 1850’s inventing pseudoscience sophistry deceit, and shouting down, to deny darwin’s discovery of the reason for western success – a truth the left cannot bear – and virtue signals with lies that denial of the laws of the universe is possible. A truth the right cannot bear because it tries to virtue signal, rather than fight as it has always had to, in order to preserve its advantage as a small population on the edge of Eurasia.

Since all of western civilization and all our rights are derived from the right of self-determination, by self-determined means – then none of us can deprive another of that right without licensing reciprocal warfare to equally deprive the other of the same right.

None of us can justify by any means that does not incentivize bloody warfare by the opposition, the choice between the left’s dysgenic idealistic utopia of hyper-consumptive experience, low investment in self, in parenting, and in durable commons,  and the right’s eugenic, capitalizing, continuous evolution, via high investment in self, in parenting, and in durable commons that reduce the cost of those heavy burdens.

So the only solution is to separate or war. We can war and hope that one side or the other prevails at the expense of the others. Or we can choose to separate, and continue to run our different ‘experiments’, and learn from having done so.

I have the benefits and weaknesses of people on the highly functional end of the autism spectrum: an enviable memory, pattern recognition, system thinking, single-mindedness, and the capacity for uncommon and often unhealthy and obsessive workloads.

But I also have low empathy, low agreeableness, and high intolerance for illogic and falsehoods. While I don’t think I’m a bad person, I don’t claim to be a good person. I’m a ruthless entrepreneur, and good business partner, a decent employer, a questionable husband, a terrible father.

My only virtue is that I’m innovative, I work very hard and I pursue my goals regardless of the cost to my health, my well being, my happiness, my marriage, my family, my friends, and my wealth – which puts me in the same set of character traits as many similar thinkers in history who, alike, discover too late that we are fit only for bachelorhood and solitary hard work on our missions.

So if you think that my mission is evil, I am immoral, or treasonous, or wrong, or doing other than devoting my adult life to the most moral act a man can – whether you are an individual, a bureaucracy, or a state – then come at me. Make me the revolutionary you fear, instead of the philosopher, solving the great problem of our age, that I seek to be.  I am and I propose nothing different than did Jefferson in his less scientific prose. My strategy has always been that if I provide a solution then leadership will emerge – I am not interested, willing, or terribly fit for it. But I won’t shirk from it if everyone else does.

And if you think that after building businesses, solving the great philosophical questions of the past century and a half, and engaging in activities you likely lack, and can’t obtain, the security clearance to be aware of, that I can’t, albeit with effort, bring a revolution into being if that was my choice, then you are not only questionably moral, and vastly ignorant, but a very dangerous fool totally incognizant of recent world events. And that kind of idiot only insures that the daily escalation of arbitrary social violence continues and that you and we all blindly stumble into bloodshed.

Right now I’m the only person, my group of libertarians, are the only people, that have anything resembling a solution that will prevent the future that is presently certain to come.

Because Revolutions and civil wars are always suspect in prospect – but deterministic in retrospect.

And those of us who understand history are doomed to suffer forever the ignorance of those who don’t.


Was this page helpful?

Leave a Reply

. . .