Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • WHY DO YOU NEED IT? What makes you think your theology, philosophy, or ideology

    WHY DO YOU NEED IT?

    What makes you think your theology, philosophy, or ideology is any different than putting cheese in a maze to bait a rat to work his way through it? It’s not.

    Why do we need these things? Because otherwise, in a division of labor larger than the tribe, the universe is un navigable, because it’s incalculable by the human brain.

    Why do we need units of measure, money, counting and accounting – and now banking and economics?

    Because otherwise the world we live in is not only incalculable but its impossible to sense and perceive.

    There are only three sets of laws: Physical, Natural, and Evolutionary.

    There is only one goal: Transcendence.

    There is only one purpose: Persistence (reproduction).

    There is only one choice: What you do with the time you were born with.

    To do so we need physical fitness, mindfulness, training(norms), knowledge (education), and skills (in production).

    To obtain them we need each other in a vast division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor.

    And there is no better combination than sport (fitness), stoicism (mindfulness(negativa)), epicureanism (choice(positiva)), natural law (training), the sciences (education), and a craft (skills), and a family, friends, allies, market, polity, and nation to do it with.

    Because you have no choice until you have agency.

    And what you’ve just read is the recipe for agency.

    After that its just choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-25 11:12:00 UTC

  • Example: Requirements for Violating P-Law of Speech

    —“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—

    [T]hat’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend. 1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public. 2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated. 3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry. Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail. Silly people are just silly.

  • Example: Requirements for Violating P-Law of Speech

    —“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—

    [T]hat’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend. 1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public. 2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated. 3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry. Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail. Silly people are just silly.

  • Fed Accusers Are Protecting Their Malinvestments and Resisting New Investments

    by John Mark, Apr 6, 2020, 11:37 AM My standard response to the fed-post accusation is to: a) mock anyone who says using 2A for its primary intended purpose is “bad” (were the founding fathers “feds”? lmao), and; b) demand they produce and articulate a solution: “What is your plan for when the Right can’t win any more elections?” Often these groups/individuals that countersignal are either consciously or subconsciously trying to hold on to their “market share” of right-wing audience – they have invested significantly in what they are doing, and many people even on the dissident right are still hoping in vain that there is some other way to win without force. P kinda makes everybody else look bad and threatens to make them irrelevant because we are a) describing the situation with brutal honesty (force or at least show of force will be necessary) while they are not, and b) P is so stunningly well thought out, with such thorough coverage and breakthrough insight both in explanatory power and recommended solutions, that it is impossible for anyone else on the Right to compete with. (Simply put, no other group has Curt on their team.) P also requires a decent amount of time investment to understand well enough to say “yeah, I get how this could work”. And time is something leaders have very little of – I have very limited time to invest in learning details about what other leaders/movements/packs are doing. We are also slaying the sacred cows of libertarianism/ancap etc., and correcting a bunch of failed strategies all around. (For example, we say persuasion & voting can’t be the Right’s primary strategy – but most groups on the Right are built around that primary strategy.) All this results in the leaders of other “packs” sometimes having an initial negative reaction toward us. One way to mitigate this without compromising on the truth, may be to invite people like this on my show and genuinely try to promote them (cuz many of them are doing great work in many ways), and then also ask them what they think of our basic solution proposals (policies etc, not in-depth P stuff), and have that discussion. Propertarians are the adults in the room on the Right. And we’re figuring out how to deal with/work with the other “packs”.

  • Fed Accusers Are Protecting Their Malinvestments and Resisting New Investments

    by John Mark, Apr 6, 2020, 11:37 AM My standard response to the fed-post accusation is to: a) mock anyone who says using 2A for its primary intended purpose is “bad” (were the founding fathers “feds”? lmao), and; b) demand they produce and articulate a solution: “What is your plan for when the Right can’t win any more elections?” Often these groups/individuals that countersignal are either consciously or subconsciously trying to hold on to their “market share” of right-wing audience – they have invested significantly in what they are doing, and many people even on the dissident right are still hoping in vain that there is some other way to win without force. P kinda makes everybody else look bad and threatens to make them irrelevant because we are a) describing the situation with brutal honesty (force or at least show of force will be necessary) while they are not, and b) P is so stunningly well thought out, with such thorough coverage and breakthrough insight both in explanatory power and recommended solutions, that it is impossible for anyone else on the Right to compete with. (Simply put, no other group has Curt on their team.) P also requires a decent amount of time investment to understand well enough to say “yeah, I get how this could work”. And time is something leaders have very little of – I have very limited time to invest in learning details about what other leaders/movements/packs are doing. We are also slaying the sacred cows of libertarianism/ancap etc., and correcting a bunch of failed strategies all around. (For example, we say persuasion & voting can’t be the Right’s primary strategy – but most groups on the Right are built around that primary strategy.) All this results in the leaders of other “packs” sometimes having an initial negative reaction toward us. One way to mitigate this without compromising on the truth, may be to invite people like this on my show and genuinely try to promote them (cuz many of them are doing great work in many ways), and then also ask them what they think of our basic solution proposals (policies etc, not in-depth P stuff), and have that discussion. Propertarians are the adults in the room on the Right. And we’re figuring out how to deal with/work with the other “packs”.

  • Prosecution Online

    Apr 11, 2020, 1:13 PM [O]ne does not sell a liar – one prosecutes him. You cannot get them to agree. So deny the enemy the field. You can leave them defeated such that they come to their own conclusions. But no man is a hero to his debtors. For a decade now, I’ve taught the same strategy.

    1. Return any taunt they made as dispassionately as possible.
    2. Call them a liar or failing due diligence.
    3. State your central argument
    4. repeat until they are exhausted.

    All they do with every cycle is provide you with opportunity to recite the same statements “you are lying, either by design, or by failure of due diligence, [this is the truth], you can either refute it by testimony and warranty within the limits of liability (… 1. Refutation), or offer an equally criticizable solution to the question so that we can judge it’s possibility costs and benefits (2. Competition.), or seek to understand what you clearly don’t (3. Question). But at present you are [lying, denying, fictionalizing, sophistry, pseusocience,mysticism, impossibility, irreciprocity]. Just do the same thing over and over again and they will eventually expose themselves out of frustration – works every time if you stick with it over time.

  • Prosecution Online

    Apr 11, 2020, 1:13 PM [O]ne does not sell a liar – one prosecutes him. You cannot get them to agree. So deny the enemy the field. You can leave them defeated such that they come to their own conclusions. But no man is a hero to his debtors. For a decade now, I’ve taught the same strategy.

    1. Return any taunt they made as dispassionately as possible.
    2. Call them a liar or failing due diligence.
    3. State your central argument
    4. repeat until they are exhausted.

    All they do with every cycle is provide you with opportunity to recite the same statements “you are lying, either by design, or by failure of due diligence, [this is the truth], you can either refute it by testimony and warranty within the limits of liability (… 1. Refutation), or offer an equally criticizable solution to the question so that we can judge it’s possibility costs and benefits (2. Competition.), or seek to understand what you clearly don’t (3. Question). But at present you are [lying, denying, fictionalizing, sophistry, pseusocience,mysticism, impossibility, irreciprocity]. Just do the same thing over and over again and they will eventually expose themselves out of frustration – works every time if you stick with it over time.

  • THE STATE AS A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE IS EVIDENTLY FALSE. The westphalian peace re

    THE STATE AS A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE IS EVIDENTLY FALSE.

    The westphalian peace resulted in the demand between states that the state maintain a monopoly on violence. The muslims do the opposite and ended the westphalian peace.

    The state cannot in fact and never has had, a monopoly on violence. It still doesn’t. It just tries. What defines a state is not it’s monopoly on violence but it’s capacity to produce the incentives that produce order with violence among those incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 14:11:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers