(FB 1549369098 Timestamp) —“bruh you wanna take on the world’s only superpower with dudes in pickup trucks┗ Hmmmm… you mean, that superpower that is 0 wins and 4 losses against guys with 80 IQ’s in flip flops? And we can’t do better on our own turf? Maybe you’ve had your head somewhere other than in the present moment, but we’ve failed in Afghanistan, failed in Syria, and we failed in Iraq. We didn’t fail because of our generals or our soldiers. Or because of our advanced weaponry. Or because of our billions of investment. We failed because Combined Arms warfare cannot defeat domestic militia playing institutional and infrastructure attrition warfare. (Which is why we are teaching courses on 4GW at the institute, by people who do so for our own forces. ) You don’t take on the superpower. You take advantage of the fact that you can be everywhere, and combined arms military cannot be. You never fight the military. You fight the infrastructure. There is a reason the muslims were able to conquer the ancient world. And why they are so hard to conquer today. The religion is one of continuous warfare and a warfare conducted by continuous cumulative raids that collapse infrastructure, civil order, economy and popular and political will to resist. The difference is, if you see our new constitution it is very hard to disagree with it OTHER than voluntary disassociation (that will make the minority left freak.) The rest will see the rather obvious benefits that are reforms impossible under the current political order. Therefore the objective is to make such a civil war sufficiently believable that it is unnecessary, or short, and that the military prefers taking control of the government over conducting a domestic civil war that it cannot win. (I’m a lot smarter than you are. I promise.)
Form: Argument
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549474741 Timestamp) POLICY: RESPECT âââ¦. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament … ââ You mean my way of filtering intellectually dishonest, lazy, stupid people from wasting my (our) time? Of demanding you do some research and construct an argument before offering criticism? You mean, the way I demand respect, by requiring respect first? Or do you mean the way I prosecute pseudoscience, sophism, pilpul, critique, GSRRM? I am not at all like my online personality. I have a job. that job requires certain things.I do my job. ASK QUESTIONS DON”T OFFER CRITICISMS IN IGNORANCE.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549474741 Timestamp) POLICY: RESPECT âââ¦. largest problem is your obnoxious temperament … ââ You mean my way of filtering intellectually dishonest, lazy, stupid people from wasting my (our) time? Of demanding you do some research and construct an argument before offering criticism? You mean, the way I demand respect, by requiring respect first? Or do you mean the way I prosecute pseudoscience, sophism, pilpul, critique, GSRRM? I am not at all like my online personality. I have a job. that job requires certain things.I do my job. ASK QUESTIONS DON”T OFFER CRITICISMS IN IGNORANCE.
-
On Criticism of Working in Public “Curt: Why No Secrecy!!!”
AGAINST CRITICISM ON WORKING IN PUBLIC February 9th, 2019 POLICY:TRANSPARENCY (i.e. “CURT: WHY NO SECRECY!!!”) 1 – I do my work out in the open with my real name. I always have. 2 – I educate our people on how to produce and implement a restoration of the constitution that will allow us reclaim our destiny by constitutional amendment, and certainty of members of the state the rebellion to enact it – or to cause secession between those who do and do not wish so. 3 – I do this to provide an actionable solution that will prevent the bloodiest civil war in human history that is one spark from igniting, and one that has been deterministic since the 1965 socialist transition of immigration from kin to aliens. 4 – I NEVER EVER cross the line to advocacy or organization or participation in direct action. I seek only to make our people understand that if we did choose to revolt that our success is a virtual certainty and therefore to make the state end its denial that we would. 5 – If you cannot do the same then I can’t be associated with you, and I don’t want to. You are a danger to me and our people 6 – All ‘secret’ activity only attracts the wrong people, with the wrong incentives, to engaging in the wrong behaviors, that will end in their and our harm. 7 – All any action by the state against me as a thought leader working on restoration of the constitution to prevent its usurpation, and the creation of policies in the defense of our people from economic, cultural, and genetic predation would only serve to demonstrate to the people we seek to reach the corruption of that government, and in turn grant additional legitimacy to both the promise of my work, and the promise of our ability to force our self defense into the body of law. 8 – If we must, at some future time, act, then we must and will act toward a moral end, with an actionable plan, and all act at once. And in the interim we must constraint all lunatics from preventing our expansion into the majority and the provision of solutions for the vast majority of our people – exclusive of those fools, traitors and enemies among them. 9 – Only the more sophisticated followers understand how I use the ‘marketplace’ of the internet to criticize ideas, whittle away at them, and discover those few grains of truth therein. Only the more sophisticated followers understand how I use the king of the hill game to run those tests. At any given time I might be testing any set of ideas by king of the hill games, to get you to defeat them so that I understand how to replace those ideas with better ones. I don’t want you to understand what I am doing. If you undrestand I am playing this game, and running these tests, then their utility declines. The secret to any psychological testing is to work indirectly by appealing to people’s intuitions such that their natural tendency to signal rather than report is circumvented. This is is how I work. I create games that indirectly allow me to discover possibilities. I do not start with presumptions, I simply start with what is presumed, and attack it until only a few grains of truth remain. With those gains of truth I then reconstruct the law. What we do with that law is up to us – should we obtain the power to enforce its adoption. And I must convince you only that we both have the power, and that the laws once enacted will serve our purposes. This means that all my work was in the construction of the law, the rest is only the policy we enact by that law, and the incentives of citizens to use the law to suppress, defeat, or exit those who continue the 2500 year war against our people. Thank you for your time. -Curt Doolittle ====== FROMl: thisisnotmyemail@hotmail.com REGARDING: https://ordoevangelistarum.com/ Sir, I love your thoughts but am not happy with your boomer-tier tools. Thomas Lewis from Ordo Evangelistarum has the right ideas when it comes to implementing websites, forums, and comms. He only uses open source programs that have been rigorously tested. He is also friends with some honorable computer nerds that help him out. You use gmail. For the love of god, why? I’m not emailing you only to be flagged by the crazed technocrats at google for not thinking like them. Discord is run by a bunch of SJWs who do not share anything with you in common either. Once again, I wont be using discord. Open source alternatives like OE is using. 1) comms. Riot app using decentralized matrix servers. Thomas has his own server which he controls. I prefer servers in third world countries because why not. 2) Forum. He uses Discord which is simple and effective and once again, you control it yourself. At least use some free tools that arent made around collecting user data to sell. Other than that, my respect for you overrides any disdain I have for your boomer tech strategy. ====
-
No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.
(FB 1549967190 Timestamp) NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP.
—“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish
Hamish: Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics. The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism. JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM (Libertinism) 1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.
- The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.
The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.
The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….
The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….
The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….
Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. EUROPEAN LIBERTARIANISM (Sovereignty) The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, mercantilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family exept for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEMALE GROUP STRATEGY What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information. === DEFINITIONS === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”
In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called âhazardors.â Jacob.
In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488.
In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281.
Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614.
-
No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.
(FB 1549967190 Timestamp) NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP.
—“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish
Hamish: Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics. The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism. JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM (Libertinism) 1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.
- The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.
The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.
The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….
The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….
The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….
Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. EUROPEAN LIBERTARIANISM (Sovereignty) The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, mercantilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family exept for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEMALE GROUP STRATEGY What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information. === DEFINITIONS === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”
In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called âhazardors.â Jacob.
In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488.
In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281.
Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550067665 Timestamp) WE CAN’T WE JUST TELL THE LEFT THE TRUTH? 1) Our civilization has succeeded because it’s been eugenic in every era – right up until the industrial revolution. 2) We find you disgusting. 3) and its because you’re unfit. 4) and you are unfit because you lack agency. 5) and you lack agency because you’re still undomesticated. 6) and as undomesticated still an animal. 7) and it isn’t any more complicated than that. 8) we cannot cooperate with you on equal terms any more than we can cooperate with any other animal – you lack the agency. 9) We don’t grant barn animals equality which is why we don’t grant you equality. And we don’t want barn animals in our homes, business, or our commons. 10) This is what we mean when we want to separate from you.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550151623 Timestamp) METAPHYSICS: “FITTING” You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’. I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve. The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them. The rest is just fictionalism. Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is. EPISTEMOLOGY Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law. GRAMMARS Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550161259 Timestamp) —“No we don’t. There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”— I can do so in existing language with sufficient precision that further increases in precision will not falsify such a statement (and have). And I know Searle can as well if not Dennett. And this was quite some time ago. I haven’t seen any significant improvement since ’05 in general description. We are simply trying to understand the underlying mechanics and new publications come out almost daily. —“There is no way to describe via current orthodoxy how you are experiencing typing on FB in a non-causal non-evolving domain called objective spacetime geometry.”— We share experiences all the time. It’s called language. All language is reducible to analogy experience – and has to be. The question is marginal indifference of those experiences since they are always constituted from memory, and while memories are marginally indifferent in composition they very greatly in construction. And that does not mean anything that can be spoken of is marginally different. Just the opposite. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to empathize, sympathize, cooperate, communicate, negotiate, plan, calculate, and compute by the same means. And we can. with just 300 words and time. The claim that language cannot be converted to geometry is patently false since I have been involved in doing so for over fifteen years now. We were limited until the current video cards, but we are still limited by board and data bandwidth although this is rapidly decreasing. (We could not obtain funding in the mid 2000’s when we proposed it. it was too early and tenuous but people obtain funding daily at present it’s the hot thing.) As far as I know consciousness proper (not sentience and imitation of consciousness) requires sufficient recursion which is somewhere in the distance due to cost (and possibly heat); the open question is whether it is possible to reason without language and grammar as a proxy for categories of experience. The required mathematical constructs are just manifolds and we are not the only people to have used them and proposed them, and agents to search them. In fact, the only difference between the current vertex based world modeling and what we call ‘meaning’ is extra dimensions. Because the only difference between the existential and experiential is the dimensions possible by our lovely homunculus we call a nervous system. Like I said. Phil is dead. It’s been relegated to ‘religion’ in library science and the university for this reason. And when I find a single argument that is not an attempt at deception I will have something to ‘understand’ that I do not now. One of our cognitive biases consist in the presumption that when we feel we don’t know something there is much more to be known (mathematics). The converse is that we have overconfidence in the completeness of what we know (economists, and dunning kruger). Working in computer science eliminates mathematical idealism. Working with databases eliminates a host of illusions about the complexity of reality as other than variations in language, and working in neural networks eliminates the illusion of ‘complexity’. Our imagination is a wonderful machine of free association and we love the daydreaming experience because it stimulates the reward system that seeks opportunities (the undiscovered valley). But it is just another recreational drug. And we love our self induced recreational drugs. And we are easily addicted to them. Religion and philosophy more so than literature and science.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550233498 Timestamp) DO WE POSITIVELY DISAMBIGUATE OR AMBIGUATE IN DEFENSE? —“I think it’s insulting for idealists to be associated with Evola. It’s not primacy of consciousness, it’s not Kant. It’s sword-and-sorcery. People who say that Evola introduced them to philosophy weren’t introduced to it at all; they were just stalled and set up for humiliation if they ever decided to argue with a philosophical opponent. They should read Heidegger instead if they insist on living outside of reality, but even he might prove too profane and earthly for their liking.”—by Göran Dahl CURTD: Correct. But this is the problem tho: unless taught the direct road, people must take what road that is easiest to follow given their experience. And they always and everywhere move from the emotive to the analytic – slowly for reasons anyone familiar with artificial intelligence and neurology can explain: more neural christmas tree lights go on with emotion until you have enough information to light them without it. And there is the rub: do we disambiguate, and suppress conflation between literature (analogy) and thought (philosophy, history) and teach stoicism and the law (which is intuitive). Or do we make a via-positiva claim about philosophy, religion, occult, and maintain conflation and ‘ambiguation’. This is the problem with differences between anglo-scandinavian, franco-german continental, and italian peoples We get better intellectuals out of italy in the south, and england in the north, and better engineers, craftsmen, and citizens in germany. But why? Genetically we are all germanic (european) peoples. So the general argument is that we must ‘program’ good behavior into people (germany good, france bad) by educating their intuition with emotion, teaching them mindfulness, and teaching them the law. purely out of defense against those who lie. Education is just as defensive as it is opportunity generating.