Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • NO PEDOPHILIACS ON MY PAGE PLEASE There are true arguments that are bad argument

    NO PEDOPHILIACS ON MY PAGE PLEASE

    There are true arguments that are bad arguments. There are true arguments I don’t want to be associated with – largely permissiveness of impulse.

    —“…marriage and sex limits on age need to be eliminated. …. I made a logical argument … you aren’t open to criticism like you claim…”— A Member of the Tribe.

    Actually, you’re lying right?

    1) I made the argument that you’re making at true but BAD argument that is not one I want made in my territory so to speak. (and I asked you to stop repeatedly.)

    2) I’m saying you may possess a genetic defect that is fairly common in certain sub-groups that occurs comorbidly with higher risk of sexual identity problems, higher risk of sexual predation, higher affinity for engaging in pornography, gambling, moral hazard, and higher risk of schizotypal personality disorders.

    3) I’m saying that by not dropping this argument you are demonstrating that (2*) is not only likely, but certain.

    4) And you’re banned. Goodbye.

    It doesn’t matter if its true and I agree. I don’t want it here any more than I want a dog scratching its ass on my carpet It’s a dog. Dogs will do that. However, I don’t want to talk about it.

    Please take warnings seriously.

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 17:55:00 UTC

  • Jarrod Woodard Make an argument or admit you can’t. THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON.

    Jarrod Woodard Make an argument or admit you can’t.

    THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON.

    Against Mises

    Against Rothbard

    Against Hoppe

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/15/the-anti-rothbardian-libertarian-canon/

    THE ANTI-UPB EXTENSION OF THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON

    UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR (UPB)

    Against Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior.

    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): 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, merchatilism, 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 except 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.

    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.

    —

    So yes, there is no material difference between UBP and NAP except the excuse for its construction and the inclusion of the word ‘lying’ in addition to fraud.

    The ethics of the pale.

    The ethics of the ghetto

    The ethics of the bazaar

    The ethics of those who cannot hold territory.

    It is still the ethics of poverty.

    ===

    HAZARD

    “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”

    1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    ====

    UPB

    BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISES:

    We both exist.

    The senses have the capacity for accuracy.

    Language has the capacity for meaning.

    Correction requires universal preferences.

    An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood.

    Truth is better than falsehood.

    Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes.

    Individuals are responsible for their actions.

    I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior — or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you’ll know right away:

    REALITY IS OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT.

    “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.

    Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”

    Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”

    Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”

    “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.

    Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

    Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

    Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.

    The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”

    As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.

    Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

    Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true:

    INITIATING AGGRESSION (USE OF FORCE) IS WRONG.

    Stealing is wrong.

    Rape is wrong.

    Murder is wrong.

    Fraud is wrong.

    Lying is wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 16:26:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS ON OTHERS AND THE MOMENT (important read, esp near the end) PETERSON I

    THOUGHTS ON OTHERS AND THE MOMENT

    (important read, esp near the end)

    PETERSON

    I prefer not to punch on Peterson. I am very critical of his (lame) “Darwinian Truth” (ack). I do like his use of archetypes but not the semitic ‘submission’ despite its utility in therapy of the suffering. I prefer he spend more time on restoring Self Authoring as stoicism (development) rather than self help (correction after the fact). I don’t think he should end his straddling. He makes a sales funnel for us.

    MOLLY

    I won’t punch on Molly (although he is not gonna cut it as a philosopher and I wish he’d stop saying that) he is a great teacher, and he opens the sales funnel for us much further. … I disagree that he should move faster with our direction. He has a large audience to move and they trail. … I disagree that I should try to advocate my work on his show, I just feel that I should help his arguments when they are … insufficient (like the taleb issue).

    WOODS

    I have never that I know of said anything bad about Woods, although if I recall I’ve pushed back on issues where he is simply wrong. Tom is a good person. And I would love it if he could convince me that the church was not terrible for our people. I don’t follow tom so much as try to understand his rather ‘normie’ position in general.

    MISES INSTITUTE

    I have a personal mission to end the mises institute and their income stream unless they abandon the rothbardian fraud, and transfer to hayekian thought and western ethics.

    ROTHBARD, MISES, HOPPE

    I attacked rothbard, mises and hoppe to reform libertarianism and re-demarcate western libertarianism from semitic libertinism – and do clearly demarcate semitic pilpul, german rationalism, from anglo ratio-empiricism. I use Block (who I personally have affection for) as an example of rothbardian folly because he is the only serious rothbardian advocate of it.

    STRATEGY

    My strategy was to undermine jewish libertinism, and restore western soverentarianism(upper), liberty (middle), freedom (lower) so that we libertarians can once again form the intellectual vanguard of the ‘conservative’ (male) western strategy.

    TALEB

    I used to support Taleb but now that he’s come out as anti-white I”m going to have to put him on the ‘prosecute’ list.

    AUGUSTUS

    I don’t ever disagree with Augustus and like him very much and I like his via positiva as the opposite of my via-negativa. I also prefer his frame of thought because he understands the law so well.

    TRS

    I have a friendship with the TRS guys because they were the first people to pay attention to me … and I just like them. I mean, it’s really hard NOT to like them. They’re Hysterical.

    OTHERWISE I DON’T PAY ATTENTION

    I don’t pay attention to anyone else. Unless someone swings at me. Really. Unless someone asks me to look at something I don’t.

    The primary value of others is finding excuses to riff off their thoughts, so that I can illustrate a point, and continue the stream of education I provide to people. It’s this repetition from dozens of different angles, that makes it possible for me to slowly carve away and accumulated error bias and deceit.

    THE POPULAR CULTURE ISN”T MY TARGET

    I’m trying to recreate a frankfurt school that is in favor of our people rather than the enemy of our people. And I am pretty close to doing it.

    WIth these people we can easily saturate the informational commons with our arguments. It is very difficult if not impossible to defeat them. Because they expose the methods and consequences of abrahamism and it’s predation upon our people.

    WHAT I PAY ATTENTION TO

    Mostly I read the books, papers and blogs in Economics, Social Science, Cognitive Science, Genetics (anthropology), General physical science although I ignore biology and chemistry. Right now is a relatively dead period for economics. Social science continues to reform. CogSci (doesn’t really exist any longer but it is a term of convention now) continues to move rapidly, as does genetics. Physical science is really just improving measurements but we see very little indication of the next revolutionary step. AI is what it is and I think nothing is to be said other than we CAN make moral AI’s with propertarianism, but we cannot stop people from making immoral AI’s unless we hold people, organizations, governments, and nations accountable for doing so.

    INDIA PROJECT

    I am currently trying to understand the indian tradition and this turns out to be both interesting and difficult. The problem is finding material in sufficiently scientific form rather than the hindu equivalent of rational philosophy. India might provide an optimum solution of how to evolve a heart tradition. This is because india’s problem is simply demographic. but what passes for religion is not really good for europeans but the structure of it is … amazing. So really we have the european the indian, and confucian traditions to rely on with only the semitic as a threat to the world and mankind.

    THE CHRISTIANITY PROBLEM

    Most of the frustration I’m generating at the moment is due to the fact that I am still trying to find a way to accommodate the existing christians, and it appears that I have discovered the only possible solution because there is no direct solution under natural law (truth).

    It’s harder for christians in the first place, and harder for christians who stumble upon this phase of my work. Because they don’t understand how I work through criticism.

    And while I have solved the problem of religion (what generates demand). I just am struggling for a way to accommodate christians without providing an eternal weak point in the law.

    MY OWN PROBLEM – IN GENERAL

    It is a well understood phenomenon that overly smart folk cannot imagine the minds of not overly smart folks, and I am guilty always of overestimating the cognitive ability of others. We are all victims of cognitive biases that evolution gave us so that we would live in the illusion of greater similarity than we actually possess. The hard problems were not as hard for me to solve as learning how to communicate them parsimoniously. The hardest problem is not one which we communicate, but one which we intuit. We call this religion although it is more analogous to the “operating system” we install (train into) in our intuitions so that other software “paradigms” are open to understanding, negotiation, cooperation, and performance. But I struggle to understand and to adapt accordingly. It’s just a never ending battle.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 06:29:00 UTC

  • NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP. —“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conf

    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.

    2. The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.

    3. The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.

    4. The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….

    5. The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….

    6. 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.

    ===

    HAZARD

    “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”

    1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called “hazardors.” Jacob.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 05:26:00 UTC

  • Eventually you will discover, as all others do, that all attempts to engage in G

    Eventually you will discover, as all others do, that all attempts to engage in GSRRM (feminine argument) merely provide us with advertising space by which to compare your feminine(feels) vs our masculine(reals) arguments.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 18:53:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094670769777463297

    Reply addressees: @realjoshneal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094653262387728386

    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/1094653262387728386

  • THE VALUE OF FREE ADVERTISING —“I’m both astounded and flattered that @curtdoo

    THE VALUE OF FREE ADVERTISING

    —“I’m both astounded and flattered that @curtdoolittle has elected to devote so much time to fighting avatars in the comment sections of my videos. For someone who prefers not to interact with others or “debate idiots” (his words), his conduct is extremely curious.”—Josh Neal

    Putting aside your attempt to find security, status, self image, and the illusion of agency, by hiding behind paranoia rather than evidence, reason, and argument:

    It is the most effective recruiting tool we have found. The people with whom we argue are immaterial. It’s the people that ‘sense something right’ in our arguments that we seek to attract by taking advantage of the attention (advertising) you create by your attempted criticism.

    We don’t want populists. We want men who will fight, or men who will win arguments. Those who are fearful lack the agency to participate. I am an elitist on the behalf of our people. I do not require their approval to work in their interests.

    Eventually you will discover, as all others do, that all attempts to engage in GSRRM (feminine argument) merely provide us with advertising space by which to compare your feminine(feels) vs our masculine(reals) arguments.

    The only other substantial non-neocon intellectual on the right is Buchanan. Everyone else is an apologist for classical liberalism. No one else has a solution or method of bringing it about.

    Conservatism is not an intellectual movement. It is a pre rational, sentimental and traditional one. AND I WILL CHANGE THAT FOREVER. The logic, science, and history of our people in rational prose.

    The Group Evolutionary Strategy of the European Peoples: Superior rates of evolution through Heroism and Innovation, Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The natural law, and markets in every aspect of life.

    We are not the first – we need not be. We need only be the fastest – and we always have been.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 14:05:00 UTC

  • A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism

    —“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is…” I wish he would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith

    [I]t’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing. Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era. It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas. So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.) I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all. Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose. Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.

  • A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism

    —“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is…” I wish he would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith

    [I]t’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing. Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era. It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas. So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.) I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all. Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose. Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.

  • THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE DESPERATE FOR RELEVANCE I’m not listed anywhere by anyone

    THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE DESPERATE FOR RELEVANCE

    I’m not listed anywhere by anyone in any canon, registry, article, or map as ‘alt right’. I didn’t want to be associated with the alt right. I tried the moniker New Right but Paul Joseph Watson started using it, and I hadn’t TM’d it so I lost that one.

    I can sympathize with the alt right as a movement of justifiably dissatisfied young men, copying Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and making use of new technology to achieve against the left with the interet what the left achieved with media against the rest of us.

    And I’m “On The Right” in the sense that I’m a conservative libertarian (sovereignty, and private property) – which makes me a rule-of-law rightist rather than an authoritarian or religious rightist. In my ideal world we have a rule of law by natural law, an independent judiciary, an hereditary monarchy, professional ministers, some set of class based houses of veto allocated by random selection, and something that would look very much like intolerant nationalism in the interwar french and german model. If that sounds like fascism, it’s simply extremely intolerant anglo monarchy under rule of law.

    John Mark has made us very popular very fast. Faster than we had ever imagined. Because his message sells, and he’s a hell of a smart guy, with media ready personality, and quality writer and producer.

    People of good character sell by their nature. People of poor character do not sell because of their nature. John is a man of good character and his message sells accordingly.

    ATTENTION DEFICIT DESPERATION DISORDER

    The current round of criticism is driven by Josh Jeppeson (Imperius) > Dylan Thomas (TruDilTom) and Dylan’s cohost (I won’t name) > Richard (Dicky) Spencer.

    Josh recruited Moritz Bierling, [name removed] and Joel Davis from my followers. Young smart guys with great promise but lacking skin in the game (family, career, biz) a need for aesthetics – which means “secular religious zeal”.

    And some of these folks attempted to stir conflict with me and those people who work with me.

    GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT YOUNG SMART MEN

    Those without agency or responsibility in a sphere of influence(family, social, economic, political, military) generate demand for authority whether intelligent or dim, knowledgeable or ignorant. And they do so by means that they can participate in: sophism, supernatural sophism, economic sophism and pseudoscience and political pseudoscience and sophism. Because passion (emotion), persuasion(sophism), and pretense of knowledge, is all that they have to work with. And as with any market product ‘there is a sucker born every minute’ for every grammar of advocacy and persuasion.

    Each of us demonstrates a moral intuition a grammar of advocacy, argument, and resistance, and these demonstrations reflect our sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value. In other words, our moral intuitions reflect our reproductive strategies; our method of argument reflect those reproductive strategies. Each of us demonstrates at every single moment our sexual social economic, political, and military value with every expression gesture, display, dress, word, and deed – with humans working very hard to signal falsehoods: children their value in association, and women notoriously their youth, and men notoriously their future potential to the pack.

    So as a result we see the dim pursue religion, the less dim secular spiritualism or the occult, the less dim framing and sophism, the less dim pseudoscience. But those with agency, in a sphere of influence, with assets, relations, knowledge, and experience, simply use truth and utility, and rather than inspire, or persuade, they provide rational incentives for possible practical means of operating the familial, social, economic, political, and military order.

    Everything you want to know about an individual can be determined by his means of advocacy, argument, and resistance. Grammars of argument, just like vocabulary, are insights into the operations of the human mind. And there exist a limited number of NON CORRESPONDENT grammars to work with just as there are a limited number of personality traits.

    Megan Usui was an insider advising and promoting me. Unfortunately she was backchannel working with Jeppeson – I love her but good intentioned people are easily fooled. I think they concocted some idea of uniting the hard right. Of “bringing us all together”. Something ‘undesirable’.

    But Jeppeson is a sociopath and coat-tail rider. He tried to do something himself and couldn’t’. Tried to ride my coattails. And yes, I’m too tolerant of human pound puppies, but you know, after the tenth rage-quit and death threat, even the most tolerant of people disconnect and keep you at arm’s length.

    Megan worked up the meeting in NY with me Duchesne and Macdonald. Jeppeson spent the entire summer trying to convince megan that I couldn’t do it for some reason and that he should instead. (laughable.) Then another death threat, this time in public, on voice chat. I threatened to turn him into cops. It worked and he got quiet for a bit.

    Spencer is desperate for relevance, and the rest of the ‘leadership’ so to speak has simply ignored him. However, we are the rising stars and will be able to reach far larger numbers than the ‘alt right’, because we are selling a portfolio of solutions that will produce right, libertarian, and centrist ends, at the sole expense of the very bottom and very top – and natural incentives and pressures will do the rest. The secret to collapsing a dam or a fortress wall, is to weaken it and let the natural gravity of the environment do the work for you as a consequence.

    A good way of capturing attention is to undermine the competition. This is the strategy of female proxy for violence: undermining. Women gossip, shame, ridicule, rally,moralize (“GSRRM”), and they do so to hold back competitors rather than to to provide opportunities superior to those of competitors. Evidence suggests that the origin of language has as much to do with GSSRM to control alphas and redistribute control of reproduction as it does for hunters to communicate – when hunting is an almost entirely silent occupation. (The counter is that whenever GSSRM is used against you, retaliate with it, then repeat the central point. Use each volley GSSRM as a means of promoting your central point and thesis, and simply wear out the other party’s reliance on GSSRM. Over time people learn that GSSRM “hats are empty” so to speak. This takes patience but it always succeeds.)

    Dylan seemed interested in P, but I’m guessing was pursued Jeppson, who then rode Dylan’s coattails and rage crashed their group at some point but I don’t know if he still does.

    He’s riding Richards coattails now, and Jeppeson’s a lot smarter than Spencer. (God knows Spencer’s not smart enough to comprehend my work. What did he accomplish other than being the poster child for what NOT to do?) So Richard makes a good sock puppet for Jeppeson who is hoping to make Spencer relevant again. Despite the fact that Richard is selling inspiration to empty halls and was only relevant as a whipping boy for the press.

    Jeppeson and Dylan were pitching a somewhat novel version authoritarian postmodernism by combining a bit of pseudoscience and sophism. (Like Derrida, social construction, and therefore authoritarianism.) And it’s going nowhere for obvious reasons. But there are suckers born every minute and suckers for sophism are everywhere, just as suckers for passion, supernaturalism and pseudoscience are everywhere.

    So these guys, who have never accomplished anything in life – not even so much as a family, career, or small business but have grandiose visions of themselves and their understanding of the world (despite lack of evidence) are merely pursuing self interest – not our group interests. In this sense, in hindsight I almost wish the deplatforming was more successful so that bad I deas could not be funded so easily by donations from those susceptible to each non-correspondent grammar of persuasion.

    And so between two sock puppets and a sociopath we undrestand the scramble for relevance – the desperate cries for attention.

    GOING MAINSTREAM

    We (our folks) have tried the direct message (constitutional change desirable by the majority of our people) with the only method anyone thinks will work (mass resistance, uprising, or conflict) and given that the people are frustrated, they are buying the message because of it.

    They’re buying it because It isn’t a message about ‘follow me’. Or a message of handwaving. It’s a message that we have the power to alter the course of events if we choose, and we have an actionable plan of change that will restore our laboring working and middle classes at the expense of the financial, media, and political classes, and end the redistribution of our reproduction to invaders.

    Now this might not work. But it is the only deal on the table at the moment that isn’t evangelism, hand waving, woo, or unmarketable – and it’s certainly open to improvement and revision.

    LEAVE THEM BEHIND

    The irrelevant get left behind, because they deserve to be. But we should not expect the irrelevant to continue to disappear without desperately trying to preserve the attention they garner.

    One bad apple spoils the whole movement. Richard is irrelevant and poisonous to our success, and Jeppeson is just sociopath and cancer and always has been. The rest are probably well intentioned cerebral young men without any agency or experience seeking ideals as substitute for sphere of influence (family, business etc).

    “CLEAN OUR HOUSE FIRST” (so to speak)

    -Curt Doolittle

    -The Propertarian Institute

    ——-

    People Mentioned in this post:

    – Richard Spencer

    – Josh Jeppeson (alias Josh Jeppson, “imperius”)

    – Dylan Thomas (TruDilTom)

    – Joel Davis ( Joel Davis )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 14:54:00 UTC

  • TOTAL NUMBER OF SPENCER MENTIONS IN MY DB (there is one more I remember doing a

    TOTAL NUMBER OF SPENCER MENTIONS IN MY DB

    (there is one more I remember doing a grid of alt right classes)

    I don’t punch right unless a punch is thrown first. But start a fight with me and my position is ‘defeat an enemy completely and permanently’

    Here is my position and it has been my position since at least 2016. And before 2016 I thought politics wasn’t worth my time.

    — EXCERPT OF POSITIONING STATEMENT 01.29.2017–

    Here. Look how many ‘languages’ we are speaking in now:

    Spencer is working on WN, (wn)

    The green frog crew is working on ridicule. (alt)

    RamzPaul is working on pop criticism (alt)

    PJW is working on media criticism. (new)

    Moly is working on pure education. (lagging but getting there)

    Mike is working “within the system” (new)

    I’m working on ‘the next system’. (new)

    This movement covers the spectrum from separatism, to ridicule, to criticism, to education, to reformation, to revolution. And covers the classes from lower working to intellectuals.

    And that’ exactly what we NEED to do. No everyone is capable of the full spectrum of understanding or the full spectrum of arguments.

    The middle will, and the lower middle will, always hold the numbers, and provide the upper middle provide leadership. The bottom provides the soldiers, and the top provides the political solutions.

    THIS IS HOW REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE: FULL MOBILIZATION.

    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

    —-PACK LANGUAGES VS HERD LANGUAGE—

    The Herd All Speaks the Same Language. the Packs Don’t.

    JULY 22, 2018

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack.

    Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary.

    And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant

    But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass.

    And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism.

    So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight.

    So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all.

    The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

    —MENTIONS OF SPENCER—

    Note that in every case it is either respectful or I’m sharing a post by someone else that is general interest that merely mentions him.

    SHARED Feb 3, 2019, IN RESPONSE TO SPENCER

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156961844687264

    SHARED Dec 29, 2018, 12:28 AM RESPONSE TO SPENCER/MARK

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156880177817264

    SHARED: Apr 17, 2018, 7:29 AM

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156293552552264

    SHARED Jan 14, 2018, 9:55 AM

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156039108437264

    SHARED Mar 18, 2017, 2:55 PM

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155141283657264

    SHARED Jan 29, 2017, 8:26 AM

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154982642257264

    JAN 28th 2017 VIA CERNOVICH

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154982642257264

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 13:03:00 UTC