(FB 1551988756 Timestamp) “THE GOYIM KNOW” Their technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. It’s not just usury. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard. Instead, it’s every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and crique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional. It ends now. De-financialization, De-politicization, De-distinformationalization, and restoration of our eugenic group evolutionary strategy in our own self interest. It’s easy. The law. The most intolerant law ever made. With the law we make the extirpation of parasites a for-profit business for every citizen of character Propertarianism.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552057171 Timestamp) DIVISIVE? DIVISIVE? STUPIDITY IS WHAT’S DIVISIVE (the answer to the right) I worked to save my people from that false promise of liberty, and its baiting into moral hazard, by our ancestral enemy, under rothbardian libertinism. I was divisive in attacking rothbard and less so mises and hoppe. But I didn’t punch right unless someone punched me first. Although, I have to confess when I felt the fascists were going to continue to us down after C-ville, I more than considered it – and rightly so. Next, the New Right Wing Postmodernists came after me – seeking attention. Then Spencer came out with a quip, and then The Woo Woo Christians felt emboldened and rallied, and now the fascists are laying ground once again. There is zero reason to talk about me. There is zero reason for infighting between: – Fascists (rule of man by inspiration), – Nomocrats: Rule of Law by science, and; – Christians (Rule of Priests by woo woo). If you want to criticize rule of law, rule of man, or rule of ‘religion’ then do so. I do. But then, if you personalize that attack by taking on ‘one of the right’ rather than the general rule, you’re just a click-seeking attention-whore, doing the right a disservice. These are the three ancestral classes of our elites:
- Warriors, Soldiers (Masculine Defense),
“Those who Fight (Father)”
-and- Judges and Governors(Cooperation), Burghers, Business, Farmers
“Those who Work (Brother)”
-and-
- Priests and Public Intellectuals (Feminine Consumption)
“Those Who Pray (Educate, Mother)”
And we use our three classes of elites to our advantage and we keep them incompetition to ensure that we can use each as needed. At present all three classes: Fascists (Dominant Force ), Nomocrats (Practical Trade) and the Religious (Submissive Resistance) all all searching for a solution given that the Right Has Failed. Now, I’m pretty sure that y’all got nuthin, because (a) there is no fascist leader of any ability and there won’t be until fascism is re-articulated in adult language, (b) religion of the christian type only survived as a wife to the aristocracy – and islam is winning the war of ‘monopolies’, And at present, christianity is past its expiration date – because without operational means of governing an educated population it’s irrelevant and relegated to either the bible belt, or providing comfort to the outcast and underclass in the rest of the country. So only a fascist or a group of nomocrats are possible, and christianity has to simply pick one or both to bet on because christians have no answer – and frandkly appear ‘cucked’ and perhaps the source of current ‘cuckery’. So as far as I know we need a fascist (strong man leader), nomocracy (rule of law by which to govern a complex polity), and christians as a block to move the body faithful out of a condition of failure. It takes all three. However, the only means of governing a polity is and always will be law and economic information, because they are the ONLY POSSIBLE MEANS of operating a polity of greater scale than a village congregation.
- Warriors, Soldiers (Masculine Defense),
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551988756 Timestamp) “THE GOYIM KNOW” Their technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. It’s not just usury. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard. Instead, it’s every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and crique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional. It ends now. De-financialization, De-politicization, De-distinformationalization, and restoration of our eugenic group evolutionary strategy in our own self interest. It’s easy. The law. The most intolerant law ever made. With the law we make the extirpation of parasites a for-profit business for every citizen of character Propertarianism.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552153817 Timestamp) –“Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103 Foundations is done, and LAW203/6 and we have worked through the method, the definitions, and then the long list of applications of that law, we have a purely descriptive science of the psychological and social sciences. I am on the third revision of LAW103 – Foundations, and it is … well it’s where you can understand it pretty easily as a single thing in a hierarchy of applications. And that the number of component parts is just a handful that I could roll off right now with east. I will be done with 103 fairly shortly, and doing so has helped me shorten the book down to something very simple. Between the constitution (which is a chinese menu) , the Course LAW103/LAW203/6, and a book containing both, the work will be rock solid. And it is achievable. And while y’all complain about me taking so long (and I complain too) the time I take matters because it allows me to turn all of this prose into something parsimonious, clear, and accessible to most people by one means or another. b) The Institute owns everything I do other than my software biz which is owned by me and my investors. If anything happens to me all IP goes either to the institute, or to my investors, with a portion of any software profits for my family. c) In the case where something happens to me, the institute, a few people whose names I won’t mention, and the donors will have license to do what they will with the work after I’m gone. d) There are people here today capable of continuing the work. The problem is that I am able for various economic reasons to devote full time to the effort, and they are not. The best people have limited time to devote. My hope would be that the institute will evolve successfully into an online university for teaching this material, and a network of schools and teachers will evolve and will provide income to those people willing and able to continue the work whether contributing or simply persisting it. e) I need to be clear though that my age and health are not in my favor. Even this winter I’ve been questionably effective since maybe mid december because of health issues. But, if I can finish the courses, constitution, and book, and then spend the rest of my time using the same method to produce courses and books I will be productive as long as I am able, and reconstruct the western canon – a full academic program that is defended against the left forever. I have to get into a living condition where i can walk and lift every day but sleep enough every night so that I stay healthy enough to do it. And I’m not keen on abandoning care of my elders to do that. LAW103 – Foundations – The Method (âThe Coreâ) LAW106 Foundations: Man, Law, and Argument LAW206 Application and Reformation It is possible that if I continue making similar progress that law 106 will be just another 3 credits. I can’t easily estimate the work load without completing the course. People might be able to do the work faster than I assume. Law 206 (application to the scope of knowledge) should be a 300 level course i think, and Law 306 a 400 level course, since it involves writing constitutions for different groups of people. After that we then go to comparative legal systems and tear apart constitutions and legal systems on a country by country basis. Once that is donet here will be no legal scholars in the world that can compete with Propertarian Jurists with any excuse other than ‘it’s tradition’. Now that I feel REALLY secure about the Foundations, I feel like the workload for students will drop, because once you get the hang of it I think a lot of this will come more naturally than I expected. I would love to get this into a two year program, and then spend more time on economics, history and war to fill out a degree. But again. I have this work and my software work to do and I’m not 30 years old any longer.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552146749 Timestamp) You know, the IE religions were exceptional, producing western paganism, india’s hinduism and buddhism. And while I prefer far eastern Confucian, Dao, Ritual, and Ancestor worship for ‘ant colony’ people, and prefer western naturalism: aristotelian, philosophical, sport, Pagan (Heroes) Heathen (Ancestors and Nature), for our heroic people, what sticks out when you study world religions is that while the zoroastrians were trying to ally people under an ideal, the only peoples that invented evil and evil religions were the Semitic. Yet the worst possible religion is nothing but a network of lies to DEFEAT occupy and consume the great civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552174894 Timestamp) i say that there is only one metaphysics but many fictions. And therefore the use of fictions is not in fact metaphysical. And as such people who claim otherwise are engaged in fraud. As far as i know the physical, cognitive, and linguistic sciences explain every concept metaphysicians claim in their purview. As far as time an causality these are subjects sophomorically conflated but causality exists, but like all else reduced to speech can never be complete, only necessary sufficient and contingent. The same for time : which time are we talking about? What makes the change in state possible, the rate of change vary, and our memory of passage vary, and our perception of the rate of change vary? all of these answers we know. zeno was a bit of a sophist. My current understanding is that there exists nothing that cannot be explained scientifically. and thats certainly going to hold. A scientific explanation is not the same as the experience we describe with that science – this is true. If we want a separate aesthetic language for the experience that is commensurable with the scientific then that is fine. if we want to discuss the different fictions that different groups operate under thats still one metaphysics and many fiction that allow people to conceive of that beyond their direct perception then that is a vehicle for hypothesizing by analogy. I am pretty certain i can produce a proof of construction that is so parsimonious it will survive all criticism. there is nothing left that i know of other than the relationship between personality traits and reward systems and i think others know this. But one cannot work on artificial intelligence My reductionist approach requires operational language under the argument that if you cannot do so you cannot claim that you know of what you speak, and that therefore cannot make a truth claim, because you cannot claim to testify what you cannot operationally describe. and even then you may not and likely may not infer anything from you explanation. There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. that paradigm cannot be expressed as other than analogy to operational experience without the introduction of fiction. the narrative requires categories to limit sequential prose to that which is possible for human minds. all such paradigms worldwide are converging on the scientific (scientific naturalism small number of consisten universal rules). I mean. until you find a set of case that are not open to natural explanation anything anyone says about metaphysics is just nonsense. AFAIK philosophy is currently relegated to choice of preference or good an the rest is science. And i cant find an exception to that rule.
-
(FB 1552574419 Timestamp) As far as I know we are very close to submission to th
(FB 1552574419 Timestamp) As far as I know we are very close to submission to the inescapable necessity, that the physics of the universe at existential scale is complete, and that no forces or interactions exist or can that we do not know of. Moreover that modifying our ‘stories’ such that they, our experiences, our thoughts, and actions work ever closer to those rules. In other words, a majority of people demonstrate preference for the results even if a minority demonstrate preference for what produces those results. Worse, that we evolved our language, cooperation in a division of labor, and all our works, in a period of very short ‘safety’ here on this earth, and here in this place in the universe. We do not have any luxury of ‘free riding’ on this world or the universe. But it is this particular difference between those of us who seek to consume(relax) above all else, and those of us who seek to produce(achieve) above all else, that separates our understanding of the world. As far as I can determine, we all seek to create stories that are discordant with that universe for a host of reasons – all of which are reducible to our desires being contrary to it. Because we survive and prosper by the same means as does all life: the seizure of opportunity to resist entropy.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552425214 Timestamp) Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech. We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era. Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’. —“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “— And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly. What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words. Right?