Curt Doolittle

Form: Question

  • What About Hiding Advocacy of Ir-Reciprocity and Falsehood in Entertainment?

    Jan 3, 2020, 12:41 PM

    —“How would a society with functioning P-Constitution deal with literature that contains a lot of BS, and claiming it’s just fiction, poetry as an argument to justify the untruths presented and argued in that publication?”—Lauritz Burgunderholm

    We prosecute advocacy of criminality today. We have prosecuted it in the past. We had no means of DEMARCATION in the past. Because of P, we have that means of demarcation now, so there is no problem criminalizing advocacy of falsehood and ir-reciprocity no matter the ‘Grammar’ it is written in. The Law doesn’t say what TO do, and what NOT to do is just what is false or ir-reciprocal. You could write Animal Farm. You couldn’t write the communist manifesto, or pretty much anything postmodern in form.

    —“Thank you.”–Lauritz Burgunderholm

  • Where Do Traditions and Norms Originate?

    Where Do Traditions and Norms Originate? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/where-do-traditions-and-norms-originate/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 01:14:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265089000060211201

  • Q:”The Trials of Achilles?”

    Q:”The Trials of Achilles?” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/qthe-trials-of-achilles/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:43:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264990407336828928

  • Q: “The End of History”

    Q: “The End of History” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/q-the-end-of-history/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:21:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264984833371103232

  • Why Does Reciprocity Make Libertarians Butthurt?

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:57 AM

    —“I shared some Curt Doolittle posts about reciprocity and libertarians got extremely butthurt. Why is that? When I started talking about the cultivation of self, of yourself as a man, my “friends” from secret groups started trying to get me to denounce what I said and repent in public. Sjw-like behavior. But why?””—Christopher M Matthews

    Because rothbardian libertarianism is an SJW-targeted system of thought, argued with SJW logic, producing another Abrahamic cult of sophism. There is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and that is the natural law of reciprocity, insured by all able bodied men bearing arms. There is nothing more to be said. Libertarians won’t pay for the commons, because like those whose immoral ethics and sophomoric reasoning they imitate, they want to parasitically free ride upon the payment for commons by others, just as if they were wandering sheepherders or hunter gatherers with no necessity or responsibility of land holding. They don’t somehow grasp, despite some economic understanding, that one must produce sufficient commons to defend against the strongest opponent in the market for territory, polity, and order of their preference. So, those that produce greater commons in one way or another (whether predatory, parasitic, or productive) defeat those that do not produce commons sufficient to compete with them. Ergo, the market demands at least sufficient funding of commons to preserve sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and it turns out that holding territory sufficient to create a condition of sovereignty is expensive. That is why all those who’ve failed are gone. It’s why there are at present something like 500 dead gods – the tombstones of peoples who failed.

  • Intersex “discipline”

    Jan 27, 2020, 11:14 AM (hard questions) (judgemet of the natural law)

    —“Serious question, is it ever justifiable to hit a woman if she grsm’s you too much? What is the recommended amount of force under P?”—Jack Hwite

    This is a great example of how sovereignty has been used throughout our history. And why this question has such a long history in our law: because it’s a common problem. Justifiable isn’t a meaningful term. Instead, under natural law, and under traditional european law, you can challenge anyone male of female to a duel, demand apology, demand satisfaction, and if refused exercise sovereignty in self defense. Or put differently, in natural law, each of us is sovereign, whether male or female. But the sexes differ in our exercise of force. “A male physical super-predator exchanges the forgoing of his violence with women so long as women social super-predators exchange forgoing their their undermining (GSRRM) in return. If this contract is broken then physical violence and undermining are both licensed.” Or the individuals may choose to forgo the duel and simply have at each other in words and hands. A judicially sanctioned duel before peers is preferred, since differences in ability can be minimized by traditional pit and bag or other means. A conflict can be brought before the court instead and settled there. Because “Scolding” is just as much a violation of sovereignty and the peach as is physical violence. However, this is limited to discipline for insult, and when the other party lies down and submits the conflict must stop – otherwise the parties extend beyond the judicial duel into attempted murder. This competition is the only way to prevent male and female warfare by their individual means. We have constrained men’s violence but let loose women’s violence – and we are paying the price of undermining our civilization as a consequence.

  • Has the Internet Made a Difference in Threat Perception?

    Jan 30, 2020, 11:01 AM

    —“Is anything different now — or has the internet just made us more AWARE of how the left rolls? For instance … if we were to apply our current knowledge of history to the standard history textbook of the 1980s, we would say “this is intolerable.” Or if we applied current understanding of inter-sexual dynamics to the dating marketplace of the 1990s (peak friendzone) we would say “this is intolerable.”—Michael Churchill

    Great question. A three part answer (a) yes we are more aware (b) we cannot threaten, argue with, silence, or exit them – because our interpersonal physicality and genetic status is invisible and inaccessible on the web – so GSRRM is more effective than physicality (c) yes they are a greater threat demographically because they think they can win (caused by obama)

  • Has the Internet Made a Difference in Threat Perception?

    Jan 30, 2020, 11:01 AM

    —“Is anything different now — or has the internet just made us more AWARE of how the left rolls? For instance … if we were to apply our current knowledge of history to the standard history textbook of the 1980s, we would say “this is intolerable.” Or if we applied current understanding of inter-sexual dynamics to the dating marketplace of the 1990s (peak friendzone) we would say “this is intolerable.”—Michael Churchill

    Great question. A three part answer (a) yes we are more aware (b) we cannot threaten, argue with, silence, or exit them – because our interpersonal physicality and genetic status is invisible and inaccessible on the web – so GSRRM is more effective than physicality (c) yes they are a greater threat demographically because they think they can win (caused by obama)

  • Curt Can You Explain… (Legal Reform)

    Jan 30, 2020, 6:41 PM

    —“I just read your “Civilizational Differences in Strategy and Conflict”. Excellent work! … I have a question. Toward the end of the post, you write “punish it in a via-negativa market for the continuous suppression of profit by plausible deniability of accountability”. Can you give an example of such a market, or an example of the effect of of such a market? Do you mean punishment for an observed negative consequence to a demonstrated interest (reciprocity)?”—

    “profit from plausible deniability to bait into hazard” Selling goods or services without warranty Selling drugs, encouraging prostitution, or pornography. Selling gambling, selling alcohol on credit, selling credit. Selling improbabilities, advertising, religion Selling marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism… One is not accountable for the consequences, because there is no warranty stated, and no warranty enforced. This is how abrahamic method of deceit was spread: western sovereignty is vulnerable to undermining because sovereigns are not prohibited from making bad choices, and we have forbidden retaliation and restitution for consequences of volition – even voluntary choice to be baited into hazard. In other words, the current emphasis on criminal reform is to add requirement for intent to stop police from criminalizing accidental violations. So our requirement for means, motive, opportunity, would be increased to include ‘intent’ also. Likewise, my emphasis on libility reform would be to force involuntary warranty on any baiting into hazard – which would effectively outlaw baiting into hazard, as violating sovereignty in the same way deceit violates sovereignty – and literally gut the advertising, media, entertainment, gambling, academic, credit card, consumer-financial, debt collection, and political sectors, and even the contracts for things like cell and cable bills. this effectively converts buyer beware (despite his or her ignorance) to lender beware (because of their asymmetric knowledge of risks). Instead all of this lending would go through the treasury and all CONSUMER interest be captured for the commons. If we combine liquidity distribution (managing the money supply) with direct distribution of cash to citizens on debit cards, we will invert the economy to be in the service of consumers. I hope this explains enough. Just like falsificationism and testimonialism and grammars convert justification to falsification – inverting our understanding of truth, this conversion of the law will restore sovereignty to the citizens and end the parasitism upon them that has destroyed the working middle managerial and small business classes. This is the greatest most revolutionary reform since the roman redistribution of land, and second only to the restructuring of continental power in the 19th century. And yet it is the very OPPOSITE of marxism.

  • Curt Can You Explain… (Legal Reform)

    Jan 30, 2020, 6:41 PM

    —“I just read your “Civilizational Differences in Strategy and Conflict”. Excellent work! … I have a question. Toward the end of the post, you write “punish it in a via-negativa market for the continuous suppression of profit by plausible deniability of accountability”. Can you give an example of such a market, or an example of the effect of of such a market? Do you mean punishment for an observed negative consequence to a demonstrated interest (reciprocity)?”—

    “profit from plausible deniability to bait into hazard” Selling goods or services without warranty Selling drugs, encouraging prostitution, or pornography. Selling gambling, selling alcohol on credit, selling credit. Selling improbabilities, advertising, religion Selling marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism… One is not accountable for the consequences, because there is no warranty stated, and no warranty enforced. This is how abrahamic method of deceit was spread: western sovereignty is vulnerable to undermining because sovereigns are not prohibited from making bad choices, and we have forbidden retaliation and restitution for consequences of volition – even voluntary choice to be baited into hazard. In other words, the current emphasis on criminal reform is to add requirement for intent to stop police from criminalizing accidental violations. So our requirement for means, motive, opportunity, would be increased to include ‘intent’ also. Likewise, my emphasis on libility reform would be to force involuntary warranty on any baiting into hazard – which would effectively outlaw baiting into hazard, as violating sovereignty in the same way deceit violates sovereignty – and literally gut the advertising, media, entertainment, gambling, academic, credit card, consumer-financial, debt collection, and political sectors, and even the contracts for things like cell and cable bills. this effectively converts buyer beware (despite his or her ignorance) to lender beware (because of their asymmetric knowledge of risks). Instead all of this lending would go through the treasury and all CONSUMER interest be captured for the commons. If we combine liquidity distribution (managing the money supply) with direct distribution of cash to citizens on debit cards, we will invert the economy to be in the service of consumers. I hope this explains enough. Just like falsificationism and testimonialism and grammars convert justification to falsification – inverting our understanding of truth, this conversion of the law will restore sovereignty to the citizens and end the parasitism upon them that has destroyed the working middle managerial and small business classes. This is the greatest most revolutionary reform since the roman redistribution of land, and second only to the restructuring of continental power in the 19th century. And yet it is the very OPPOSITE of marxism.