Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • AGENCY PEOPLE ARE OVERWHELMED BY IMPULSE Noah J Revoy People respond to anger in

    https://youtu.be/CdkmIpDQ3i0?t=100LOW AGENCY PEOPLE ARE OVERWHELMED BY IMPULSE

    Noah J Revoy

    People respond to anger in different ways, depending on their level of Agency.

    For low Agency people anger is an overwhelming experience.

    They want quick, violent action. They get physically affected. They yell, stop their feet and rage. Really, they are seeking rapid relief at any cost from an emotion they are not trained to handle. (Reminds me of a toddler).

    For high Agency people the anger experience is different. We get angry, but it makes us calm, focused, quiet. We ride the anger, we dont let it ride us. In the end we are far more dangerous this way.

    Proof: Ask yourself, how does a special operations soldier (high combat Agency) react to fear and anger vs a normal soldier vs an untrained civilian?

    https://youtu.be/CdkmIpDQ3i0?t=100Updated Feb 3, 2020, 12:08 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 12:08:00 UTC

  • THEY ARE ANGRY. THEY NEED LEADERS. WE MAKE THEM by Bill Joslin They’re angry. By

    THEY ARE ANGRY. THEY NEED LEADERS. WE MAKE THEM

    by Bill Joslin

    They’re angry. By not understanding, they’re angry. By not having a solution, they’re angry. By not understanding they seek leadership.

    I’ve yet to meet someone who understands P that hasn’t become a leader.

    So lets reframe it from leaders and followers to mentors and prodigies.

    Reciprocity exists as a fundamental pillar in P. Reciprocity demands personal accountability and responsibility.

    Personal responsibility and accountability pulls you off the path of “following”.

    We’re not an organzation of leaders and followers, but a recursive,.iterative, nested hierarchy of mentors and prodigies- LGOR (little groups of rangers) delegated autonomy, distributed accountability.

    (..woof)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 11:17:00 UTC

  • “Tolerance is a virtue, as such it has a golden mean; and too much tolerance qui

    —“Tolerance is a virtue, as such it has a golden mean; and too much tolerance quickly becomes a vice. If they call it anger, could they just be confusing rational intolerance with an emotional state?”—Andrew M Gilmour

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 11:15:00 UTC

  • WE HVE NO CHOICE: I’M NOT INTERESTED IN REPEATING DECADES OF FAILURE. —“My onl

    WE HVE NO CHOICE: I’M NOT INTERESTED IN REPEATING DECADES OF FAILURE.

    —“My only issue is with your hopelessly childish(and immoral) Boogaloo fantasy scenario. You are obviously not interested in building a popular, democratic movement which could advocate for regionalism within a democratic framework.”— A Useful Idiot

    I am not interested in REPEATING DECADES OF FAILURE, when it is just the import of bodies not discourse or education that has created the divide.

    The demographics are done. It’s passed that point. The left successfully used undermining and immigration to do what ideas couldn’t.

    So who is childish? The definition of insanity is not learning from failure but continuous doubling down despite failure.

    Democracy was a god and a religion that failed. Marxism, postmodernism, and feminism were a pseudoscientific religion that failed. Only invasion won.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 11:14:00 UTC

  • LAUNCHING THIS YEAR We cannot ‘launch’ early. It’s why most startups fail. A mov

    LAUNCHING THIS YEAR

    We cannot ‘launch’ early. It’s why most startups fail. A movement is no different from a business. The market timing matters. We will ‘launch’ this year. But we lead with the solution – not an emotionally satisfying but ultimately defeating rallying for the sake of rallying without a definite ‘contract’.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 11:09:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTARIANISM IS NOT AN ANGRY LINE OF THOUGHT” —“People whom you get along

    “PROPERTARIANISM IS NOT AN ANGRY LINE OF THOUGHT”

    —“People whom you get along with are likely to be cognitively similar and will likely also like P. Bond with like minded people. Hang out. Laugh. Introduce them to the work. Once you start a group, expand it. Propertarianism is not an angry train of thought. For those who understand can truly laugh. The lost and scared scream at the forest.”—Rick Tavi

    Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that. It’s why we have such a problem with the people who want leadership. They’re so angry. They want angry leadership. The problem is that they NEED differently from what they WANT.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 10:26:00 UTC

  • “We are filtering, not converting.”—Luke Weinhagen Solutions produce leaders,

    —“We are filtering, not converting.”—Luke Weinhagen

    Solutions produce leaders, leaders produce followers, followers produce wins. Majoritarianism is never useful. It just increases the logistical problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 10:26:00 UTC

  • IDEOLOGICAL MOTIVATIONS, OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES People who want status or attentio

    IDEOLOGICAL MOTIVATIONS, OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES

    People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 10:25:00 UTC

  • WHERE CAN I LEARN PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) —“Where may I learn the Rudime

    WHERE CAN I LEARN PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)

    —“Where may I learn the Rudiments of Propertarian Ideology?Close to half of Native America is tired of the Left Wing dropping Crumbs from Their table to starve Us into submission and then use Us as pawns in Their Self hating,racist political games,We are getting tired of Them turning Us into Victims so that They can come running to the rescue and play Hero at Our expense.We need something better than Their left wing, paternalistic Racism.”—

    A little context first.

    It’s a methodology. we use that methodology to create a universally commensurable, value neutral, language across all disciplines. This unites the physical and human sciences. We use that language to make it very hard to lie, cheat, fraud, or bait into hazard. We take that language and method and write law. That law is strictly constructed and closed to interpretation by courts. We wrote a constitution using that law that reflects the western civilizational strategy and tradition. This restores the constitutions original intent as a document of natural law that persists the western group strategy. We then write the western group strategy in those value neutral universally commensurable terms, so that our people finally know what makes them unique and special, and what made us successful.

    The only ‘ideology’ is whether you want to persist the western tradition of evolutionary excellence or not.

    on propertarianism dot com there is a link in the middle of the main menu. You can work your way through reading that. It is a lot of content. It touches every single discipline. It will overwhelm you. The constitution is also there in its current public and incomplete form.

    You can read a bit of all that, follow us here and learn by asking questions or just following along. (Although you have to tolerate many points of view) If you’re able you can join the SN (sheepdog nomocracy group) that is a sort of working classroom. Or you can take the foundations course at the institute and wait while I slowly release content. Those are the options. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 10:13:00 UTC

  • (placeholder) (discuss incentives that produce conspiracies of common interest –

    (placeholder)

    (discuss incentives that produce conspiracies of common interest – and managed decline/equilibrium)(real conspiracy is ‘all’ rather than each nation competing an the market driving all upward)

    TRILATERAL COMMISSION

    WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – DAVOS

    BILDERBERG GROUP CONFERNECE

    MOUNT PELERIN SOCIETY

    WORLD BANK

    G7,

    WTO – World Trade Organization,

    IMF – International Monetary Fund,

    THE UNITED NATIONS

    “Davos Man”

    “Davos Man” is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely “international”. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase “Davos Man”,[88] they are people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite’s global operations”. In his 2004 article “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite”, Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[89]

    Davos men supposedly see their identity as a matter of personal choice, not an accident of birth. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has suggested that the transnational ideology of Davos Man represents a major challenge to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that liberal democracy represents the fulfillment of The End of History and the Last Man.

    Hernando de Soto Polar said that although internationally connected, each country’s elite lives in a bell jar in the sense of being out of touch with its own populace. Their isolation fosters a tendency to be oblivious to the fate of their fellow citizens.

    Lawrence Summers refers to this concept as the “stateless elites”, tied more to the success of the global economy than to any nation, and views it as eroding support for continuing globalization

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 10:05:00 UTC