Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “I’m in the Marines, I’m a ri–t winger. If we were to boogaloo will there be et

    —“I’m in the Marines, I’m a ri–t winger. If we were to boogaloo will there be ethnic separation in propertarianism? Please answer honestly.”— Tyler Granberry

    No. Period. Honestly, Truthfully. (I will get a ton of sh-t for saying that from the WN crowd.)

    There is a right of voluntary DISASSOCIATION as well as ASSOCIATION meaning everyone can create new identitarian neighborhoods, villages, cities, counties, sure, because under P we can’t prohibit that VOLUNTARY association and Disassociation. Just as we can’t make bakers bake cakes they don’t agree with. Just like we can’t prohibit men from forming men’s clubs again. Just like we can’t prohibit people from forming their own group banks, own group biases. In other words we end INVOLUNTARY integration at the local level. (If you know your history, and if know the failure of force integration pretty much everywhere except the military, the 60’s destroyed the formation of the african american middle class and elites.

    That said, P constitution proposes a (libertarian) COMPROMISE that if unmet, escalates to POLITICIDE against the left and the use of undermining by competing ideologies, philosophies, religions and interest groups. It converts the left wing immigrant cities into city states, and removes the government from social policy, and restores it to an insurer of last resort. I suspect that we will see the formation of a small number of local polities that like the amish, the evangelicals, or the white nationalists, want to maintain cultural isolationism by a majority middle class. But the state cannot interfere eithe way. I expect that we will have major cities maintain the high and low versus the middle. I tend to look at black-white relations in the south, vs the north and the differences are rather obvious. Family is family in the south. Politics and political parties and ideology in the northeast. And hostility in southern california and new york.

    What we *DO* threaten is an escalation IF left and right cannot pursue their separate political interests in their local polities. In other words, if the left resists we promise to escalate. I think I’ve said it as political separation is a good thing, politicide is a good thing at the federal level, ethnocide if it escalates, and genocide if it escalates, so let’s do the ‘everybody wins’ scenario and devlove the ‘imperial’ federal government’s rule over other than conflict in property between the states to state, city – state, county, local level. And get out of the business of coercing each other.

    But you can search my ten years of posts on P and the site and all you’ll see is libertarian solutions and “I don’t do racism, I do classism, and it’s class sizes that cause the problem not race, and if we can produce commons and rules and norms suitable to our populations we will all stop having conflict over them.” Ie: it worked in the past just fine. It will work now just fine. people are the same the world over in this regard.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 18:42:00 UTC

  • “What about the Military under P?”– The P constitution preserves the federal mi

    —“What about the Military under P?”–

    The P constitution preserves the federal military system for the simple reasons that (a) we need to prevent hostiles taking territory on this continent (b) military is the only organization the benefits tremendously from scale.

    We also push forward military reforms like the light infantry proposal, limiting constraints on rules of engagement, limiting punishments for lapses of judgement during conflict; fully separating the Marines, cultural remasculinization, competitive pay, mixing civilian contract military service personnel,and detaching compensation from rank, restoring military R&D, skipping a generation and moving out of policing and into pure defense of our citizens anywhere in the world, trade route, territorial, population and asset defense, and giving the military full license so that they are rarely used, but if they are, they are terrifying.

    In addition the military gets a ‘house’ in congress and all in all restores the state-military-industrial complex over the state-academy-media complex. Honestly it’s very hard for the military to disagree with our proposal.

    P is a reform on the scale of the roman reforms.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 18:20:00 UTC

  • MORE NON-ARGUMENT FROM GA POSTMODERNISTS TO:​ Imperius —“What is meant by the

    MORE NON-ARGUMENT FROM GA POSTMODERNISTS

    TO:​ Imperius

    —“What is meant by the contrast between “description within experience” and “analogy beyond”?— Imperius

    1. Within the limits of sense perception

    2. Within the limits of physical instrumentation.

    3. Within the limits of reason( deduction, induction, abduction, guessing.)

    4. Within the limits of logic (constant relations).

    5. Within the limits of calculation (logical instrumentation).

    Ergo: (a) – within sense, perception, reason, calculation = Experience. (b) – Within instrumental evidence testable by sense, perception, reason, calculation = Analogy to experience.(c) “Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience sufficient for comparison within the limits of sense, perception, reason, experience.

    Operational means of stating what others have said by previous means — preventing idealism and subsequent conflation and inflation by reduction to operational terms.

    —” morality is processed in the declarative, “— Imperius

    DEFINITIONS:

    RECIPROCITY: productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of other group members, sufficient to cause retaliation (demand for restitution).

    MORALITY

    Good <- Moral <- Ethical <- amoral -> unethical -> immoral -> Evil. (I’ve defined this in detail elsewhere, search the site rather than repeat here.)

    1) Objectively Moral: Reciprocal (mutually beneficial) within the limits of proportionality (defection). No cooperative species can survive otherwise.

    2) Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the Limits of proportionality that I prefer given my gender and sexual, social, economic, and political market value.

    3) Interpersonal Personal Moral Intuition: Minimum Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality I can get away with given my sexual social economic and political market value.

    4) Normative Morality: standards of reciprocity given the group evolutionary strategy, and the portfolio of conditions necessary to preserve sufficient reciprocity that sufficient proportionality is maintained that the polity survives.

    DECLARATIVE, OSTENSIVE, IMPERATIVE

    1) STATEMENT

    Declarative (Subjective): of the nature of or making a declaration; a statement; (irresponsibility)

    ie: Objective: Promissory. (responsibility)

    2) DESCRIPTION

    Ostensive: (Subjective) directly or clearly demonstrative. (irresponsibility)

    ie: Objective: Operational. (Responsibility)

    CLAIM(PROMISE), VALUE

    Imperative: (Subjective) an essential or urgent thing; (irresponsibility)

    ie: Objective Necessary: (responsibility)

    Grammatical difference between:

    a) Command free of responsibility (ir-reciprocity: immorality)

    And;

    b) Argument inclusive of responsibility. (reciprocity: morality)

    So while you claim I don’t understand language as far as I know I understand all grammars known to man, the common (geometric) constitution of those grammars; the point of view each of them is uttered from; and the incentive to use each one of them for the purpose of NOT speaking truthfully.

    And as usual you’re claiming that I don’t understand when no, I understand, I don’t value, because I am seeking a means of deciding conflict, and suppressing lying of all kinds, thus prohibiting the abrahamic means of deceit (which is the only one we westerners are vulnerable to given our high trust), and this is counter to your interests because of reasons I’ve explained before.

    I don’t really disambiguate your claims often, and I emphasize the only known incentives to avoid reciprocal (testimonial) speech, and all are either to justify authoritarianism or justify deceit.

    But if I can ‘correct’ Kantian sophism I’m equally comfortable disambiguating postmodern (social construction) sophism whether left appeal to authority to avoid darwin, or right appeal to authority to advance darwin.

    Fact remains is that if you can’t state it truthfully the question is why?

    I mean, authoritarianism especially martial and political does nto require obscuring the demand for authority. The reason being that one already has the power to exercise.

    Supernatural authority or sophomoric authority or pseudoscientific authority are simply means by which those lacking the power to exercise try to construct it by inspirational means. There is no other reason to use it. But the total failure of continental civilization to produce anything without trying to rescue a country under external pressure and conquest (interwar germany), when people have an incentive to follow a message of rallying for material reasons.

    If you can on the other hand construct some promise whether true (economic, political) or false ( supernatural salvation, economic power, political power), and a pseudoscientific, sophomoric, or occult means of advancing it (an ideology) then you at least have an excuse. TO OBSCURE a strategy for the obtaining of power. And then a strategy for preserving power, and operation that polity or faithful.

    Now if you had that to offer then I could come back with ‘this will work, that won’t work’ or something or other.

    BUt if you’re just talking the theory of lying that in that context I don’t see any value in promoting various new means of lying among our people when it is precisely this kind of lying that has made them vulnerable to marxism, socialism, libertarianism, feminism, and postmodernism.

    I mean, is start with ‘here is a constitution that will solve the problem of current modernity; here is a recipe for restoring our historically successful group strategy; here is a recipe for creating a new mythology but not what it is; here is a recipe for creating a new religion, but not what it is. so others please have at it.

    So we have had this same conversation for something between four and five years now: I analyze, architect, engineer, and render into law. (Science) the means of operating a polity that cannot be defeated by abrahamic means (or military, or economic, or immigration). The rest is up to “storytellers”. If you want to write a story do so. As long as it doesn’t try to undermine our strategy, which is our group’s competitive advantage, then I don’t care what it is.

    But if it does try to perpetuate abrahamic deciets then I’m going to do my duty and falsify, undermine, and eradicate it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 17:13:00 UTC

  • WRITING (from elsewhere) Many people use writing for therapy, escape, or self en

    WRITING

    (from elsewhere)

    Many people use writing for therapy, escape, or self entertainment, not for others to actually read. I’m a philosopher. Philosophers have to generate a novel idea, and write a book advocating and defending it. Thinking philosophically only means you’re human, doing an arts and crafts hobby not a philosopher. Likewise, writing a story or novel only means you’re human. Unless you write a novel narrative, advocate it and defend it with your characters and narrator, you’re just a human doing an arts and crafts hobby for personal entertainment.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 14:01:00 UTC

  • Updated Oct 20, 2019, 1:37 PM

    Updated Oct 20, 2019, 1:37 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 13:37:00 UTC

  • Updated Oct 20, 2019, 1:36 PM

    Updated Oct 20, 2019, 1:36 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 13:36:00 UTC

  • “ROBOT JUDGES” (from elsewhere) I have worked on automating legal argument since

    “ROBOT JUDGES”

    (from elsewhere)

    I have worked on automating legal argument since we wrote ipx drivers by hand, and was certainly one of the first people to do it for every federal court. I currently work on the strict construction of law from the test of reciprocity, and the tests of whether one is given truthful testimony. Most cases are settled before trial because they are decidable, and those that make it to trial not easily decided without subjective testing of incentives, and the vast majority of legal cases are decided by whether we subjectively test the believability of the individuals at hand – (and some by oversaturating the reason of the jury). If AI justice is at all possible we are very, very, very far from it. And even so, I don’t think we would permit it. We might permit a machine to produce information FOR a jury. But if we get to the point where we abandon the jury of our peers, it’s time to hoist the jolly roger so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 21:53:00 UTC

  • RELIGION != FAITH —“I see is faith may be better at creating a moral community

    RELIGION != FAITH

    —“I see is faith may be better at creating a moral community with a greater majority within a group.”—Jack Scarbrough

    Well, religion does, the question is whether we confuse religion (myth, ritual, debt, oath, feast, festival) with the supernatural, and in particular a pretty evil supernatural despot.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 20:21:00 UTC

  • FB BLOCK Curt is on 24hr Facebook block for Post on differences in male and fema

    FB BLOCK

    Curt is on 24hr Facebook block for Post on differences in male and female anti-social behavior and our failure of law and institutions to adapt to changes in them. I suspect if he’d just used ‘male’ and ‘female’ rather than crazy-___ and crazy-___ it would have been fine – but he was trying to add humor I suspect.

    The “Stalkers” are still trying to get Curt banned on facebook, by submitting multiple posts and hoping that the editors don’t understand what he’s arguing for.

    Curt doesn’t do hate or hate speech. He explains incentives and explains the data. But that doesn’t mean that the casual editor can’t be misled into thinking otherwise.

    – The Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 20:01:00 UTC

  • (Curt 24 hr. stalkers back. post on differences in male female anti-social behav

    (Curt 24 hr. stalkers back. post on differences in male female anti-social behavior. Cant block all the ‘stalkers’ alts fast enough.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-19 19:20:00 UTC