Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The New Standard on Social Media – Use Extra Caution

    [O]ver the years, I’ve been excessively careful at (a) avoiding hate speech – (violating FB policy), and (b) not crossing the line from educating, informing, and advocating, and developing a constitutional alternative in public – to planning or incentivizing action (violating the law). What I do is expressly legal in America and has a long time honored tradition back to Thomas Paine. Over the past year we (John in particular) have experimented with directly addressing the coming revolution as deterministic, and imminently triggerable. And that we should be prepared for it with Arguments, Organization, and a Ready Constitutional Solution to the coming conflict. However, I didn’t count on, or adequately react to, the escalation in shootings in New Zealand and the USA.  In my view of the world I interpreted these events as the normal escalation to the civil war I’ve predicted for years. In other words, I viewed them as supporting data. My experience with these matters, which goes back to the tampering era, is that it’s the media that creates these events, and only media’s silence that can stop them. Now, anyone who follows me for long enough knows my strategy and plan.  And knows the difference between the King of the Hill game we’re playing to educate and inform. But it was very easy to cast this information as providing incentive to individual actors. And we must understand that it is rational for social media platforms to do so. They should however, give us our PERSONAL data back when they close an account, meaning any image, video, or text that we upload. There are legitimate liability reasons they may prefer not to, but we (meaning the political and legal ‘we’) have to choose between depriving people of their property (diary) and limiting the liability of the platform.  And limiting the liability of the platform is the choice I advocate. Of the risks to us, the risk of loss of our property is greater. In context, had I understood the change at FB  – and had they announced this change – I should have taken down the potentially offensive content by careful search-and-delete, but honestly – as usual – I didn’t adequately interpret the neuro-commoner and cortico-normative interpretation of recent events. So it’s not that I so much care about being dropped from the platform for what I consider reasonable reasons in the given social and political climate.  It’s that I don’t have 90 days of work, and I am not sure what I composed during that 90 days. It’s that simple. I want my data. So we want to repeat here again, that: … (a) individual violent action is not helpful to a reform movement. Don’t do it. Stop anyone who might. … (b) if we must act, we must act as one – en mass – not one by one; no matter how frustrated. And yes, I ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ the rage building up to that weekend, I just assumed it was me misinterpreting the flow in sentiments. … (c) If we act as one – en masse – it must be to show up  – en masse – and make our demands. … (d) Those demands must be amenable to all but fringe actors – in other words the mainstream.  And ours are pretty hard to argue with by any measure. … (e) If our demands are not met, then we have cause for action – as a group. … (f) But the problem is until those demands are made, and the threat is real, the state and the antifa-communist left have no incentive to compromise. … (g) even if the compromise we present, give everyone but the left extremists what they want. My provocative speech, provocative assertions and provocative questions, as well as my use of King of the Hill games – as those who follow me are aware – are for marketing, educational, and strategic purposes: to restore the discourse from the pseudo moral to that of natural law.  To train men once again to debate in truth, duty and reciprocity, with immunity to ridicule, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, rally and disapproval as a substitute for argument – a substitute that does little more than obscure the underlying fraud: attempted theft by use of the coercive violence of the state. Reasons; … a) Demonstrating that men must be taught by the means they prefer (dominance play) … b) That the rothbardian libertarian movement’s capture of the liberty movement had to be defeated through exposure of it’s failure so that we could return the discourse to one of sovereignty under the law, under rule of law, insured by every man acting as a soldier, warrior, sheriff and judge. I had to return ‘violence’ as did our founders, to the discourse on liberty. … c) So that men were taught the reason for their traditions morals and institutions – that they were a strategy of natural law that is the optimum strategy for not only our people, but for all mankind. … c) Restore confidence that if they chose to fight a civil war, that the rule of law (conservatives) would win. (Keep hope alive, and not regress in to desperate acts.) And that I use the public and social media as a means of running experiments on what people currently think, did think, and how they interpret various arguments and prose. I use social media as my laboratory – and it is the best laboratory that I have found. People say what they feel in King of the Hill games.  It’s the optimum research platform for political thought. Unfortunately, as usual, I over-achieve, over work, and over-invest in over-precision, and take too long to do everything  – and my understanding at present is that the Overton window has not only caught up to me and my work, but that it may be too late and I may not finish before what I see as a deterministic explosive conflict triggered by an as yet unpredictable but ever closer event. All I know is that between immigration, the left’s gain influence because of it, and the news media’s influence because of the opportunity for capturing attention and therefore advertiser revenues, that seeking power on one end and seeking to prevent loss of sovereignty on the other – no society, nation, empire, or civilization has survived a mass migration like this in human history without collapse and civil war. I am very good at what I do. I will not err in this matter. Thanks Curt

  • The New Standard on Social Media – Use Extra Caution

    [O]ver the years, I’ve been excessively careful at (a) avoiding hate speech – (violating FB policy), and (b) not crossing the line from educating, informing, and advocating, and developing a constitutional alternative in public – to planning or incentivizing action (violating the law). What I do is expressly legal in America and has a long time honored tradition back to Thomas Paine. Over the past year we (John in particular) have experimented with directly addressing the coming revolution as deterministic, and imminently triggerable. And that we should be prepared for it with Arguments, Organization, and a Ready Constitutional Solution to the coming conflict. However, I didn’t count on, or adequately react to, the escalation in shootings in New Zealand and the USA.  In my view of the world I interpreted these events as the normal escalation to the civil war I’ve predicted for years. In other words, I viewed them as supporting data. My experience with these matters, which goes back to the tampering era, is that it’s the media that creates these events, and only media’s silence that can stop them. Now, anyone who follows me for long enough knows my strategy and plan.  And knows the difference between the King of the Hill game we’re playing to educate and inform. But it was very easy to cast this information as providing incentive to individual actors. And we must understand that it is rational for social media platforms to do so. They should however, give us our PERSONAL data back when they close an account, meaning any image, video, or text that we upload. There are legitimate liability reasons they may prefer not to, but we (meaning the political and legal ‘we’) have to choose between depriving people of their property (diary) and limiting the liability of the platform.  And limiting the liability of the platform is the choice I advocate. Of the risks to us, the risk of loss of our property is greater. In context, had I understood the change at FB  – and had they announced this change – I should have taken down the potentially offensive content by careful search-and-delete, but honestly – as usual – I didn’t adequately interpret the neuro-commoner and cortico-normative interpretation of recent events. So it’s not that I so much care about being dropped from the platform for what I consider reasonable reasons in the given social and political climate.  It’s that I don’t have 90 days of work, and I am not sure what I composed during that 90 days. It’s that simple. I want my data. So we want to repeat here again, that: … (a) individual violent action is not helpful to a reform movement. Don’t do it. Stop anyone who might. … (b) if we must act, we must act as one – en mass – not one by one; no matter how frustrated. And yes, I ‘felt’ or ‘intuited’ the rage building up to that weekend, I just assumed it was me misinterpreting the flow in sentiments. … (c) If we act as one – en masse – it must be to show up  – en masse – and make our demands. … (d) Those demands must be amenable to all but fringe actors – in other words the mainstream.  And ours are pretty hard to argue with by any measure. … (e) If our demands are not met, then we have cause for action – as a group. … (f) But the problem is until those demands are made, and the threat is real, the state and the antifa-communist left have no incentive to compromise. … (g) even if the compromise we present, give everyone but the left extremists what they want. My provocative speech, provocative assertions and provocative questions, as well as my use of King of the Hill games – as those who follow me are aware – are for marketing, educational, and strategic purposes: to restore the discourse from the pseudo moral to that of natural law.  To train men once again to debate in truth, duty and reciprocity, with immunity to ridicule, shaming, psychologizing, moralizing, rally and disapproval as a substitute for argument – a substitute that does little more than obscure the underlying fraud: attempted theft by use of the coercive violence of the state. Reasons; … a) Demonstrating that men must be taught by the means they prefer (dominance play) … b) That the rothbardian libertarian movement’s capture of the liberty movement had to be defeated through exposure of it’s failure so that we could return the discourse to one of sovereignty under the law, under rule of law, insured by every man acting as a soldier, warrior, sheriff and judge. I had to return ‘violence’ as did our founders, to the discourse on liberty. … c) So that men were taught the reason for their traditions morals and institutions – that they were a strategy of natural law that is the optimum strategy for not only our people, but for all mankind. … c) Restore confidence that if they chose to fight a civil war, that the rule of law (conservatives) would win. (Keep hope alive, and not regress in to desperate acts.) And that I use the public and social media as a means of running experiments on what people currently think, did think, and how they interpret various arguments and prose. I use social media as my laboratory – and it is the best laboratory that I have found. People say what they feel in King of the Hill games.  It’s the optimum research platform for political thought. Unfortunately, as usual, I over-achieve, over work, and over-invest in over-precision, and take too long to do everything  – and my understanding at present is that the Overton window has not only caught up to me and my work, but that it may be too late and I may not finish before what I see as a deterministic explosive conflict triggered by an as yet unpredictable but ever closer event. All I know is that between immigration, the left’s gain influence because of it, and the news media’s influence because of the opportunity for capturing attention and therefore advertiser revenues, that seeking power on one end and seeking to prevent loss of sovereignty on the other – no society, nation, empire, or civilization has survived a mass migration like this in human history without collapse and civil war. I am very good at what I do. I will not err in this matter. Thanks Curt

  • When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law

    —“Your version of Propertarianism requires oppression; denial of equal political rights and full free speech – your dude Mark is already posting how your society will require the first amendment to only allow speech your “truth-judiciary” greenlights.”— N6 @SignHexa

    [P]ropertarianism (Natural Law) would restore Defamation & extend commercial liability and warranty to the content of economic, political, and scientific speech, made to the public, and convert Free Speech to Free Truthful (meaning Scientific) and Reciprocal Speech. No More Lies. How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public? How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum? How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral? Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exchange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’? You see you have nowhere to go. 1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.So;Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment? You see, we are happy to let you continue to spread your favelas in your urban “Plantations” (ghettos in training), but we are not willing to let you take our Ethnic groups, our Civilization, our Institutions, our Culture, and our Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom with you. But you are not willing to Reciprocate by Separation (Devolution or Secession) because you cannot survive on your own without the vast middle – the central achievement of western men: a middle class civilization of Reciprocity, Contract and Law: Markets. So you leave us no choice but civil war. You are exposed for what you are: a mob of undomesticated, ignorant, barbaric, thieves, ungrateful for the prosperity, freedoms, provided for you by the middle classes of the ancient and modern world, and happy to return to the gutter of equality in poverty you came from. One needs equal protection UNDER the law to have ‘RIGHTS’. But may only have political ‘POWER’ having demonstrated OBSERVANCE of that law, and achievement under that law: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Voluntary Cooperation in every aspect of life. (You don’t) So you do not want rights, you want power to violate the rights of others. There is only one natural law, one right, from which all other rights descend both logically, operationally, and empirically: Reciprocity. Because other than reciprocity one can only harm, steal & defraud. Now, do you see what I did there? I used categorically, logically, empirically, operationally consistent, fully accounted, speech to end your ability to engage in False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Undue Praise, using Sophism, Critique, and GSRRM. That is what I teach people. I teach: – The Natural Law, – The Science of Testimony, – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit, – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility; And their application to: – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

    [pullquote]
    I teach:
    – The Natural Law,
    – The Science of Testimony,
    – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
    – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
    And their application to:
    – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.
    [/pullquote]

    Now you are a naturally dishonest, deceitful, polluter of the informational commons as a practitioner of Abrahamic False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Pilpul and Critique. A useful idiot for smarter men. But…. I am quite willing to bet, even my life, that the majority is not like you, but ethical and moral, and when given the choice of a truthful reciprocal commons where genders, classes, races can conduct exchanges (disciplined behavior for redistribution) in Government – We win. Because the truth is that the reason people are unhappy is YOU and the rest of the Useful Idiots who took the genealogy of Abraham > Marx > Stalin > Alinsky > Feminists > Postmodernists > Political Correctness to create conflict between genders, classes, races. When you offer, as did the jews, christians, and muslims, ignorance, poverty, and decline during the last abrahamic dark age. And you are in the process of creating the next – in a long oscillation between the prosperity created by western man’s truth, reciprocity, and markets… … and the ignorance, poverty, suffering, of those who destroy them. The only problem facing western man in the ancient world and in the modern, is that we lacked a book of parables (histories) and scriptures (laws) beyond which no man or woman may tread. That’s not true any longer. We have our “scripture” of the ancient and modern world. We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law. Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities. Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation. Political power that is Egalitarian (open to all of merit and observance of the law) not Equalitarian (independent of merit and observancy of the law). The only possible counter proposition is that a given group is of such failure in genetics, ability, habits, culture, religion, and institutions, that it cannot engage in productive, voluntary cooperation with others. Meaning they were demonstrably inferior, and those who could compete were demonstrably superior, and that the central problem is one of self perceived status as inferior. The solution is separation, separate political, economic and status systems. Which is how we evolved.��So when John and I get to that point, of making a series of videos that explain our position vs yours. And present a constitution that is pure, and another than is tailored to the condition in the west, it is very hard for me to see that you and yours win a moral majority.

  • When People Are Presented with The Choice They Will Choose P-Law

    —“Your version of Propertarianism requires oppression; denial of equal political rights and full free speech – your dude Mark is already posting how your society will require the first amendment to only allow speech your “truth-judiciary” greenlights.”— N6 @SignHexa

    [P]ropertarianism (Natural Law) would restore Defamation & extend commercial liability and warranty to the content of economic, political, and scientific speech, made to the public, and convert Free Speech to Free Truthful (meaning Scientific) and Reciprocal Speech. No More Lies. How is requiring public speech, to the public, in matters commercial, financial, economic, political, and scientific, meet the criteria of Truthful(Scientific and Operational), and Reciprocal, other than preventing lying to the public? How is requiring we speak Truthfully, Reciprocally, in pursuit of Exchanges in both private and public rather than lie cheat and steal from one another via government, to redistribute to our favored classes, by arbitrary judgement of individuals or masses – other than optimum? How is requiring speech be logical, empirical, operational, reciprocal, fully accounted, when one asserts a claim of Good or True anything other than honest, ethical, and moral – and all other claims just dishonest, unethical, and immoral? Your desire to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, conspiracy, and oppression of the truth, denial of opportunity for exchange, and generation of conflict, and generation of an authoritarian state not ‘Oppression’, where truth, reciprocity, exchange, not ‘Freedom’? You see you have nowhere to go. 1. You want what you want regardless of the cost to others.2. You want to lie cheat steal, coerce, and force others to give you what you want.So;Why should the opposition RECIPROCATE, and just take from you by all you have to offer: enserfment? You see, we are happy to let you continue to spread your favelas in your urban “Plantations” (ghettos in training), but we are not willing to let you take our Ethnic groups, our Civilization, our Institutions, our Culture, and our Sovereignty, Liberty, and Freedom with you. But you are not willing to Reciprocate by Separation (Devolution or Secession) because you cannot survive on your own without the vast middle – the central achievement of western men: a middle class civilization of Reciprocity, Contract and Law: Markets. So you leave us no choice but civil war. You are exposed for what you are: a mob of undomesticated, ignorant, barbaric, thieves, ungrateful for the prosperity, freedoms, provided for you by the middle classes of the ancient and modern world, and happy to return to the gutter of equality in poverty you came from. One needs equal protection UNDER the law to have ‘RIGHTS’. But may only have political ‘POWER’ having demonstrated OBSERVANCE of that law, and achievement under that law: Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Jury, and Voluntary Cooperation in every aspect of life. (You don’t) So you do not want rights, you want power to violate the rights of others. There is only one natural law, one right, from which all other rights descend both logically, operationally, and empirically: Reciprocity. Because other than reciprocity one can only harm, steal & defraud. Now, do you see what I did there? I used categorically, logically, empirically, operationally consistent, fully accounted, speech to end your ability to engage in False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Undue Praise, using Sophism, Critique, and GSRRM. That is what I teach people. I teach: – The Natural Law, – The Science of Testimony, – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit, – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility; And their application to: – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.

    [pullquote]
    I teach:
    – The Natural Law,
    – The Science of Testimony,
    – The Grammars of Truth and Deceit,
    – The Logics of Acquisition and Compatibility;
    And their application to:
    – The strict construction of constitutions, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court we call ‘Law’.
    [/pullquote]

    Now you are a naturally dishonest, deceitful, polluter of the informational commons as a practitioner of Abrahamic False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, Pilpul and Critique. A useful idiot for smarter men. But…. I am quite willing to bet, even my life, that the majority is not like you, but ethical and moral, and when given the choice of a truthful reciprocal commons where genders, classes, races can conduct exchanges (disciplined behavior for redistribution) in Government – We win. Because the truth is that the reason people are unhappy is YOU and the rest of the Useful Idiots who took the genealogy of Abraham > Marx > Stalin > Alinsky > Feminists > Postmodernists > Political Correctness to create conflict between genders, classes, races. When you offer, as did the jews, christians, and muslims, ignorance, poverty, and decline during the last abrahamic dark age. And you are in the process of creating the next – in a long oscillation between the prosperity created by western man’s truth, reciprocity, and markets… … and the ignorance, poverty, suffering, of those who destroy them. The only problem facing western man in the ancient world and in the modern, is that we lacked a book of parables (histories) and scriptures (laws) beyond which no man or woman may tread. That’s not true any longer. We have our “scripture” of the ancient and modern world. We have always had it. It’s our law, the natural law. Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Law and Jury, Voluntary Markets in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities. Defense of all under the law. The purpose of political power being nothing other than the denial of violations of that law, and as a consequence the direction of all people to voluntary mutual cooperation. Political power that is Egalitarian (open to all of merit and observance of the law) not Equalitarian (independent of merit and observancy of the law). The only possible counter proposition is that a given group is of such failure in genetics, ability, habits, culture, religion, and institutions, that it cannot engage in productive, voluntary cooperation with others. Meaning they were demonstrably inferior, and those who could compete were demonstrably superior, and that the central problem is one of self perceived status as inferior. The solution is separation, separate political, economic and status systems. Which is how we evolved.��So when John and I get to that point, of making a series of videos that explain our position vs yours. And present a constitution that is pure, and another than is tailored to the condition in the west, it is very hard for me to see that you and yours win a moral majority.

  • Policing One’s Own.

    Bryan Nova Brey August 15 at 8:14 PM · Let’s see if I get banned. I copied this from one of my Good Jew friends, Rosenbörg Predmetsky. I really appreciate them, because they police their own, like we all need to do.

    The “HoIocaust”: -The actual number of Js who died at the hands of N@zis is anywhere between 250,000 (close to Red Cross and East German government estimation) to 600,000. -Many of them died of typhus and starvation due to overcrowding and collapsing of German supply lines late in the war caused most of the deaths. -Hitler probably knew that some would die in the process of deportation, and in this sense, I suppose he can be said to have killed them, but it was not the end game. -A lot of them were just Soviet soldiers who predictably died in combat with N@zis. -Concerning eyewitness reports: some may be reliable to some degree, some are mistaken, some are outright lying, some are sincere, some may be highly reliable — but reliance on anecdotal accounts to establish 6 miIIion is ridiculous, especially when it so flatly contradicts rigorous demographic data. -The Fin@l Solution of the Nazis was to deport Js outside of Germany. -What makes the impossibility of the 6 miIIion obvious is that there weren’t even close to 6 miIIion under sphere of German influence in Europe. -Walter Sanning published his Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry in 1983; a detailed investigation of census records and immigration statistics. In 1930s, there were about 6 million Js **altogether** who lived in the areas of Europe that would eventually come under Nazi influence -By 1939 this number had dropped to 5 million and over the next two years, massive emigration (mostly out of Poland) dropped this number to below 3 million. -At around the alleged beginning of the HoIocaust, there were only 2.7 million in the German sphere of influence, of which 1 million would be designated survivors by Jewish census groups. -This leaves about 1 .3 million missing — possibly dead (possibly not), and some of these may have died of non-homicidal causes. -some fifty years after the war, the so-called Spanic Report stated that there were between 834,000 and 960,000 living survivors; a range largely confirmed in 2000 in the Ukeles Report.

  • Policing One’s Own.

    Bryan Nova Brey August 15 at 8:14 PM · Let’s see if I get banned. I copied this from one of my Good Jew friends, Rosenbörg Predmetsky. I really appreciate them, because they police their own, like we all need to do.

    The “HoIocaust”: -The actual number of Js who died at the hands of N@zis is anywhere between 250,000 (close to Red Cross and East German government estimation) to 600,000. -Many of them died of typhus and starvation due to overcrowding and collapsing of German supply lines late in the war caused most of the deaths. -Hitler probably knew that some would die in the process of deportation, and in this sense, I suppose he can be said to have killed them, but it was not the end game. -A lot of them were just Soviet soldiers who predictably died in combat with N@zis. -Concerning eyewitness reports: some may be reliable to some degree, some are mistaken, some are outright lying, some are sincere, some may be highly reliable — but reliance on anecdotal accounts to establish 6 miIIion is ridiculous, especially when it so flatly contradicts rigorous demographic data. -The Fin@l Solution of the Nazis was to deport Js outside of Germany. -What makes the impossibility of the 6 miIIion obvious is that there weren’t even close to 6 miIIion under sphere of German influence in Europe. -Walter Sanning published his Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry in 1983; a detailed investigation of census records and immigration statistics. In 1930s, there were about 6 million Js **altogether** who lived in the areas of Europe that would eventually come under Nazi influence -By 1939 this number had dropped to 5 million and over the next two years, massive emigration (mostly out of Poland) dropped this number to below 3 million. -At around the alleged beginning of the HoIocaust, there were only 2.7 million in the German sphere of influence, of which 1 million would be designated survivors by Jewish census groups. -This leaves about 1 .3 million missing — possibly dead (possibly not), and some of these may have died of non-homicidal causes. -some fifty years after the war, the so-called Spanic Report stated that there were between 834,000 and 960,000 living survivors; a range largely confirmed in 2000 in the Ukeles Report.

  • @Ifishiam @BenBoss00 Is there anything as former conspiracy theorist? Get your a

    @Ifishiam@BenBoss00

    Is there anything as former conspiracy theorist? Get your amygdala checked.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-18 18:02:17 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102639294079592152

  • (Hey. Thanks for your support and friendship.)

    (Hey. Thanks for your support and friendship.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 23:57:28 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102635028362852367

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102632577566313402

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    (Parent post had no text in export.)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102632577566313402

  • INTERESTING OBSERVATION. Posting material from 10 years ago. Not sure it’s helpf

    INTERESTING OBSERVATION.

    Posting material from 10 years ago. Not sure it’s helpful. Still testing it. Reason? I’d rather keep it all FB and drive people to the Blog then the Institute.

    But here is an interesting observation:

    When I started writing a lot in 2009, I wrote almost entirely about economics – just as the influence economists had on policy came to an end (the failure of mainstream economics in political theory.) I thought I would build an audience doing little more than daily falsifying claims by left leaning economists.

    Around that same time I was working on a draft of the constitution and hit the problem of epistemology because it wasn’t possible to write a constitution without saying what a falsehood consisted of.

    I spent most of my time on that series of problems working from what we all call metaphysics today (what I call grammars) on up through the skeleton of aristotelian categories (philosophical) by merging them with scientific and legal categories.

    Sorta got stuck on religion and really had the problem figured out by last summer, but has taken me the past year to test and define a solution to it, and put it into our institutions. Religion really was the hard problem of social science – and it still is the primary impediment to restoring western civilization.

    After 2016 work is mostly about natural law and constitution. Stuff that burned me out was the constitution. And rewriting the first part of the book last fall. I dont’ know why I”m more productive in spring and fall. no idea.

    John and I have been working the revolutionary angle since last fall (2018). My original intention (2012) was to de-christianize libertarianism (rule of law) by restoring the dirty word “force “(or violence) to the discourse on rule of law, thereby prohibiting men from claiming virtue without warranty of insuring it with risk and force. This was an attempt to overturn rothbard and hoppe’s ‘pussytarian’ libertarianism, and restore anglo saxon rule of law of sovereign men, not liberty(Permission for local jurisdiction), or freedom (Permission to enter the market for goods, services, and labor).

    SUMMARY
    I have seen our country go from debate over economic means of administration to the verge of another civil war in just ten years, and I know that the answer is the acceleration under the Obama administration, and the general left’s presumption it would win due to third world immigration legal and illegal, despite the failure of its ideas.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 19:26:16 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102633961937261597

  • APPARENTLY RULE OF LAW IS AN EXTREMIST POSITION Apparently we live in an era whe

    APPARENTLY RULE OF LAW IS AN EXTREMIST POSITION

    Apparently we live in an era where Individual Sovereignty, Reciprocity (reciprocal volition), Tort (property), Nomocracy (Rule of Law) under Isonomy (equality under the law) and No-Retroactivity, where the subject of law is the individual, the subject of policy the family, the function of government is the production and preservation of commons across families, and the state the service of the kin group, not a corporation, in the service of all against the kin group is called ‘Radical’ or ‘Extremist’.

    The Purpose of The Abrahamic(religious) > Marxist > Neoliberal > Postmodern > Program: the second destruction of western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-17 18:33:04 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102633752732130089