(FB 1549993280 Timestamp) YOU WILL END UP AT PROPERTARIANISM. YOU WILL. SORRY. (But take your time. We can’t handle too many of you at once.)
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549936996 Timestamp) PUTIN IS RIGHT AGAIN
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549990301 Timestamp) VISIONS OF THE FUTURE I don’t have anything against other groups because I understand men speak by and act by different grammars and that those grammars reflect their genes, class, and region – so they have little choice. But reciprocity rules. There is no value in trying to get despotic absolutists, the religious absolutists, the legal absolutists, the classical liberals, the libertarians, and the anarcho capitalists to unite behind a single message or goal other than survival as a group. The reality is that we need authority, religion, law, government, entrepreneurs, investors, and artists. And these demands are supplied by each of the right’s groups. With shared sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, and markets for voluntary organization in all walks of life – and prohibition on all actions against our people. My simple point is that law is and forever will be the means of organizing a population into whatever polity possible, and the left will always be better able to use the semitic techniques of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, fictionalisms, to lie, cheat, and steal from our people, and subject them once again to defeat. As far as I know this argument is unassailable other than to make the claim that the right and libertarians are better liars, whose message sells better than the false promises of the left, when what separates us largely from the left is that we speak the truth whether in scientific, legal, rationalist, or allegorical form, and that our message does not sell, but must be enforced, for the good of those who would hyper-consume the institutions that make our quality of life possible. There is only one way of imposing order at any scale – and that is law: the market for punishment. What order you build upon that law, must today consist of force, finance, commons production, insurance, administration, and education. You cannot avoid producing all of those functions and survive competition in the world. It cannot be done. And these are the roles of the various wings of the right and near right. And if you understand my policy recommendations you will understand also that I’ve solved most of the means of preying upon our people You must only decide: (a) How you want to obtain power, (b) What degree of separation to choose (conquest, secession, big sort. (c) How you want to operate whatever government or governments result. (d) What policies to enact if obtaining power and operating government, while still defending against enemies foreign and domestic. (e) Whether you want to even attempt to impose dictatorship, or a state version of christianity. Because both will fail. My preference is to defederalize, to redistribute centralized federal weath to many regions, eliminate discretionary rule in the federal government – leaving only watchman duties: military, treasury, insurer of last resort, judiciary limited to conflicts between the states. My preference is to impose voluntary disassociation and let the ‘market’ do its job. (this will drive (((enemy))) and occupier into urban centers.(ghettos). My preference is to issue warnings to all other states that if their people come here for our rule, then we will come there to rule their people out of self defense. My preference is forcible repatriation and revocation of passports of the enemies in exchange for not engaging in war upon them mostly south america. My preference is to make european religions of all forms the law of the land, and to prohibit all others, and to restore the churches to control of education, under threat of decomposition if they violate any of the laws. My preference is to immediately export the revolution and restoration to the rest of our peoples – in cooperation with those outside of western europe -all of whom will help us. But the truth is – we will ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE gravitate to a government of rule of law if we want to survive competition on the world stage with our own people. Because we can outcompete others only by this means. Everything else is not ‘my problem’ so to speak: it is yours. Because I don’t need to involve myself in anything other than bringing about change, and providing the means of transition, and a means of operating such a government if we win. If you want to fight over control of it that’s your game. But you will, I promise, end up with what I propose simply because of the numbers, power, and knowledge of the different factions. You can have wishes and fantasies. But the only reality that can exist is revolt is necessary and very soon. That it will be somewhere between uncomfortable and horrific. That we will choose PRAGMATICALLY whatever means of ‘divorce’ is most easily available (mine is easiest), and what rules to impose on people in order to complete the victory, while not being conquered by external forces. Anything else you believe is nonsense. If you are too frightened to fight for these conditions then just shut up, cower, and stay out of the way of those who are not. There are men among us. And we are many. And we are enough. Anyone i find deluding our people to any other set of options is an ally of our enemy, and I will, and we will, do everything possible to punish you and silence you for your actions. Curt Doolittle.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549930908 Timestamp) —“… not everyone thinks you’re scary. Some just think you’re naive.”— Well you know, it’s kind of hard to look at my life history, my achievements and failures, my work, and my evidence of general knowledge of so many fields – and call me naive. But if that is how people who are less informed and experienced defend their fears – it’s not that I don’t understand. I just understand that they are useless to the cause of change, and are involuntary allies of the enemy. Not out of intent. But out of ignorance insecurity, and cowardice. Which is how I see you. If you had an argument then you would make it. I know the arguments. Which is how I identify all fools and liars. Non-argument. 😉 BRING SOMETHING TO THE TABLE OR BE SILENT.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1549971692 Timestamp) MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1 ==== by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata) Incredibly deep paper: – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science Abstract (Gated) The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549928939 Timestamp) (personal)(Hey, um. My psychology isn’t deep. I’m got the aspie gift on the one hand from my nearly perfect mother, and smart but unfortunately, abusive alcoholic father, and the consequent constant feeling of dread, that I need to protect myself, my mother, and my sisters from ‘evil’ – a condition which manifested itself in real threats to our lives that you cannot imagine anyone not going to prison for today. On top of it I followed my mother’s people who are stocky but short, and had to fight may way through grade school in a farm town until I matured enough to be dangerous. And as a result I must strive to save everyone from their own stupidity and the pervasive evil always kept at bay by a few good men for whom reward is rarely if ever given.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549970958 Timestamp) THOUGHTS ON OTHERS AND THE MOMENT (important read, esp near the end) PETERSON I prefer not to punch on Peterson. I am very critical of his (lame) “Darwinian Truth” (ack). I do like his use of archetypes but not the semitic ‘submission’ despite its utility in therapy of the suffering. I prefer he spend more time on restoring Self Authoring as stoicism (development) rather than self help (correction after the fact). I don’t think he should end his straddling. He makes a sales funnel for us. MOLLY I won’t punch on Molly (although he is not gonna cut it as a philosopher and I wish he’d stop saying that) he is a great teacher, and he opens the sales funnel for us much further. … I disagree that he should move faster with our direction. He has a large audience to move and they trail. … I disagree that I should try to advocate my work on his show, I just feel that I should help his arguments when they are … insufficient (like the taleb issue). WOODS I have never that I know of said anything bad about Woods, although if I recall I’ve pushed back on issues where he is simply wrong. Tom is a good person. And I would love it if he could convince me that the church was not terrible for our people. I don’t follow tom so much as try to understand his rather ‘normie’ position in general. MISES INSTITUTE I have a personal mission to end the mises institute and their income stream unless they abandon the rothbardian fraud, and transfer to hayekian thought and western ethics. ROTHBARD, MISES, HOPPE I attacked rothbard, mises and hoppe to reform libertarianism and re-demarcate western libertarianism from semitic libertinism – and do clearly demarcate semitic pilpul, german rationalism, from anglo ratio-empiricism. I use Block (who I personally have affection for) as an example of rothbardian folly because he is the only serious rothbardian advocate of it. STRATEGY My strategy was to undermine jewish libertinism, and restore western soverentarianism(upper), liberty (middle), freedom (lower) so that we libertarians can once again form the intellectual vanguard of the ‘conservative’ (male) western strategy. TALEB I used to support Taleb but now that he’s come out as anti-white I”m going to have to put him on the ‘prosecute’ list. AUGUSTUS I don’t ever disagree with Augustus and like him very much and I like his via positiva as the opposite of my via-negativa. I also prefer his frame of thought because he understands the law so well. TRS I have a friendship with the TRS guys because they were the first people to pay attention to me … and I just like them. I mean, it’s really hard NOT to like them. They’re Hysterical. OTHERWISE I DON’T PAY ATTENTION I don’t pay attention to anyone else. Unless someone swings at me. Really. Unless someone asks me to look at something I don’t. The primary value of others is finding excuses to riff off their thoughts, so that I can illustrate a point, and continue the stream of education I provide to people. It’s this repetition from dozens of different angles, that makes it possible for me to slowly carve away and accumulated error bias and deceit. THE POPULAR CULTURE ISN”T MY TARGET I’m trying to recreate a frankfurt school that is in favor of our people rather than the enemy of our people. And I am pretty close to doing it. WIth these people we can easily saturate the informational commons with our arguments. It is very difficult if not impossible to defeat them. Because they expose the methods and consequences of abrahamism and it’s predation upon our people. WHAT I PAY ATTENTION TO Mostly I read the books, papers and blogs in Economics, Social Science, Cognitive Science, Genetics (anthropology), General physical science although I ignore biology and chemistry. Right now is a relatively dead period for economics. Social science continues to reform. CogSci (doesn’t really exist any longer but it is a term of convention now) continues to move rapidly, as does genetics. Physical science is really just improving measurements but we see very little indication of the next revolutionary step. AI is what it is and I think nothing is to be said other than we CAN make moral AI’s with propertarianism, but we cannot stop people from making immoral AI’s unless we hold people, organizations, governments, and nations accountable for doing so. INDIA PROJECT I am currently trying to understand the indian tradition and this turns out to be both interesting and difficult. The problem is finding material in sufficiently scientific form rather than the hindu equivalent of rational philosophy. India might provide an optimum solution of how to evolve a heart tradition. This is because india’s problem is simply demographic. but what passes for religion is not really good for europeans but the structure of it is … amazing. So really we have the european the indian, and confucian traditions to rely on with only the semitic as a threat to the world and mankind. THE CHRISTIANITY PROBLEM Most of the frustration I’m generating at the moment is due to the fact that I am still trying to find a way to accommodate the existing christians, and it appears that I have discovered the only possible solution because there is no direct solution under natural law (truth). It’s harder for christians in the first place, and harder for christians who stumble upon this phase of my work. Because they don’t understand how I work through criticism. And while I have solved the problem of religion (what generates demand). I just am struggling for a way to accommodate christians without providing an eternal weak point in the law. MY OWN PROBLEM – IN GENERAL It is a well understood phenomenon that overly smart folk cannot imagine the minds of not overly smart folks, and I am guilty always of overestimating the cognitive ability of others. We are all victims of cognitive biases that evolution gave us so that we would live in the illusion of greater similarity than we actually possess. The hard problems were not as hard for me to solve as learning how to communicate them parsimoniously. The hardest problem is not one which we communicate, but one which we intuit. We call this religion although it is more analogous to the “operating system” we install (train into) in our intuitions so that other software “paradigms” are open to understanding, negotiation, cooperation, and performance. But I struggle to understand and to adapt accordingly. It’s just a never ending battle.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549928063 Timestamp) YES THEY ARE AFRAID OF ME – HERE IS WHY — I haven’t seen coordinated attacks as large as the ones on videos you appear in. They are very afraid of you.”—Dylann Tatee I KNOW THEY ARE AFRAID OF ME – AND THEY SHOULD BE. 😉 But, not because the right, libertarians and our allies among the ‘undecideds’ will not win, but because if your self worth is malinvested in the potential of religion, moralizing, libertarianism, or fascism, then you must reinvest in the understanding that it is fascist monarchy, libertarian economy, moral law, and sacred religion that we need – NOT A MONOPOLY OF ONE OVER THE OTHER. THE CHILD seeks monopoly because it is all he understands. The SAGE seeks monopoly of mission by a MARKET entire spectrum of means. WE ARE ALL NEEDED AT EVERY LEVEL IF WE ARE TO WIN.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550015417 Timestamp) CHANTING THE CORE 😉 Given: Any statement passes the tests of: – categorically consistent (identity) – internally consistent (Logically consistent) – externally correspondent (empirically consistent) – existentially consistent (operationally stated) – scope consistent (limits and full accounting) – rational (subjectively consistent – incentives ) – reciprocal (reciprocally subjectively consistent – exchanges) – with these warranties of due diligence, – within the limits of possible restitution, Therefore: – Any such display word or deed; – is free of imposition of costs, And Therefore; – free of retaliation. And Therefore; – it is truthful and moral. We can never know if a statement is true (“critical naturalism”). We can only know that we have exhausted due diligence sufficient for the demand for due diligence given the promise, claim, testimony we are making. This is Propertarian Natural Law’s epistemology: … “Testimonialism’: … … “The completion of the scientific method”, … … … or what some call … … … … ‘Critical Naturalism’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550006778 Timestamp) Jarrod Woodard Make an argument or admit you can’t. THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON. Against Mises Against Rothbard Against Hoppe https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/15/the-anti-rothbardian-libertarian-canon/ THE ANTI-UPB EXTENSION OF THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON UNIVERSALLY PREFERABLE BEHAVIOR (UPB) Against Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior. Jewish libertarianism (libertinism): voluntarism, plausible deniability, and denial of responsibility for externality. (“Can I get away with this?”) The ethics of the gypsy trader, ghetto, and pale. Jewish law and custom and habit is ‘it only takes two to make a deal” and “us vs them” and “undermining others is heroic”. European libertarianism (Sovereignty): reciprocity, full accounting of responsibility, for internality and externality. (“What can I be prosecuted for trying to get away with?”) The ethics of landholders who are militia and kin. European law and custom is we must limit our actions to internalization of costs, and as such ‘productive, fully informed, warrantied, transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality upon the interests of others. The purpose of law is to prevent low trust, low risk, retaliation cycles, and the feuds, and feuds accumulating in wars that result. The reason we developed the commons, merchatilism, the corporation, and large private corporations and capital markets and high trust and high economic velocity in the west, is because we practiced high trust ethics. The reason jews must live off a host, and muslims cannot build organizations larger than the family except for their dogmatic religion, and as a consequence lived in poverty, is this difference in ethics. Europeans: Truth before face. Muslims: Face before truth. Judaism: neither truth nor face but simple utility. What you and every other libertarian (sucker) falls prey to is the semitic group strategy of baiting in to moral hazard using a half truth that baits your moral intuition into bypassing your critical reason (skepticism, distrust), with horrendous external consequences. This is the strategy of women. Women evolved to bait with promise of verbal attention, support, affection, care, or sex, without delivering on the sex, affection, or care. Women bait men into moral hazard. We call it manipulating but it is just their natural reproductive strategy at work. Women bait each other into moral hazard out of fear of ‘sticking out’ or ‘going against the grain’ thus generating pressure of ostracization. The semitic peoples evolved clannism, low trust, ghetto ethics, and baiting in to moral hazard using religion and intolerance as their group strategy. This is not successful against each other, but it is successful against more advanced (higher trust higher neoteny) people. The abrahamic religions and sophism of the old world and the abrahamic pseudosciences and sophisms of the modern world, all function by the same method of deceit: baiting a sucker into moral hazard, by offer of a discount. Western people are higher trust both genetically (low clannishness) and culturally (christian universalism), and institutionally (involuntary warranty of due diligence in products and services). All I have done is put into law the inability to use thse weapons against our people. Ive ended the ability to use half truths baiting into moral hazard, as a means of lying, in the commons. I finished the law for the age of information.
So yes, there is no material difference between UBP and NAP except the excuse for its construction and the inclusion of the word ‘lying’ in addition to fraud. The ethics of the pale. The ethics of the ghetto The ethics of the bazaar The ethics of those who cannot hold territory. It is still the ethics of poverty. === HAZARD “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.” 1. In old English law. An unlawful game at dice, those who play at being called âhazardors.â Jacob. 2. In modern law. Any game of chance or wagering. Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. 1,87 S. W. 152; Graves v. Ford, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Somers v. State, 6 Sneed (Tenn.) 488. 3. In insurance law. The risk, danger, or probability that the event Insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case. See State Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 14 Colo. 499, 24 Pac. 883, 20 Am. St. Rep. 281. 4. Moral hazard. In fire insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance. See Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Bohn. 65 Fed. 170. 12 0. O. A. 531, 27 L. R. A. 614. ==== UPB BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PREMISES: We both exist. The senses have the capacity for accuracy. Language has the capacity for meaning. Correction requires universal preferences. An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood. Truth is better than falsehood. Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes. Individuals are responsible for their actions. I present to you the twelve principles that compose the framework of Universally preferable behavior — or, if you want to, a secular theory of morality. If you want to find out whether a moral principle is true, all you have to do is apply them to the moral principle and you’ll know right away: REALITY IS OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT. âLogicâ is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. Those theories that conform to logic are called âvalid.â Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called âaccurate.â Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called âtrue.â âPreferencesâ are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that both parties hold âtruthâ to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called âmorality.â As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. Using them, you can verify that the most obvious moral principles are, in fact, obviously true: INITIATING AGGRESSION (USE OF FORCE) IS WRONG. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Fraud is wrong. Lying is wrong.