(FB 1551886968 Timestamp) by Rosenborg Predmetsky Something I’ve been considering: A forceful imposition of obscenity laws that criminalizes and censors pornography and public display of sexually arousing material, because the catastrophic psychological insecurity created in women by such media is precisely what motivates them to so profoundly resent men that they engage in their sociopathic revaluation of values that privileges the morbidly obese, the ugly, the mutilated, the masculinized, etc. Men exist not only to protect women from other men, but also from the ruthlessness of intra-sexual competition between women, and we protect women from other women, because the female underclass lashes out at males when they are made to feel worthless. Women have a need to be desired, seen and recognized, and being sexually desirable is one of their main means of doing so. On the one hand, the unnatural supra-normal stimulus generated by the ubiquity of fattening food and a sedentary lifestyle, has caused women to become monstrously ugly, and on the other hand, totally unrealistic portrayals of female beauty causes even the more attractive women to be extremely insecure. So the situation we’re in is profoundly unnatural. Women need to test men to feel safe and desired, to test their loyalty and desire. But they can never feel safe or desired in our current context, and their reaction to this despair is the kind of despairing rage that is the rough equivalent of a mass incel shooting among men. I think even 2nd wave feminists are actually on to something when they argue that women shouldn’t have to shave their bodies or face. Some women will complain that men are stifling their sexual expression. And they are right. But men need to learn to say “no” to women. Cultivating a healthy limiting impulse would lead to much happier men and women alike. Patriarchy, properly understood and implemented, is a necessary precondition for a healthy society because female sexuality is always already as aggressive and dominating as men, just in different ways.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551887343 Timestamp) —“We create inequality by mere competence.”–JWarren Prescott
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551885338 Timestamp) —“It follows that the physically weaker must engage in subterfuge in order to survive the disgust of the stronger and better-constituted. Leftists and degenerate women disingenuously employ the masculine language of reciprocity in order to conceal the feminine substance of dysgenic equality, in attempting to convince others that they have been defrauded of their just deserts. This is the function of social constructionism; to make the creditor their debtor by arguing that inequality of outcome is the function of a historically contingent narrative rather than the natural order of things.”—Rosenborg Predmetsky
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551886968 Timestamp) by Rosenborg Predmetsky Something I’ve been considering: A forceful imposition of obscenity laws that criminalizes and censors pornography and public display of sexually arousing material, because the catastrophic psychological insecurity created in women by such media is precisely what motivates them to so profoundly resent men that they engage in their sociopathic revaluation of values that privileges the morbidly obese, the ugly, the mutilated, the masculinized, etc. Men exist not only to protect women from other men, but also from the ruthlessness of intra-sexual competition between women, and we protect women from other women, because the female underclass lashes out at males when they are made to feel worthless. Women have a need to be desired, seen and recognized, and being sexually desirable is one of their main means of doing so. On the one hand, the unnatural supra-normal stimulus generated by the ubiquity of fattening food and a sedentary lifestyle, has caused women to become monstrously ugly, and on the other hand, totally unrealistic portrayals of female beauty causes even the more attractive women to be extremely insecure. So the situation we’re in is profoundly unnatural. Women need to test men to feel safe and desired, to test their loyalty and desire. But they can never feel safe or desired in our current context, and their reaction to this despair is the kind of despairing rage that is the rough equivalent of a mass incel shooting among men. I think even 2nd wave feminists are actually on to something when they argue that women shouldn’t have to shave their bodies or face. Some women will complain that men are stifling their sexual expression. And they are right. But men need to learn to say “no” to women. Cultivating a healthy limiting impulse would lead to much happier men and women alike. Patriarchy, properly understood and implemented, is a necessary precondition for a healthy society because female sexuality is always already as aggressive and dominating as men, just in different ways.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551884573 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY =Turd Flinging Monkey= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU& == CURTD == Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort. But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism. Very tedious to defend against straw men. =Turd Flinging Monkey= I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out. However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want. ==CURTD== Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic. The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace). We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’) We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness. But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason. As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law. This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits. For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public. The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children. But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551885338 Timestamp) —“It follows that the physically weaker must engage in subterfuge in order to survive the disgust of the stronger and better-constituted. Leftists and degenerate women disingenuously employ the masculine language of reciprocity in order to conceal the feminine substance of dysgenic equality, in attempting to convince others that they have been defrauded of their just deserts. This is the function of social constructionism; to make the creditor their debtor by arguing that inequality of outcome is the function of a historically contingent narrative rather than the natural order of things.”—Rosenborg Predmetsky
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551882156 Timestamp) Note to self: Epistemology Mathiness (‘proof’) b/c Scale Ind. It Works: Justification b/c human scale Science: falsification b/c beyond human scale It’s Philosophers were “Fooled by Mathiness”. Mathematics = scale independent measurement (Position) All else is scale dependent measurement, using measurement system available to man: human operations and analogy to operations we can experience.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551884573 Timestamp) RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY =Turd Flinging Monkey= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU& == CURTD == Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort. But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism. Very tedious to defend against straw men. =Turd Flinging Monkey= I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out. However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want. ==CURTD== Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully. Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic. The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace). We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’) We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness. But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason. As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law. This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits. For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public. The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children. But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551877730 Timestamp) CLASSES AND RACES MAKE FOR MARKETS AND NATIONS; Brandon Hayes (Repost from October 17, 2018) (edited for clarity) DEFINITION: TOLERANCE VS. FORBEARANCE -ZERO TOLERANCE- —” …really let that sink in…. conflation… that’s all it took. A bit of ambiguity and a bit of repetition and the cult of non-submission became a slave society.”—Bill Joslin —“Zero Tolerance is the only defense against incrementalism. – via Curt Doolittle —âI use Tolerance to mean allowing costs to be assessed against non-consenting parties as ambiguity makes it unclear what additional party is specifically responsible for costs. It is a passive state. No agency. … I use Forbearance to mean I intentionally take responsibility for the cost to allow someone else not to (ex. my children, my disabled kin, my employee that has not matured fully yet). It is an active state. Allows agency.â –â Luke Weinhagen —âThis opens up a whole other conversation – the centre holds onto tolerance because tolerance is passive. Those lacking agency can participate in tolerance while ignoring limits (because they don’t have the agency to enforce limits, by ignoring limits they can stay in denial of their lack of agency) … Forebearance include tolerance, limits (until the cost one was willing carried has been exceeded), and active participation – its a choice which one can boycott/defect based on the cost carried.” — Bill Joslin —” Aristocracy: War Upper Class: Law Upper Middle: Science (Econ) Middle Class: Philosophy Working Class: Religion Underclass: Intuition. “—By Curt Doolittle
MARKETS BETWEEN THE CLASSES Markets are the solution to cooperation and they form BETWEEN THE CLASSES! When we begin to dissolve the classes or they become intertwined/intermingled with-in a democratic system; cooperation ceases and compromise becomes the ethic. And the way we compromise in democracy is voting. And people simply vote their temperamental bias. Our economic landscape favors an emotionally laden bias (feminine, dysgenic, short term), because we have created short term pleasure seekers as citizens. Itâs a downward spiral to chaos. The spark for this post was a conversation had over the last few days on my wall regarding the NPC phenomena. I follow a group of people who have (what I consider) the only cogent, evolutionarily stable, ready to roll out strategy to end what ails humanity. My aim is to advocate for every plan that is feasible; every pathway available; and every lifestyle commensurate with a peaceful and flourishing future for planet earth and the HUMANS that reside here. [It may not seem it at times; but thatâs as real as real gets. The better people are the better this place is for everyone. Look, some people are better than others (depends on the measure) this world isnât and wonât ever be equal] {Humans donât even like that; it spits in the face of their âsacred happinessâ aim; as things are relative.}
- The Economic Influence –
- The Christian Influence –
- The Underlying Strategy –
- Human Nature –
- The Propertarian Ethic –
- The Current Perfect Storm –
Speaking of relative; RELATIVE inequality causes violence [mostly among men](not being poorer than your relatives {joke} but being poor among people who arenât). Losses in property en toto (this includes abstract items like ego bruises; and losses to agency) are the cause of negative emotion. It isnât poverty nor lack of education that brings about violence; itâs despair. Not seeing a way out of your own suffering; which can be exacerbated by having those around you lack any sort of suffering (from what you can tell; NOTE: we all suffer). The internet and its primmed and primed stories donât help. Technology has sped up trends that were already dangerous. In order to reverse dangerous trends we must visit and take stock of the behaviors and feedback loops that cause them; and luckily or unluckily enough those behaviors are trained into most humans by use of incentive tooling (agents lacking the adequate serotonin levels to feel worthwhile; being supplemented by dopamine kicks through hedonistic pleasure seeking) [whether the tooling was purposeful or not is irrelevant; the new PROPER tooling can be purposeful and adaptive]. We live in an economic pleasure (happiness) trap, that just so happens to devolve into something that takes more and more effort to obtain “happiness.” Itâs really quite brilliant to see. As you age you become more financially stable (usually) and capable of buying bigger ticket items that are supposed to bring you the appropriate amount of elation⦠they donât. The underclass (or lower class) needs domesticating; this canât be gained or trained if we assume and grant them full personhood. The reason is simple; those that lack agency will push for incentives they simply CANâT gain on their own (someone else must PAY). The same can be said but to a much lesser extent of the working class. They will vote their way into uselessness (dysgenic). Knowing that agency must be trained AND that granted power (voting, judging, etc) will corrupt those moving through the world intuitively because they will use their power to justify their intuitions. We must teach (foster, train) an ethic of tolerance. THIS is where Jesus fits in: Tolerance must be the defining characteristic of the under/lower/working classes because they lack the ability for forbearance {for now}. What Jesus did (the core metaphor of the new testament) was make a tolerable (perhaps even desirable) ethic for the (a) lower class (underclass). It’s a submissive ethic. It’s wise to adopt for those without agency (which most in the past we’re without agency [technology has released more capable agents than biological progress {possibly}). Itâs wise to adopt when lacking agency because it purports safe long-term strategies devoid of tactics that require agency to unfurl; like violence, judgment, and punishment. [They leave that up to the flaming sword bearer; God; (reality en toto)] Additionally, the Christian ethic is a route to agency; to adopt the mantra “you are that which dies and is reborn anew,” is essentially what one must do in order to author one’s own life. Add to this; the idea that God is âhands onâ is eradicated in the new testament! Look, we tortured then murdered the instantiation of Himself (Jesus) and He rises again as the holy spirit; i.e. God distributed among the living; hence each human represented as a single transcendent unit in the âeyes of the lordâ (humanity as such). At least, thatâs what I get from the book (the Theology people and their historic readings will murder me for that butchery of Christian Theology; but quite frankly they donât have a good enough version of their own shit! If they did they world would be in an objectively better spot). It just seems profound enough of a story (myth); WITHOUT the attached meta-physical or historical claims. Itâs a shortcut to understand âyou gotta do it for yourself; and itâll be painful as hell.â Peterson says he acts as God exists; âThe beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.â I disagree; I believe you ought to act as though God has left it to you (He resides INSIDE) to create paradise here on your own (with other humans; itâs up to us) AND like a great coach (or trainer), He wonât lift a meta-physical pinky finger to help you (He is confident you can pull through on your own). This ethic; devoid of historical significance and attempted power grabbing lies, is a ready-to-roll-out behavioral-set [action pattern] that allows for much more (movement in the world) than it stifles. It peaches tolerance. What lives on today; The Abrahamism; the cult of Abraham; feminism and post-modernism (the SJW phenomena) the argumentative realm of pilpul and critique; the feminine means of coercion (gossip shame rally moralize etc); Isnât the proper lesson to be learned (obviously). It just so happens to be the evolutionary hardwiring (the training) that was encoded through orthodoxy. Weaponizing the texts as a means to gain power as opposed to a means to bring about peace. A catastrophic perversion of what should be lives currently. [God {reality as such} is angry! This is why we have chaos; youâve collectively sinned (aimed improperly) and misused works for millennia]. Christianity (perhaps there are better forms than others; h/t Giego Caleiro⦠Mormonism?) is stable ethic for those still needing domestication (development of agency) and it doesnât hinder their ability to obtain agency and can keep them docile and helpful if it never develops. Itâs individualistic insistence; itâs push for individualism; to be a sovereign (one with agency) is VERY good. Itâs an intuition training short cut to capable agents if pursued correctly (thatâs with agency as the aim; of course). However, this is the real world and individualism fails. It leaves you alone. The sovereign in the stories mentioned was tortured and murdered brutally; this is what attempting to be an individual sovereign will get you in this world. We just havenât evolved that much. (Thatâs a warning; you canât just be what you FEEL like you ought to be; not without suffering and sacrifice!) Humans need collectives [families are PARAMOUNT]; some collectivism is needed because we need each other. It doesnât matter how much technology and the state powers attempt to convince us otherwise [the issue is they have encoded ânot needing each otherâ into peopleâs actions and destroyed families]. Nation states with stratified (but permeable) classes with their own cultural norms being followed are by far the best landscape for creating individuals with agency. And the best chance for humans to remain evolutionarily viable on planet earth. An amalgam of all the races, nations, and creeds; will leave human as ONE thing; unable to adjust for sudden changes in environment [say unable to deal with catastrophic climate shifts]. Collectives of people will wipe out individuals not playing by their rules if given enough power. Only groups are sovereign, and that sovereignty is purchased at the highest of costs; an armed collective [a militia willing to kill those who may threaten it]. We need stable collectives in the same manner we need stable people (they feed into each other). Bringing them about by top down dictum {rule of Law, NOT the current rule of lawyers} (because we know how; via-Negativa) as well as bottom-up evolution (stoicism; via self-authoring) is the only strategy we have; we must do this done by any means necessary. The propertarian ethic can be overlaid onto an agency developing under and working class. The zero tolerance for free-riding and parasitism can be applied without a hitch. And for what itâs worth itâs those at the tippy-top acting as parasites and value extractors causing the greatest harm. We get to have zero tolerance for THEM; they KNOW what their doing! Those that lack agency do what they are steered to do (either by the elephant or by the environment; they are the herd), we can only blame them if they choose to forgo the offer we make (an offer they canât refuse). This also requires LESS work to begin to roll-out societal changes because the ethic (in-part) simply needs a re-tooling as opposed to a complete culling and rebuilding. I am for using the current infrastructure (building and roadways; but also, stories and behavioral patterns) to our advantage (in pursuit of our aim). We are far down the spiral towards violence but given the superhuman technology and infrastructure we have developed we can back-track up this slippery slope and avoid bloodshed [something those far right and left donât want to hear; they are antagonistic forces begging for a battle arena]. What we have brewing is a perfect storm of chaos; the flood is very real and fast approaching. Pick an arena: all bubbles and TV shows; all smoke and mirrors; all bark no bite. No follow through, no competence, no gratitude; all attitude and feelings. I came the through idealistic meta-physical left; I was never for social justice; but I am for justice. The intellectual operational right has a roll-out ready solution to tensions that requires only the whiners and do-nothings to be stripped of authority; sign-me-up! {NOTE: many of the humans currently alive lack agency; BUT the proper framework can simply âgiftâ it (agency) to those capable. Itâs only their âtrainingâ that keeps them draining on the economy and on others; itâs only the affordance granted by our systems and institutions that keeps them dragging the rest of us down.} Curt likes to proclaim that the West dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance and superstition [thatâs right]; but quite frankly, itâs easier to drag corpses (or leave them to rot). This being said; Iâm for releasing the ropes and chains used for dragging and simply asking yâall to walk alongside us towards something better; for everyoneâs sake!
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551882156 Timestamp) Note to self: Epistemology Mathiness (‘proof’) b/c Scale Ind. It Works: Justification b/c human scale Science: falsification b/c beyond human scale It’s Philosophers were “Fooled by Mathiness”. Mathematics = scale independent measurement (Position) All else is scale dependent measurement, using measurement system available to man: human operations and analogy to operations we can experience.