[L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.
Source: Original Site Post
-
You Cannot Appropriate P or Climb on P’s Bus in Defense of Your Lying.
February 20th, 2019 10:31 AM
—“I think he is saying that you are gossip rallying yourself in this instance and that it is relatively well placed on the irony scale.”—Jay Thompson
I thought RECIPROCITY was moral. And that ‘he’ is using pilpul to create a false equivalency between argument vs argument and ridicule vs ridicule. Which is sophistry or dishonesty or ignorance, or stupidity. THE ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESS If ridiculed, return it, and then restate the central argument. If that process doesn’t return to argument, repeat. If repetition doesn’t work, the return to violence. Never let GSRRM go unanswered. Identify it. Return it. Restate the central argument. (inform thru repetition) Repeat. Hardly requires restating the central argument with Kinsella. THERE IS NO ROOM ON THE BUS FOR LIES This is why I don’t see hope for y’all. You are all dependent upon the use of avoidance of the central argument like women, jews, and muslims, which demonstrates that christianity is a vehicle for the deceits of women, jews, and muslims and therefore you cannot ‘earn the franchise’ by reciprocity of truthful speech. Every time you make one of these childish bits of nonsense all you do is confirm: you are not able to evolve past that level of infantilism we equate to women and children or that level of dishonesty we call abrahamism. So please stop wasting my time. We cannot cooperate, because we cannot agree to reciprocity, and we cannot agree to reciprocity because we cannot agree to truthful speech that would end abrahamic deception in supernatural, ideal, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific terms, that gave us judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, using the very means of fraudulent discourse you are using with me. It’s not complicated. Just not worth talking about. Xians must find a way on their own. I can’t help those who are allies of the enemy. And christians are allies of the enemy of our people. Because christians are more allied to jews, christians, and muslims than they are to their people, their science and their law and their history. Solve your own problem. There is no ride on P for christians in alliance with the enemy on the preservation of lying. Truth is my way and the original way of our people before the dark ages of abrahamic ignorance and submission. Find your own way. There is no way of appropriating P in defense of lying.
-
Crossing the Line Into Legally Actionable
[L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.
-
You Cannot Appropriate P or Climb on P’s Bus in Defense of Your Lying.
February 20th, 2019 10:31 AM
—“I think he is saying that you are gossip rallying yourself in this instance and that it is relatively well placed on the irony scale.”—Jay Thompson
I thought RECIPROCITY was moral. And that ‘he’ is using pilpul to create a false equivalency between argument vs argument and ridicule vs ridicule. Which is sophistry or dishonesty or ignorance, or stupidity. THE ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESS If ridiculed, return it, and then restate the central argument. If that process doesn’t return to argument, repeat. If repetition doesn’t work, the return to violence. Never let GSRRM go unanswered. Identify it. Return it. Restate the central argument. (inform thru repetition) Repeat. Hardly requires restating the central argument with Kinsella. THERE IS NO ROOM ON THE BUS FOR LIES This is why I don’t see hope for y’all. You are all dependent upon the use of avoidance of the central argument like women, jews, and muslims, which demonstrates that christianity is a vehicle for the deceits of women, jews, and muslims and therefore you cannot ‘earn the franchise’ by reciprocity of truthful speech. Every time you make one of these childish bits of nonsense all you do is confirm: you are not able to evolve past that level of infantilism we equate to women and children or that level of dishonesty we call abrahamism. So please stop wasting my time. We cannot cooperate, because we cannot agree to reciprocity, and we cannot agree to reciprocity because we cannot agree to truthful speech that would end abrahamic deception in supernatural, ideal, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific terms, that gave us judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, using the very means of fraudulent discourse you are using with me. It’s not complicated. Just not worth talking about. Xians must find a way on their own. I can’t help those who are allies of the enemy. And christians are allies of the enemy of our people. Because christians are more allied to jews, christians, and muslims than they are to their people, their science and their law and their history. Solve your own problem. There is no ride on P for christians in alliance with the enemy on the preservation of lying. Truth is my way and the original way of our people before the dark ages of abrahamic ignorance and submission. Find your own way. There is no way of appropriating P in defense of lying.
-
Contra Jewish Excuse Making
[M]y people (anglicans) have a higher average IQ than the ashkenazi but a narrower distribution. We are the upper class of the Anglos. What Ashkenazim (Half europeans, not others) produce is a wider distribution with many more outliers above 140 (2-4x), which is the difference between 11 and 14 dist’s. And outliers are more valuable in information processing. England had the same as ashkenazi IQ by 1790 (via lynn) but the industrial revolution has been doing to the west what it is now doing to chinese advantage, which is inverting rates of reproduction between the classes which will very shortly eliminate east asian advantage everywhere but korea and japan. The question isn’t the disproportionate achievements of jews AFTER INTEGRATION into western civilization’s aristotelianism in exchange for ending deprivation from asset participation, it is why, the most literate population in the past 1500 years achieved absolutely NOTHING for mankind in that period while even under semitic deception (abrahamic religion) the west achieved more with fewer outliers – and the jews NOTHING. In other words, why is it that jews are helpful to economies, but destructive to polities, happily undermine and destroy their social orders, and are continually cast out or worse, and such a huge literature (suppressed postwar) existed that they should be expelled from decent civilization for their continued crimes? Jews produced nothing of civic value. Nothing. No art. No literature, No science. No technology. No engineering, No architecture. No nation. No polity. No Civilization – nothing except a record of being the most immoral and despised people on earth? Why? When and if the jews have this reformation they will cease being jews and that is the jewish conundrum. Because false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul (what you are arguing with at the moment), critique (marxists, postmodernist, libertarians, neocons) cherry picking and straw manning will not be possible. We look in the mirror and acknowledge our errors and try to guide the world into not repeating ours. What do your people do? Very shortly we will outlaw the use of solving for volition and reasonableness regardless of externality,. rather than truth, reciprocity and externality, false promise; outlaw baiting into moral hazard, pilpul and critique and force involuntary warranty of all the above. This will cause everyone regardless of tradition or cult out of businesses dominated by those which profit from such uses of deceit (pornography, gambling, entertainment, media, advertising, commerce, finance, economics, law, and politics), and once it is no longer possible to use the abrahamic technique my suspicion is that many jews whose incomes depend upon it will migrate to those territories where such parasitism against the people is possible. I don’t care what cult, race, tribe, gender, age group someone belongs to but the invention of organized lying by the rabbinical jews by incorporating greek idealism into egyptian and babylonian legend will be suppressed in our law. And every single person regardless of race, gender or creed will be accountable for his speech once again. and gossiping rallying shaming, ridicule in absence of argument will be met as it had always been with physical retaliation. We can tolerate it from our women, but not from the enemy who organizes with every intent to destroy us. It took me awhile to understand the means of parasitism and I had to put a few of your families in prison to do so, but I did learn how it works, how it evolved, and how to end it. So do not make excuses. I don’t make excuses for exterminating the natives, or the error of alexander crossing the bosphorus, or the celtic genocide, or the termination of west africa’s first empire, or the fragmentation and plundering of india, or the selling of drugs into china or bringing gunboats to japan. These were immoral acts and completely unnecessary – had we followed china’s strategy of building a wall we would have been better off. So, don’t make excuses for being tossed out of so many countries for your peopl”s malfeasance. Because it was earned. Many times over.
-
Contra Jewish Excuse Making
[M]y people (anglicans) have a higher average IQ than the ashkenazi but a narrower distribution. We are the upper class of the Anglos. What Ashkenazim (Half europeans, not others) produce is a wider distribution with many more outliers above 140 (2-4x), which is the difference between 11 and 14 dist’s. And outliers are more valuable in information processing. England had the same as ashkenazi IQ by 1790 (via lynn) but the industrial revolution has been doing to the west what it is now doing to chinese advantage, which is inverting rates of reproduction between the classes which will very shortly eliminate east asian advantage everywhere but korea and japan. The question isn’t the disproportionate achievements of jews AFTER INTEGRATION into western civilization’s aristotelianism in exchange for ending deprivation from asset participation, it is why, the most literate population in the past 1500 years achieved absolutely NOTHING for mankind in that period while even under semitic deception (abrahamic religion) the west achieved more with fewer outliers – and the jews NOTHING. In other words, why is it that jews are helpful to economies, but destructive to polities, happily undermine and destroy their social orders, and are continually cast out or worse, and such a huge literature (suppressed postwar) existed that they should be expelled from decent civilization for their continued crimes? Jews produced nothing of civic value. Nothing. No art. No literature, No science. No technology. No engineering, No architecture. No nation. No polity. No Civilization – nothing except a record of being the most immoral and despised people on earth? Why? When and if the jews have this reformation they will cease being jews and that is the jewish conundrum. Because false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pilpul (what you are arguing with at the moment), critique (marxists, postmodernist, libertarians, neocons) cherry picking and straw manning will not be possible. We look in the mirror and acknowledge our errors and try to guide the world into not repeating ours. What do your people do? Very shortly we will outlaw the use of solving for volition and reasonableness regardless of externality,. rather than truth, reciprocity and externality, false promise; outlaw baiting into moral hazard, pilpul and critique and force involuntary warranty of all the above. This will cause everyone regardless of tradition or cult out of businesses dominated by those which profit from such uses of deceit (pornography, gambling, entertainment, media, advertising, commerce, finance, economics, law, and politics), and once it is no longer possible to use the abrahamic technique my suspicion is that many jews whose incomes depend upon it will migrate to those territories where such parasitism against the people is possible. I don’t care what cult, race, tribe, gender, age group someone belongs to but the invention of organized lying by the rabbinical jews by incorporating greek idealism into egyptian and babylonian legend will be suppressed in our law. And every single person regardless of race, gender or creed will be accountable for his speech once again. and gossiping rallying shaming, ridicule in absence of argument will be met as it had always been with physical retaliation. We can tolerate it from our women, but not from the enemy who organizes with every intent to destroy us. It took me awhile to understand the means of parasitism and I had to put a few of your families in prison to do so, but I did learn how it works, how it evolved, and how to end it. So do not make excuses. I don’t make excuses for exterminating the natives, or the error of alexander crossing the bosphorus, or the celtic genocide, or the termination of west africa’s first empire, or the fragmentation and plundering of india, or the selling of drugs into china or bringing gunboats to japan. These were immoral acts and completely unnecessary – had we followed china’s strategy of building a wall we would have been better off. So, don’t make excuses for being tossed out of so many countries for your peopl”s malfeasance. Because it was earned. Many times over.
-
What Are the Legit Crits of Prop? (One More Time!!!)
WHAT ARE THE LEGIT CRITS OF PROP? (One More Time!!!) 2019-02-14
—“Curt: honest question: What are the faults/weaknesses to propertarianism? I am a supporter but no human system is perfect and would like to know that you have thought out how to beat your own plan and what are the counters to slow or stop those from happening. Keep up the good work. Thanks if you respond.”—
Um. I publish legit criticisms all the time. There are a few. They are all reducible to:
- Its big, complex, deep, and hard to learn. It is. The more I undrestand it myself, the more I understand that this scale of thing has only happened three other times in history. But people want something simple-stupid like libertarianism or progressivism. It’s not an ideology. it’s the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to all human thought, embodiment in the law, and means of restoring our civilization.
People want a political ideology, religion, or secular religion (philosophy) and prop is simply science and law, with ADVICE on religion and secular religion.
Jewish, christian, islamic religion do not come off very well, and I have not found a way to accommodate christian mysticism.
Everyone wants a monopoly (religion, authoritarianism, fascism, anarchism) when we must use each of these components in every society – we cannot have a monopoly on any of them. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred way of organizing society – i use all of them.
I suggest a few methods of governing across various peoples and various conditions with the law being the only constant. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred order. I use what is required.
I am an unabashed elitist working in favor of my people, but other than knowing what is good for my people, I do not consider their understanding of the world very valuable. Only the set of demands they have, not their way of satisfying them. ( I do not claim to be a good, a moral, or decent person or anything of the sort, I only claim I am correct. God knows I’ve made the same mistakes everyone else has. )
As far as I know there are no extant criticisms of the work itself and it will be extremely unlikely such things will arise other than in nuances. This is revolutionary and once you understand it your life will be changed forever. THE COMMON LEGIT CRITS … are listed in Section 3 Here: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982914672264
-
What Are the Legit Crits of Prop? (One More Time!!!)
WHAT ARE THE LEGIT CRITS OF PROP? (One More Time!!!) 2019-02-14
—“Curt: honest question: What are the faults/weaknesses to propertarianism? I am a supporter but no human system is perfect and would like to know that you have thought out how to beat your own plan and what are the counters to slow or stop those from happening. Keep up the good work. Thanks if you respond.”—
Um. I publish legit criticisms all the time. There are a few. They are all reducible to:
- Its big, complex, deep, and hard to learn. It is. The more I undrestand it myself, the more I understand that this scale of thing has only happened three other times in history. But people want something simple-stupid like libertarianism or progressivism. It’s not an ideology. it’s the completion of the scientific method, it’s application to all human thought, embodiment in the law, and means of restoring our civilization.
People want a political ideology, religion, or secular religion (philosophy) and prop is simply science and law, with ADVICE on religion and secular religion.
Jewish, christian, islamic religion do not come off very well, and I have not found a way to accommodate christian mysticism.
Everyone wants a monopoly (religion, authoritarianism, fascism, anarchism) when we must use each of these components in every society – we cannot have a monopoly on any of them. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred way of organizing society – i use all of them.
I suggest a few methods of governing across various peoples and various conditions with the law being the only constant. People want me to take a stand on THEIR preferred order. I use what is required.
I am an unabashed elitist working in favor of my people, but other than knowing what is good for my people, I do not consider their understanding of the world very valuable. Only the set of demands they have, not their way of satisfying them. ( I do not claim to be a good, a moral, or decent person or anything of the sort, I only claim I am correct. God knows I’ve made the same mistakes everyone else has. )
As far as I know there are no extant criticisms of the work itself and it will be extremely unlikely such things will arise other than in nuances. This is revolutionary and once you understand it your life will be changed forever. THE COMMON LEGIT CRITS … are listed in Section 3 Here: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982914672264
-
A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism
—“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is…” I wish he would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith
[I]t’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing. Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era. It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas. So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.) I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all. Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose. Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.
-
A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism
—“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is…” I wish he would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith
[I]t’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing. Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era. It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas. So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.) I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all. Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose. Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.