Theme: Coercion

  • So when you say ‘adaptive’ independent of costs, that licenses Genghis Khan. I c

    So when you say ‘adaptive’ independent of costs, that licenses Genghis Khan. I can’t determine whether you mean survival from stresses, competition within mutually beneficial limits, or adaptation to ordinary change.
    IOW: is your claim of undecidability true?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 21:03:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184575536221315072

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @MattPirkowski … but rarely if ever for a group. Just the opposite. At least, I can’t find any evidence of it in history. At some point reciprocity within limits of proportionality are necessary to prevent defection or limit one’s replacement (assassination).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @MattPirkowski … but rarely if ever for a group. Just the opposite. At least, I can’t find any evidence of it in history. At some point reciprocity within limits of proportionality are necessary to prevent defection or limit one’s replacement (assassination).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184575137074548741

  • (De politicization is attractive. It is also desirable. Tyranny is just an means

    (De politicization is attractive. It is also desirable. Tyranny is just an means of depoliticization that produces many negative externalities.)

    Love your posts. Underlying organization of thought also consistent. And it’s rare. Awesome to find you. -cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-16 20:22:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184565395405070336

    Reply addressees: @MattPirkowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182349096104783872


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MattPirkowski

    There exists an attractiveness to tyranny, a certain aesthetic that, siren-like, lures many into the arms of the absolute with the promise of defining one’s own unstable identity in the presumptively stable axioms of the tyrant.

    Yet like all siren songs, to succumb is to die.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182349096104783872

  • “… serves to police and enforce these social roles…” Or serves to constrain

    “… serves to police and enforce these social roles…” Or serves to constrain female hyperconsumption,hypergamy, undermining, and involuntary transfer of resources from males through preservation of reciprocity (exchanges).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-15 22:00:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227510684471297

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184227509807779840


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Why do women consider emotions a cost? Example: “These asymmetrical moral support relations may be instantiated in many different ways” …Asymmetrical accumulation of cellular damage may be instantiated in many different ways. That’s why men die earlier. How are they equivalent?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227509807779840


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    Why do women consider emotions a cost? Example: “These asymmetrical moral support relations may be instantiated in many different ways” …Asymmetrical accumulation of cellular damage may be instantiated in many different ways. That’s why men die earlier. How are they equivalent?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1184227509807779840

  • YOU ARE GOING TO CHOOSE TO START IT, ANN. We’re ready. We’re organized. We just

    YOU ARE GOING TO CHOOSE TO START IT, ANN. We’re ready. We’re organized. We just need one leader to make the call. And it’s over.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-14 22:21:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183870433160024065

    Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183851562399129600


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AnnCoulter

    Pollster Stanley Greenberg says Republicans are on the verge of extinction thanks to the NEW electorate: “immigrant.. foreign-born.. multicultural.. multi-national.. culturally diverse.”

    I.e. IMMIGRANTS WILL OUTVOTE AMERICANS.

    https://t.co/2WClhqaNcO

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1183851562399129600

  • YES I ADVOCATE COLLECTIVE (GROUP) PUNISHMENT. it’s how we end the game against u

    YES I ADVOCATE COLLECTIVE (GROUP) PUNISHMENT.

    it’s how we end the game against us.

    If you gain value from an identity from a membership, then you must insure the rest of us from the consequences of the organization you fund by your membership.

    Families insure individuals, individuals insure groups, and no one is free of insuring others.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-13 11:33:00 UTC

  • Q: “… Unions.” The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses.

    Q: “… Unions.”

    The original purpose of unions was to protect the underclasses. The communists worked thru the labor unions. They used unions to drive class warfare. Unions were the largest contributors to the democratic party. Unions drove the democratic party into socialism and communism under marxism like identity politics under postmodernism. The remaining purpose of unions is to attempt to provide labor with above-middle class earnings not sustainable in the world economy. Unions are what drove business offshore (I was involved in that discussion back then). Trump is trying to drive business back on shore. Taxes WERE the the primary reason preventing re-shoring. Trump fixed that. Now unions are the primary reason preventing re-shoring manufacturing. The market and political problem with unions is collective bargaining law, not unions themselves (safety, work distribution). The primary problem with unions today is pensions which cannot ever be paid (and won’t be), not wages. Mandatory fees are the primary complaint by people opposed to the left. Unions are not resisting immigration, which is what is keeping wage down. Unions were advantageous during the brief postwar period where it allowed labor to capture a grater share of windfall profits – that no longer exist. Unions were necessary at least in the private sector to cause legal change in health, safety, and work load, but it was insurance companies and liability law that provided that change not unions. It is not clear what value they serve today in the private sector other than to limit competition for labor and raise wages and possibly lengthen careers preventing constant turnover by age discrimination. The general argument has been for years that any valuable function provided by unions (pensions) must eventually be provided by the state or it will disappear. The only reason collective bargaining still exists is that it’s politically impossible to get it past the government union competition, not the private sector. So unions are responsible for the overpayment of government costs, salaries, benefits, and pensions despite the unproductively of government, and preventing customer service, and preventing and rotation of government workers not providing government service. There is a reason the region around Washington is wealthy.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 17:20:00 UTC

  • “WE CONTINUALLY ADVISE AGAINST TAKING INDIVIDUAL ACTION FOR A REASON” by Stephen

    “WE CONTINUALLY ADVISE AGAINST TAKING INDIVIDUAL ACTION FOR A REASON”

    by Stephen Thomas

    Why do people assume any of us are going on a k— spree? We do the opposite! So yeah, I get it… a civil war is “scary”.. You know what else is “scary”? Another Dark Age! Another 500 or more years of ignorance and regression. With mankind having to scratch and claw to merely survive! Losing our heritage AGAIN to the same monsters that destroyed it before! That’s what’s “scary”.

    We continuously advise against individuals taking action FOR A REASON.

    I’m so tired of these cowards. You are far more patient with them than I.



    (CD: I’m patient because I want to expose them and teach others how to expose them.)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 16:18:00 UTC

  • LUNATICS, ADDICTS, AND LIARS ALL SHOW THEIR COLORS EVENTUALLY —” About the Err

    LUNATICS, ADDICTS, AND LIARS ALL SHOW THEIR COLORS EVENTUALLY

    —” About the Error #1, I submit the following: America itself with those 40 million people with 400 million guns are proving that it is possible. THEY, not the US Military, are protecting the homeland from boots-on-the-ground invasion. I am for saving the Republic not overthrowing it. Indeed the starting point is “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.— Gunther Schadow

    Yes but they don’t want an anarchic polity. They want a restoration of the constitution of natural rights. There is no evidence that they don’t want the classical liberal tradition.

    I am for saving the republic as we did during the last civil war by forcibly altering the constitution regardless of the political process such that necessary reforms are permitted.

    So you lied again that I want to overthrow the government and replace it rather than reform the constitution and modernize it.

    —“At this very moment, your P is as much a non-existing utopia as Hoppe’s A. Nothing that you say can change that. So all your arguments about “has never been done” and “cannot be done” do not apply. You may dream up something as the lone dreamer that you are, and you can claim all you want, and you can collect minions on the internet all you want. And you can refuse to consider arguments that do not adopt your autistic language first.”—

    Well that’s not true. The only difference between the current constitution and mine is strict construction, precise enumeration, and the extension of the current prohibition on false and fraudulent commercial speech to fraudulent political speech, and from criminal speech (conspiracy) to criminal political speech. The rest is just choices of the series of means of separation that permit local specialization of policy while providing unified defense as the framers intended. I mean, P is a methodology, but effectively the constitution I’m proposing just adapts the construction of commons to current conditions.

    —“But the reality is that you are but one man with a bunch of crazies on the internet dreaming of his great revolution in which for some reason his faction would win.”—

    And you are one man without crazies. And hoppe and rothbard have crazies that have failed for forty years now. and contributed to western failure. All revolutionaries are crazies, that tells us nothing. You’d have called Darwin a crazy, and happily killed aristotle as well as socrates.

    —“No, until then, you need to be held responsible to the belching and farting of your minions who you sit together in a room with dreaming your pipe dreams. All those “dealing with the Joo Qoo” and “Hitler was right” and that crude Hitlerian anticapitalist sentiments you are grooming around you (like one guy actually told me that “the economy shouldn’t have priority over the people” when I pointed out how foolish it is to round up and deport people who immigrated after 1965, shit like that.”—

    You are welcome to disagree on truth vs falsehood. If you want to disagree on preferable vs not then that’s not important here. I do truth, not preference.

    (I leave like and dislike for women and half men.)

    —-“When your minion-knights actually ride out in their attempt to assume power, there will be lots and lots of other powers who compete with you, and you have nothing to prove you would fare any better than Hoppe. Except you have a bunch of fascists around you who may be good with the rapid radical and murderous ascension to power, followed by foolishly squandering away the resources that they have violently and illegitimately conquered.”—

    Well you know, you are just venting your frustration.

    What will happen is ALL factions will ride out, and chaos will ensue and people will gravitate to a solution that appeals to them.

    —“I came here EXCITED about the IDEA and PROMISE of using formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful DILIGENT speech using operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity in America and world wide. “—

    That’s a lie right? You came here an ancap at worst, a civnat at best, a continental and a christian. You cam searching for a way to enforce what you wanted. I supplied away to enforce truth, reciprocity, and competitive necessity – which falsifies some of your wants. You just don’t like it.

    Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and America world wide, are you?

    Which of those have you complained about? None.

    What have you complained about? Every single time, the application of truth to TABOOS.

    Why? Why are you afraid of the truth such that you can’t speak of the taboos?

    And what have you offered us to repair the current conflict except the same silly political tweaks that have been proposed for fifty years? Nothing.

    So what you want from me is to stop falsifying and stop undermining falsehoods. And to simply agree with your sentiments. You are worried about people being OFFENDED and asked to LEARN. I am doing the opposite. I’m worried about TEACHING PEOPLE regardless of whether they’re offended by the truth or not.

    Because that’ is what ‘western’ means: truth regardless of cost. That’s what Kant said. THat’s what Aristotle said. That’s what I say.

    —-“””However, as soon as I noticed you are full of mythological shit and can’t let go of your Aryan master race mythology and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word, and you refuse to teach your minions to not be fascists while you fire them on while at the same time denying it (you are a liar actually) I got turned off. I don’t need to waste 10 thousand web pages of time to study any further and neither will 90% of those 40 thousand gun owners in America.”—

    What you mean is that I am looking for a way to reform our religion of christianity such that it is no longer a means by which our people are made vulnerable to the abrahamic methods of deceit we see in feminism, postmodernism, and marxism, as well as judaism, christianity, and islam. I want to outlaw this form of lying in public speech..

    This offends you. Because it forces you to put truth before comfort regardless of cost.

    No philosopher achieves his ultimate end, but by discovering the ultimate ends, he moves the polity some number of steps toward them.

    —“You and John Mark (who won’t show his face, why?) “–

    My understanding is that people are doxxed and it affects their income. I no nothing at all about him. I don’t need to. Either a man’s words are true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal.

    —“are playing with fire. Your minions are using some of that same rhetoric as the NZ mosque shooter, accelerationism. And one day you’ll have a few 100 men stupid enough to begin with aggression (all perfectly justified by your ideology). “—

    Where do you see that? You mean, instead, that there are people who come here because I truthfully discuss the Taboos, and so THEY are whacky. All of our people are trying to restore the need to fight to the anglo liberty tradition because of the failure of rothbardian and hoppeian pacifism. And I am at least, Eli is as well, saying that the solution is no longer possible democratically because it is no longer possible demographically.

    Regardless you are again GSRRM instead of asking whether P is true, you’re just lying again. So I’ll repeat what I said earlier: Yet you aren’t complaining about formal definitions, scientific reasoning, truthful diligent speech in operationalizable terms, and rule of law to reform our polity and america world wide, are you? Which of those have you complained about? None.

    You’re a liar. You are a liar by failure of due diligence. A carrier of others lies because of your failure of due diligence. And you don’t do your due diligence because either you are lazy, psychologically incompetent, or intellectually unable.

    —“And then the fascist tyranny that’s already siting at the levers of power will have enough to persecute all of the dissident right. “—

    Well, you know, that’s because you don’t know that what I’m proposing in the constitution is very hard for all but ideological leftists to disagree with. A scientists has to discover limits. That doesn’t mean you make use of them.

    —“But they aren’t as stupid as your minions are. It’s going to be a slow boiling death. Your crowd here for whom you are responsible fits the definition of terrorism and your ethno Aryan master race bullshit has gambled away all your moral authority already.”—

    Well, as far as I know I’m trying to restore the jeffersonian constitution under threat that if we don’t, then we will quite happily do something far less desirable. This is to remove the negotiation position like I have said for years.

    Sorry man, but the evidence is that (a) we have superior demographics, (b) superior balance of neoteny, depth of maturity, and dimorphism. (c) are the only people who have produced testimonial truth and reason, science and medicine, and have done so with a small population in a remote portion of euroasia, at the edge of the bronze age. (d) and have single handedly in this world and the ancient, dragged mankind out of ignorance and poverty hard work, disease and suffering with that civilization and genetic distribution.

    Sorry man, but the semitic religions are a crime against humanity and I’m trying to find a way to replace them with something that supplies demand but doesn’t include the Semitic cancers. My insight is truth and truth alone. And truth is unforgiving.

    So to say we are superior is simply true. To say that other people can imitate at least our truth and rule of law and eugenics and they will also become superior in a few generations, is also true.

    —“And there is even the big question how come that John Mark suddenly appears on the scene with that big boom and is your herald? Where does he come from? What funds do you have? “—

    Do a search. I’m a serial entrepreneur. I retired in my late 40’s to do this full time. That said, on purpose, donations pay for the institute and its costs. It’s a trivial cost. We collect trivial donations. Mostly from regulars. Why? I never want to have to modify my work to suit an income stream.

    Lots of people come and go. It has always been our strategy that I would do the R&D and others would take it to market, for reasons that are relatively obvious – mostly comprehensibility. John decided this was the answer he wanted to promote. So did eli. so has everyone else.

    —“Why doesn’t your stuff get blocked on YouTube? The thought that this is a honey trap is not at all far fetched. “—

    Ok now you have gone from borderline to full fledge lunatic.

    The reason I don’t get blocked is rather obvious. I don’t do hate speech. And I don’t post videos on controversial taboos. I only post on philosophy – and moreover, partly by design, they aren’t intellectually accessible to many. So others get blocked. The newest guy did yesterday. But as we continue to grow I expect to maintain technical content myself, others to education, others to rally, and others to test the margins.

    —“And why are you Curt siting in the Western Ukraine where the Stepan Bandera emblem wearing Nazis are celebrating their comeback aided and abetted by the deep state that is also running the coup against Donald Trump? So many questions that need to be talked about on common terms, not on your terms.”—

    Who says I’m in Ukraine. I’m in the states. I formed the institute and my companies in Ukraine, and as far as I know I’m married and a resident there. However, Ive been here in the states (a) restoring my health, and (b) taking care of a seriously ill parent. (c) investing in a revolution I’ve been predicting for fifteen years now.

    HERE IS THE REAL ISSUE

    Be a fucking gentleman, ask questions, and seek to understand. You clearly don’t understand that I work through prosecution of ideas reducing them to first principles, that must be true, rational, and reciprocal. And you’re an ignorant arrogant immature, loudmouth trying desperately to have someone agree with you or educate you on your terms at their cost.

    I’m the real deal. I’m exceptional good at what I do. As far as I know there is no other man living that has made anywhere near the progress I have.

    So If…

    You want an ideology go find one.

    You want a secular theology go find one.

    You want a religion go find one.

    I do truth, which means science, which means true, rational and reciprocal – regardless of costs.

    And if there isn’t a market for it in this decade there will be in another.

    And stop wasting my time.

    Your argument isn’t over truth it’s over preference and I do truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 13:40:00 UTC

  • NO MORE ANCAP LIES —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not d

    NO MORE ANCAP LIES

    —“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow

    ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS.

    Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why).

    a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible.

    b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible.

    c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible.

    d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons.

    You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot.

    LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION

    —“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—

    I’ll debate anyone who:

    – has the knowledge to.

    – has the ability to.

    – is intellectually honest

    – and is willing to.

    This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics).

    If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions.

    The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons, a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand,

    b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse;

    c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to.

    d) they are afraid I would win.

    This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people.

    LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS

    You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to.

    LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL.

    Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud).

    LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS

    You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ).

    CLOSING

    So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air.

    This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-11 11:31:00 UTC

  • Trump uses the Most Unreasonable Man Strategy in politics and negotiations to re

    Trump uses the Most Unreasonable Man Strategy in politics and negotiations to relentlessly generate unpredictability, prevent coalition forming, forcing the opposition to expose their interests, and to seize opportunistic incremental gains.
    #UndersetandingTrump @realDonaldTrump


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-10 14:43:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1182305760195293187