Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549518603 Timestamp) —“…around the world, state-armed forces are not doing well against non-state enemies. Second Generation militaries fight by putting firepower on targets, and Fourth Generation fighters are very good at making themselves untargetable. Virtually all Fourth Generation forces are free of the First Generation culture of order; they focus outward, they prize initiative and, because they are highly decentralized, they rely on self-discipline. Second Generation state forces are largely helpless against them.””—

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549558615 Timestamp) Ok. Basics? Here are the basics. THERE ARE ONLY THREE METHODS OF INFLUENCE. 1 – Via Negativa: Law. (Force) Here is what you may not do, and we will punish those who do otherwise. By: Military, Judiciary, Sheriffs. 2 – Via Positiva: Propaganda (Persuade). Here is what we should and should not do – and we will undermine those who do otherwise. BY: Academics, Priests, Public Intellectuals, Media. 3 – Via Permutatio: Reciprocity (Exchange). Here is what we offer in exchange, and what you will miss out on otherwise. By: commerce, entrepreneurs, merchants, craftsmen, laborers That’s it. I”m the first (the law) and the third (policy). this means you are your own sovereign person. Leftists are second and third. Nazboi’s and Traditionalists are the second. You notice that you don’t hear a PLAN from anyone else other than ‘faith’. Or a means of administering and operating a society. All you get is words.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549518603 Timestamp) —“…around the world, state-armed forces are not doing well against non-state enemies. Second Generation militaries fight by putting firepower on targets, and Fourth Generation fighters are very good at making themselves untargetable. Virtually all Fourth Generation forces are free of the First Generation culture of order; they focus outward, they prize initiative and, because they are highly decentralized, they rely on self-discipline. Second Generation state forces are largely helpless against them.””—

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549820681 Timestamp) MORALITY AMORALITY CONFLICT DESPOTISM AND THE SOCIOPATHIC MIND. MORALITY Some basis of morality either exists or it does not. The science, law, and logic say that such a thing is called reciprocity, and reciprocity within the bounds of proportionality, and outside of the bounds of proportionality exit is necessary for any disadvantaged party. And that prohibition on or unbearable cost of exit is the origin of conflict, fighting, and war. AMORALITY If no basis for morality exists, then all that is required is power to force whatever order upon people that is useful. This is a license for any and all for corruption at every level. In other worse, one has rule of law and decidability, or one has rule by man and authority. CONFLICT The evolution of the law has been a battle between corruption (rule by man) and morality (rule of law). Even socialism (rule by man) and capitalism (rule of law), and globalism (rule by men) and nationalism (rule of law), and representative democracy (rule by men), and direct democracy (rule of law) are simply various examples of a long standing battle between the moral men who produce and the immoral men to live by parasitism. DESPOTISM The despot’s argument: empower elites further in order to garner favor (suck up to more successful people). Seize power and opportunity at every opportunity. Incrementally exercise pent up envy, anger, hatred, in order to gain pleasure and relief. SOCIOPATHY Sociopaths use a well documented set of tactics. They are natural liars. They will choose to lie even if the truth is just as advantageous. And once you know how lies are constructed, by using suggestion to force appeal to intuition, then you are no longer vulnerable to liars. The Sociopath’s Mind: “I must dominate, rule, punish, harm” “I have had no achievements” “I have no resources” “I am not likable or desirable” “I cannot build a following nor participate in one” “I cannot build an organization nor participate in one” “I can only use deceit and cunning because of this” “I will use deceit and cunning to self promote at all times” “I will shift locations, alliances, positions, tactics, claims, anything, and deny anything else, in order to exercise my sociopathy and related rewards” This person will always favor despotism because it is in his interests. Because there is no other means by which those without merit can exercise any agency over those others they envy, despise, and hate. THAT IS A CHAIN OF REASONING.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549820681 Timestamp) MORALITY AMORALITY CONFLICT DESPOTISM AND THE SOCIOPATHIC MIND. MORALITY Some basis of morality either exists or it does not. The science, law, and logic say that such a thing is called reciprocity, and reciprocity within the bounds of proportionality, and outside of the bounds of proportionality exit is necessary for any disadvantaged party. And that prohibition on or unbearable cost of exit is the origin of conflict, fighting, and war. AMORALITY If no basis for morality exists, then all that is required is power to force whatever order upon people that is useful. This is a license for any and all for corruption at every level. In other worse, one has rule of law and decidability, or one has rule by man and authority. CONFLICT The evolution of the law has been a battle between corruption (rule by man) and morality (rule of law). Even socialism (rule by man) and capitalism (rule of law), and globalism (rule by men) and nationalism (rule of law), and representative democracy (rule by men), and direct democracy (rule of law) are simply various examples of a long standing battle between the moral men who produce and the immoral men to live by parasitism. DESPOTISM The despot’s argument: empower elites further in order to garner favor (suck up to more successful people). Seize power and opportunity at every opportunity. Incrementally exercise pent up envy, anger, hatred, in order to gain pleasure and relief. SOCIOPATHY Sociopaths use a well documented set of tactics. They are natural liars. They will choose to lie even if the truth is just as advantageous. And once you know how lies are constructed, by using suggestion to force appeal to intuition, then you are no longer vulnerable to liars. The Sociopath’s Mind: “I must dominate, rule, punish, harm” “I have had no achievements” “I have no resources” “I am not likable or desirable” “I cannot build a following nor participate in one” “I cannot build an organization nor participate in one” “I can only use deceit and cunning because of this” “I will use deceit and cunning to self promote at all times” “I will shift locations, alliances, positions, tactics, claims, anything, and deny anything else, in order to exercise my sociopathy and related rewards” This person will always favor despotism because it is in his interests. Because there is no other means by which those without merit can exercise any agency over those others they envy, despise, and hate. THAT IS A CHAIN OF REASONING.

  • No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.

    (FB 1549967190 Timestamp) NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP.

    —“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish

    Hamish: Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics. The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism. JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM (Libertinism) 1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.

    1. The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.

    2. The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.

    3. The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….

    4. The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….

    5. The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….

    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) The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all. 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, mercantilism, 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 exept 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. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEMALE GROUP STRATEGY 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. === DEFINITIONS === 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 “hazardors.” 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.

  • No, UPB Is a Minor Retread on NAP.

    (FB 1549967190 Timestamp) NO, UPB IS A MINOR RETREAD ON NAP.

    —“UPB isn’t synonymous with the NAP… Conflating UPB with the NAP suggests you’re not familiar with it? UPB is more like the extension of the scientific method to ethics more than anything else. I can’t see anything on the website about UPB – unless its refuted under a different name.”— Hamish

    Hamish: Comparing Jewish Libertarian Ethics vs European Libertarian Ethics. The test of any jewish-libertarian law is voluntarism. JEWISH LIBERTARIANISM (Libertinism) 1. The first test of it’s failure is blackmail. It fails the test of blackmail.

    1. The second test of voluntarism is fully informed vs lying, the test is selling a lemon. if fails the selling of a lemon.

    2. The third test of voluntarism is baiting in to moral hazard, the test is usury. It fails the test of usury.

    3. The fourth test is of voluntarism is externality. The tests are prostitution, gambling, drug use, pornography….

    4. The fifth test of voluntarism is rent seeking….

    5. The sixth test is of voluntarism is undermining (propaganda, tradition, law, activism, reciprocity )….

    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) The test of european libertarianism is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of cost by externality that would reduce the trust and risk of the people to engage in the production of goods, services, information whether private or common. it is applicable to all. that’s what rule of law means: applicable to all. 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, mercantilism, 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 exept 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. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEMALE GROUP STRATEGY 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. === DEFINITIONS === 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 “hazardors.” 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.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550008147 Timestamp) INDIVIDUALISM IS A DIVIDE AND CONQUER IDEOLOGY TO ATOMIZE THE MILITIA OF AN ENEMY NATION. —“If we are all individuals, as libertarians argue, who will fight for another? If we are to survive attack from a group (given that 2 defeats 1), we must defend one another (3 beats 2). If we cannot survive without the defense of one another (share liability), then individualism is a divide and conquer ideology to atomize the militia of an enemy nation.”—Steve Pender

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550019076 Timestamp) TERMINAL MORONITUDE —“FWIW: “There is no ‘wrong’. There is only what people will retaliate against you for doing.” They retaliate against you for some reason. That reason is the imposition of costs upon that which they have born costs to obtain an interest. it’s that simple. Propertarianism isn’t excuses making for priors. It’s just empirical evidence of the accumulated history of mankind across all civilizations.”— CURTD —“Moral relativism is always a red flag.”—Moron Um, it’s MORAL ABSOLUTISM. You silly git. it’s EMPIRICAL moral absolutism.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550008147 Timestamp) INDIVIDUALISM IS A DIVIDE AND CONQUER IDEOLOGY TO ATOMIZE THE MILITIA OF AN ENEMY NATION. —“If we are all individuals, as libertarians argue, who will fight for another? If we are to survive attack from a group (given that 2 defeats 1), we must defend one another (3 beats 2). If we cannot survive without the defense of one another (share liability), then individualism is a divide and conquer ideology to atomize the militia of an enemy nation.”—Steve Pender