(FB 1550184766 Timestamp) by Eli Harman Canada’s gun laws aren’t terrible TBH. There are some more restrictive training and permitting requirements than in the states. But the nationwide registry was abolished in 2012 (Quebec has their own.) Some models are banned or restricted. But there are generally workalikes and lookalikes available. There are no transferrable full autos, but the import restrictions aren’t as strict. The real issue is just that there isn’t the same “gun culture” and people’s sense of popular sovereignty is totally invested in democratic processes and institutions (which are easy to corrupt and pervert) and not in the right to revolt, which is stigmatized more and celebrated less, compared to the breakaway colonies… (And the right of self-defense is weaker with basically no provisions for legally carrying or using firearms for that purpose.)
Theme: Coercion
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550191476 Timestamp) What is fascism except radical intolerance for crimes against your people?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550171838 Timestamp) —“Dear Curt, I have decided not to reduce your 9 year old $165 ticket for speeding because you have not responded during the period. Judge so and so.”— Well, of course I didn’t respond. I didn’t live in the USA or get any mail, or anything else for nine years. ok? ok. Besides where the h— is [xyz] county????? ( I offered $100. Can’t blame a guy for tryin’. lolz ) You forget things when you have a fast car, pretty girl, sunshine, an open road, a long weekend to enjoy.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550194699 Timestamp) Um. don’t be silly. it’s not who has guns. it’s who has guns and ammunition. ergo, first to the shops and armories wins.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550194699 Timestamp) Um. don’t be silly. it’s not who has guns. it’s who has guns and ammunition. ergo, first to the shops and armories wins.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550340134 Timestamp) IT STARTS WITH EVERY MAN CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS It all starts with the militia of sovereign men, pooling their resources to deny any and all any means of depriving them of sovereignty. .—The distributed dictatorship of sovereign men— Eli Harman
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550426714 Timestamp) WHY MEN WILL FIGHT Men will not fight for christianity. That is evident. Christian faith is and has been, a pacifier that brings conquest. Yes, men will include christianity in what they will fight for. They will fight primarily for the material restoration of their way of life for them and their children first. and they will fight for altruistic punishment – a high cost of punishing the immoral opposition. This is our message and our policy. Those of us who are post-theological, post philosophical, and scientific, and favor our natural religion will not fight for christianity, but we will fight for your freedom to practice. There is every evidence men will fight for the material, and simply ‘virtue signal’ everything else as means of cooperation on the optimum POSSIBLE END, not the impossible IDEAL end. So we who will fight will do so, and christians are just virtue signaling. There will be only islam extermination and poverty if we lose. There will be christianity, heathanism, philosophy, science, law, the restoration of our civilization, our families, our people, if we win. If that is not good enough for you then you don’t matter. You are no better than the enemy. Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550407650 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM VS IT’S APPLICATION The law exists so that those with material interests (power) preserve the value of cooperation by forcing people into, and limiting them to, the market, and denying them non-market means (within the limits of cost and ability). Propertarianism explains how to use this law (logic) to suppress those forms of parasitism that are currently not, because we lacked a means of doing so. In particular (and I have only come to understand this myself over the past few years) it suppresses baiting into moral hazard, which is the general technique of exploitation that is in use. (including your sophism above). P it’s purely empirical. “people do this”, “this is why”, “self interest of those with interests”, “where almost all but the marginal cases have interests.” You can build any political order with P that you want precisely because it is an algorithmic logic (grammar), as long as you do it truthfully. To falsify P would require you falsify rational choice, reciprocity, and self interest. To state you would prefer to built some other form of government no matter how honest or dishonest, productive or parasitic, would still be explicable in P, and peoples’ behavior under it would still be universally expliable with P, because P is not a philosophy (should) but a science (is). It is the science and logic of what we call the psychological, linguistic, social sciences, and political sciences. Now you can ‘bitch’ about the fact that I use this logic to advocate for rule of law – the most parsimonious expression of that science – because you like or do not like that particular world (because it would crush ‘creativity in dishonesty’) which means ‘witty people’ have no more utility in their manipulation of others in order to obtain self image, social status, and various forms of influence. But that is the point altogether. P is simply ‘true’. What you do it it is a matter of your (power-group’s) preferences. I prefer to crush the abrahamic deceits (baiting into moral hazard by sophisms, pseudosciences, supernaturalisms, and deceits) and to use this to save my people from their lies. Maybe you prefer otherwise. But I am fairly sure that the mainstream will prefer my argument and policy recommendations over the alternatives and this lowers their resistance to its implementation relative to your alternatives. Again. Please don’t try to be smarter. You aren’t in the first place (even close) and P is quite a superpower – just like reason, empiricism, and science were superpowers before it. The more I use P, the better I get at it, the more I understand the revolution in human thought and experience that would be brought about is as great as the previous revolutions provided by western thought (reason, empiricism, science).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550433458 Timestamp) GENERATIONS OF WARFARE The concept of four “generations” in the history of modern warfare was created by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, for the purpose of an argument for “the changing face of war” entering into a “fourth generation”.
- First-generation warfare refers to Ancient and Post-classical battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.
Second-generation warfare is the Early modern tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.
Third-generation warfare focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage.
Fourth-generation warfare as presented by Lind et al. is characterized by “Post-modern” a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.
(wiki)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550433458 Timestamp) GENERATIONS OF WARFARE The concept of four “generations” in the history of modern warfare was created by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, for the purpose of an argument for “the changing face of war” entering into a “fourth generation”.
- First-generation warfare refers to Ancient and Post-classical battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.
Second-generation warfare is the Early modern tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.
Third-generation warfare focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage.
Fourth-generation warfare as presented by Lind et al. is characterized by “Post-modern” a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.
(wiki)