Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • THE PRIVILEGE OF FALSE BELIEF (FANTASY WORLDS) I think the point is, whether you

    THE PRIVILEGE OF FALSE BELIEF (FANTASY WORLDS)

    I think the point is, whether your display, words, and deeds impose costs upon those who do not carry such falsehoods.

    We are currently wealthy enough that we can tolerate many falsehoods.

    We are currently wealthy enought hat we can tolerate much dysgenia.

    The question arises when we are no longer wealthy enough to tolerate falsehoods and dysgenia.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 12:36:00 UTC

  • Why Are People Attracted To Socialism? Infantilism.

    It is because you begin with the child’s relationship to the parent (family), not the political relationship between families, clans, tribes, and nations. 1 – The first question of rational choice is “why don’t I commit suicide”. 2 – The first question of ethics, is, and always will be, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – The first question of politics, is, and always will be “why don’t me and mine, kill you and yours, and take your stuff. 4 – The first question of all relations is “why don’t I/we kill you/you(plural) and take your stuff?” It is only after answering the question, that we decide how we cooperate or not. TRANSFORMATION INTO ADULTHOOD VS INFANTILIZATION A female, a child, (and a beta male) all admit their weakness and irrelevance when they begin with the presumption of the value of cooperation. Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Hence, as an advocate for the organizational model of the family, all of whom demonstrate kin selection, you are attracted to the extension of that kin selection outside of your kin, and to the socialist’s (child,female) strategy. You seek it as ideal for the underclass family (genetic inferiors) but is not the ideal for the middle and upper class family (genetic superiors). And the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, are the means by which the competent evolve and the incompetent are removed from the gene pool – or at least, some equilibrium is maintained. Hence why those of us who exterminated our underclasses (east asians and western europeans) possess higher distributions in the middle and upper middle and the other groups possess lower distributions in the lower middle, and lower classes, and especially the extremely costly underclasses. So some of us are fully mature adults and understand this, and some of us are still infantilized (or coddled) and do not. The strong and able need a reason not to kill, enslave, enserf the weak and less able. And markets and rule of law, are the only means by which it is more profitable to cooperate for all than for the strong and able to enserf, enslave, prey upon, or kill the weak and unable. It takes about .001% of the male population to alter the political order. Socialism provides the incentive for the strong to defeat the weak. The only reason socialism had any footing whatsoever is that the christian peoples have a desperate desire to virtue signal their magnanimity – as a means of imitating their ancestral nobility. Everywhere even the most feeble attempt has been tried, the outcome has been cyclical degeneration of knowledge, craft, economy, norm, and tradition. Just as religions produced a cyclical degeneration of the same. Thus endeth the lesson.

  • WHY ARE PEOPLE ATTRACTED TO SOCIALISM? INFANTILISM. It is because you begin with

    WHY ARE PEOPLE ATTRACTED TO SOCIALISM? INFANTILISM.

    It is because you begin with the child’s relationship to the parent (family), not the political relationship between families, clans, tribes, and nations.

    1 – The first question of rational choice is “why don’t I commit suicide”.

    2 – The first question of ethics, is, and always will be, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?”

    3 – The first question of politics, is, and always will be “why don’t me and mine, kill you and yours, and take your stuff.

    4 – The first question of all relations is “why don’t I/we kill you/you(plural) and take your stuff?”

    It is only after answering the question, that we decide how we cooperate or not.

    TRANSFORMATION INTO ADULTHOOD VS INFANTILIZATION

    A female, a child, (and a beta male) all admit their weakness and irrelevance when they begin with the presumption of the value of cooperation.

    Cooperation is only valuable until it is not.

    Hence, as an advocate for the organizational model of the family, all of whom demonstrate kin selection, you are attracted to the extension of that kin selection outside of your kin, and to the socialist’s (child,female) strategy.

    You seek it as ideal for the underclass family (genetic inferiors) but is not the ideal for the middle and upper class family (genetic superiors).

    And the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, are the means by which the competent evolve and the incompetent are removed from the gene pool – or at least, some equilibrium is maintained. Hence why those of us who exterminated our underclasses (east asians and western europeans) possess higher distributions in the middle and upper middle and the other groups possess lower distributions in the lower middle, and lower classes, and especially the extremely costly underclasses.

    So some of us are fully mature adults and understand this, and some of us are still infantilized (or coddled) and do not.

    The strong and able need a reason not to kill, enslave, enserf the weak and less able. And markets and rule of law, are the only means by which it is more profitable to cooperate for all than for the strong and able to enserf, enslave, prey upon, or kill the weak and unable.

    It takes about .001% of the male population to alter the political order. Socialism provides the incentive for the strong to defeat the weak. The only reason socialism had any footing whatsoever is that the christian peoples have a desperate desire to virtue signal their magnanimity – as a means of imitating their ancestral nobility.

    Everywhere even the most feeble attempt has been tried, the outcome has been cyclical degeneration of knowledge, craft, economy, norm, and tradition. Just as religions produced a cyclical degeneration of the same.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-10 09:58:00 UTC

  • Why Are People Attracted To Socialism? Infantilism.

    It is because you begin with the child’s relationship to the parent (family), not the political relationship between families, clans, tribes, and nations. 1 – The first question of rational choice is “why don’t I commit suicide”. 2 – The first question of ethics, is, and always will be, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – The first question of politics, is, and always will be “why don’t me and mine, kill you and yours, and take your stuff. 4 – The first question of all relations is “why don’t I/we kill you/you(plural) and take your stuff?” It is only after answering the question, that we decide how we cooperate or not. TRANSFORMATION INTO ADULTHOOD VS INFANTILIZATION A female, a child, (and a beta male) all admit their weakness and irrelevance when they begin with the presumption of the value of cooperation. Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Hence, as an advocate for the organizational model of the family, all of whom demonstrate kin selection, you are attracted to the extension of that kin selection outside of your kin, and to the socialist’s (child,female) strategy. You seek it as ideal for the underclass family (genetic inferiors) but is not the ideal for the middle and upper class family (genetic superiors). And the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and polities, are the means by which the competent evolve and the incompetent are removed from the gene pool – or at least, some equilibrium is maintained. Hence why those of us who exterminated our underclasses (east asians and western europeans) possess higher distributions in the middle and upper middle and the other groups possess lower distributions in the lower middle, and lower classes, and especially the extremely costly underclasses. So some of us are fully mature adults and understand this, and some of us are still infantilized (or coddled) and do not. The strong and able need a reason not to kill, enslave, enserf the weak and less able. And markets and rule of law, are the only means by which it is more profitable to cooperate for all than for the strong and able to enserf, enslave, prey upon, or kill the weak and unable. It takes about .001% of the male population to alter the political order. Socialism provides the incentive for the strong to defeat the weak. The only reason socialism had any footing whatsoever is that the christian peoples have a desperate desire to virtue signal their magnanimity – as a means of imitating their ancestral nobility. Everywhere even the most feeble attempt has been tried, the outcome has been cyclical degeneration of knowledge, craft, economy, norm, and tradition. Just as religions produced a cyclical degeneration of the same. Thus endeth the lesson.

  • “The people who participate directly in the market are the only people with the

    “The people who participate directly in the market are the only people with the incentive to succeed by moral means. The people who don’t participate in the market have every incentive to succeed by immoral means.”

  • “The people who participate directly in the market are the only people with the

    “The people who participate directly in the market are the only people with the incentive to succeed by moral means. The people who don’t participate in the market have every incentive to succeed by immoral means.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-08 23:19:00 UTC

  • “The people who participate directly in the market are the only people with the

    “The people who participate directly in the market are the only people with the incentive to succeed by moral means. The people who don’t participate in the market have every incentive to succeed by immoral means.”

  • Martial Arts: Guns, Boxing, Kicking, Wrestling.

    Boxing is the single most effective means of fighting – particularly if it will ever be other than one-on-one. It is not uncommon for a boxer to take out half a dozen men in sequence. And with boxing, like firearms, you can gain dramatic returns on the first 20% of training, and it preserves movement. Boxing is fast. Kickboxing expands asymmetries of strength by using very strong limbs(legs) to weaken the fragile point of larger attackers (legs/knees). Kickboxing is less fast. One on one wrestling, in which ju jitsu attempts to circumvent the problem of asymmetric size and strength by capture and exploitation of weak spots, especially joints. To no small degree these three techniques, like rifle, pistol, and knife, provide a spectrum, boxing and movement, kicking to weaken, and wrestling to obtain submission, provide situational value. Wrestling is slow. The rest of the martial arts are more equivalent to ballet for men – fitness, calm, confidence, discipline. But the difference between rational man and impulsive animal is that animals (watch chimps and gorillas) go ‘all in’. Man does not. Boxing teaches you to go all in the way other disciplines do not. The principle weakness I have seen in sports and all walks of life, is that men have abandoned the impulse to go all in and ‘let the berserker do his job’. The problem is you must only practice boxing against pads, with a tutor, and not actually engage in bouts. Damage to to the brain – even a little of it, is possibly the worst accumulated cellular damage you can absorb. I fought a lot (multiple times a week) as a child because of the era and geography(farmers) – and everyone was bigger than my little Breton frame. My strategy was to rush, take a hit, get them on the ground and choke them out, or exhaust them. It was always successful (really) even if I felt I rarely ‘won’ in a conflict where I turned someone blue – knocking people out provides a disincentive, and wearing people out gives them confidence in future opportunity. In junior high and high school I was in wrestling for a while and took only two belts in Karate, and after college I took fencing. ( But i find close engagement with other sweaty males too disgusting to tolerate on a regular basis. lol) As an adult I just carry a gun whenever possible and avoid conflict. And that is the best strategy I know of. I’ve written about this before, but my chief antagonist turned out to be a dangerous criminal arsonist, and multiple murderer. He was so fast with punches you couldn’t see them. The only choice was a ground war. He was notoriously unstoppable in fights. The only way to survive (not win) was to get on the ground. Today, we do not have those kinds of fights. And we have developed a tendency for hit and runs. (watch ghetto fights, street fights, classroom fights, bar fights.) And between MMA and the availability of videos, the answer is pretty obvious: box. (Oh. BTW. Knives are an assassination weapon, not something you fight with. That’s just stupid.)

  • MARTIAL ARTS: GUNS, BOXING, KICKING, WRESTLING. Boxing is the single most effect

    MARTIAL ARTS: GUNS, BOXING, KICKING, WRESTLING.

    Boxing is the single most effective means of fighting –

    particularly if it will ever be other than one-on-one. It is not uncommon for a boxer to take out half a dozen men in sequence. And with boxing, like firearms, you can gain dramatic returns on the first 20% of training, and it preserves movement. Boxing is fast.

    Kickboxing expands asymmetries of strength by using very strong limbs(legs) to weaken the fragile point of larger attackers (legs/knees). Kickboxing is less fast.

    One on one wrestling, in which ju jitsu attempts to circumvent the problem of asymmetric size and strength by capture and exploitation of weak spots, especially joints. To no small degree these three techniques, like rifle, pistol, and knife, provide a spectrum, boxing and movement, kicking to weaken, and wrestling to obtain submission, provide situational value.

    Wrestling is slow.

    The rest of the martial arts are more equivalent to ballet for men – fitness, calm, confidence, discipline.

    But the difference between rational man and impulsive animal is that animals (watch chimps and gorillas) go ‘all in’. Man does not. Boxing teaches you to go all in the way other disciplines do not. The principle weakness I have seen in sports and all walks of life, is that men have abandoned the impulse to go all in and ‘let the berserker do his job’.

    The problem is you must only practice boxing against pads, with a tutor, and not actually engage in bouts. Damage to to the brain – even a little of it, is possibly the worst accumulated cellular damage you can absorb.

    I fought a lot (multiple times a week) as a child because of the era and geography(farmers) – and everyone was bigger than my little Breton frame. My strategy was to rush, take a hit, get them on the ground and choke them out, or exhaust them. It was always successful (really) even if I felt I rarely ‘won’ in a conflict where I turned someone blue – knocking people out provides a disincentive, and wearing people out gives them confidence in future opportunity.

    In junior high and high school I was in wrestling for a while and took only two belts in Karate, and after college I took fencing. ( But i find close engagement with other sweaty males too disgusting to tolerate on a regular basis. lol) As an adult I just carry a gun whenever possible and avoid conflict. And that is the best strategy I know of.

    I’ve written about this before, but my chief antagonist turned out to be a dangerous criminal arsonist, and multiple murderer. He was so fast with punches you couldn’t see them. The only choice was a ground war. He was notoriously unstoppable in fights. The only way to survive (not win) was to get on the ground.

    Today, we do not have those kinds of fights. And we have developed a tendency for hit and runs. (watch ghetto fights, street fights, classroom fights, bar fights.) And between MMA and the availability of videos, the answer is pretty obvious: box.

    (Oh. BTW. Knives are an assassination weapon, not something you fight with. That’s just stupid.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-08 22:14:00 UTC

  • Martial Arts: Guns, Boxing, Kicking, Wrestling.

    Boxing is the single most effective means of fighting – particularly if it will ever be other than one-on-one. It is not uncommon for a boxer to take out half a dozen men in sequence. And with boxing, like firearms, you can gain dramatic returns on the first 20% of training, and it preserves movement. Boxing is fast. Kickboxing expands asymmetries of strength by using very strong limbs(legs) to weaken the fragile point of larger attackers (legs/knees). Kickboxing is less fast. One on one wrestling, in which ju jitsu attempts to circumvent the problem of asymmetric size and strength by capture and exploitation of weak spots, especially joints. To no small degree these three techniques, like rifle, pistol, and knife, provide a spectrum, boxing and movement, kicking to weaken, and wrestling to obtain submission, provide situational value. Wrestling is slow. The rest of the martial arts are more equivalent to ballet for men – fitness, calm, confidence, discipline. But the difference between rational man and impulsive animal is that animals (watch chimps and gorillas) go ‘all in’. Man does not. Boxing teaches you to go all in the way other disciplines do not. The principle weakness I have seen in sports and all walks of life, is that men have abandoned the impulse to go all in and ‘let the berserker do his job’. The problem is you must only practice boxing against pads, with a tutor, and not actually engage in bouts. Damage to to the brain – even a little of it, is possibly the worst accumulated cellular damage you can absorb. I fought a lot (multiple times a week) as a child because of the era and geography(farmers) – and everyone was bigger than my little Breton frame. My strategy was to rush, take a hit, get them on the ground and choke them out, or exhaust them. It was always successful (really) even if I felt I rarely ‘won’ in a conflict where I turned someone blue – knocking people out provides a disincentive, and wearing people out gives them confidence in future opportunity. In junior high and high school I was in wrestling for a while and took only two belts in Karate, and after college I took fencing. ( But i find close engagement with other sweaty males too disgusting to tolerate on a regular basis. lol) As an adult I just carry a gun whenever possible and avoid conflict. And that is the best strategy I know of. I’ve written about this before, but my chief antagonist turned out to be a dangerous criminal arsonist, and multiple murderer. He was so fast with punches you couldn’t see them. The only choice was a ground war. He was notoriously unstoppable in fights. The only way to survive (not win) was to get on the ground. Today, we do not have those kinds of fights. And we have developed a tendency for hit and runs. (watch ghetto fights, street fights, classroom fights, bar fights.) And between MMA and the availability of videos, the answer is pretty obvious: box. (Oh. BTW. Knives are an assassination weapon, not something you fight with. That’s just stupid.)