Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Example: Requirements for Violating P-Law of Speech

    —“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—

    [T]hat’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend. 1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public. 2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated. 3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry. Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail. Silly people are just silly.

  • Example: Requirements for Violating P-Law of Speech

    —“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—

    [T]hat’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend. 1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public. 2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated. 3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry. Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail. Silly people are just silly.

  • Packs and The Herd

    By Coach Noah Revoy, Apr 6, 2020, 5:23 PM [H]umans are either PACK orientated or HERD orientated. The HERD has a low consciousness hive mind, they are easily controlled, manipulated and spooked. The PACK is made up of highly conscious and capable individuals who choose to join the hierarchy for mutual benefit. HERDs form by “accident” when a sufficient number of herbivores gather in the same spot. Entry to the HERD is unearned. HERDs expand and multiply during good times. When trouble comes they turn on each other, abandoned the young, old, sick and weak. Thus the HERD gets thinned. PACKs form to hunt prey and to fight outsiders. To take advantage of opportunity or to deal with a threat. Entry to the PACK is earned. PACKs degenerate in the good times. They get fat and lazy. Hard times bring out the sharpness in the wolf. Struggle binds the pack together. If you are part of a PACK, then you are PACK orientated. If you are not in a PACK you are in a HERD. If you are alone, you are still in a HERD, you are just a little lost from the group, probably they left you behind. The HERD sacrifices those it leaves behind. As life gets harder we will see more men forming PACKs. Struggle brings out the wolf in men. The best men are already in PACKs, ready for the break down to signal the start of the hunt. The next best men are already looking to form or join a PACK. Will you be left behind?

  • Packs and The Herd

    By Coach Noah Revoy, Apr 6, 2020, 5:23 PM [H]umans are either PACK orientated or HERD orientated. The HERD has a low consciousness hive mind, they are easily controlled, manipulated and spooked. The PACK is made up of highly conscious and capable individuals who choose to join the hierarchy for mutual benefit. HERDs form by “accident” when a sufficient number of herbivores gather in the same spot. Entry to the HERD is unearned. HERDs expand and multiply during good times. When trouble comes they turn on each other, abandoned the young, old, sick and weak. Thus the HERD gets thinned. PACKs form to hunt prey and to fight outsiders. To take advantage of opportunity or to deal with a threat. Entry to the PACK is earned. PACKs degenerate in the good times. They get fat and lazy. Hard times bring out the sharpness in the wolf. Struggle binds the pack together. If you are part of a PACK, then you are PACK orientated. If you are not in a PACK you are in a HERD. If you are alone, you are still in a HERD, you are just a little lost from the group, probably they left you behind. The HERD sacrifices those it leaves behind. As life gets harder we will see more men forming PACKs. Struggle brings out the wolf in men. The best men are already in PACKs, ready for the break down to signal the start of the hunt. The next best men are already looking to form or join a PACK. Will you be left behind?

  • Think tank papers don’t say the ‘unsayable’ because they are paid by people who

    Think tank papers don’t say the ‘unsayable’ because they are paid by people who don’t want those things said, and they’d be put out of donors by the media if they even tried.

    There are many reasons to work outside of the academy and think tank biz. Marx & Me in coffee shops. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 20:51:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253788784610680833

    Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253788261291569152

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @unfinis06265716 There is no weaponry I don’t know about b/c costs are visible. There is no threat other than mexico and that’s an advantage. The rest of the world needs USA’s stability. USA doesn’t. An unstable chaotic world just makes everything better for the USA (canada, australia, uk).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253788261291569152

  • The Lies

    The Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/the-lies/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 18:40:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253755776654598152

  • The Lies

    [T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers

  • The Lies

    [T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers

  • Prosecution Online

    Apr 11, 2020, 1:13 PM [O]ne does not sell a liar – one prosecutes him. You cannot get them to agree. So deny the enemy the field. You can leave them defeated such that they come to their own conclusions. But no man is a hero to his debtors. For a decade now, I’ve taught the same strategy.

    1. Return any taunt they made as dispassionately as possible.
    2. Call them a liar or failing due diligence.
    3. State your central argument
    4. repeat until they are exhausted.

    All they do with every cycle is provide you with opportunity to recite the same statements “you are lying, either by design, or by failure of due diligence, [this is the truth], you can either refute it by testimony and warranty within the limits of liability (… 1. Refutation), or offer an equally criticizable solution to the question so that we can judge it’s possibility costs and benefits (2. Competition.), or seek to understand what you clearly don’t (3. Question). But at present you are [lying, denying, fictionalizing, sophistry, pseusocience,mysticism, impossibility, irreciprocity]. Just do the same thing over and over again and they will eventually expose themselves out of frustration – works every time if you stick with it over time.

  • Prosecution Online

    Apr 11, 2020, 1:13 PM [O]ne does not sell a liar – one prosecutes him. You cannot get them to agree. So deny the enemy the field. You can leave them defeated such that they come to their own conclusions. But no man is a hero to his debtors. For a decade now, I’ve taught the same strategy.

    1. Return any taunt they made as dispassionately as possible.
    2. Call them a liar or failing due diligence.
    3. State your central argument
    4. repeat until they are exhausted.

    All they do with every cycle is provide you with opportunity to recite the same statements “you are lying, either by design, or by failure of due diligence, [this is the truth], you can either refute it by testimony and warranty within the limits of liability (… 1. Refutation), or offer an equally criticizable solution to the question so that we can judge it’s possibility costs and benefits (2. Competition.), or seek to understand what you clearly don’t (3. Question). But at present you are [lying, denying, fictionalizing, sophistry, pseusocience,mysticism, impossibility, irreciprocity]. Just do the same thing over and over again and they will eventually expose themselves out of frustration – works every time if you stick with it over time.