Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548089728 Timestamp) IT’S THE AGE OF LIES THAT’S HARD TO OVERCOME – PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T THAT DIFFICULT by Neil A. Bucklew I am a working class person; 10 years in the marines; general labor almost all of my life. i study math and science and tech as a hobby. In no way could anyone consider me a genius. I do not have much trouble understanding Curt at all. I merely have to check some sources on things I have little knowledge in. It has been said we live in an age of mysticism. but that is a euphemism for lying. we live in an age of lies. we live in a cult of escalating lies, and have done so for over a century. holding on to lies makes understanding truth more difficult. You do not have to have a giant brain or iq to understand propertarianism is. just stop lying to yourself. lies are information that take processing time. You don’t let them in your computer, so don’t let them in your head.

    (CD: I think the issue that makes the difference is life experience. Military and work with common folk is educational in ways that the academy, bureaucracy, and white collar privilege create ignorance.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548266844 Timestamp) WHY WE FAILED So you see, the reasons the west could not defeat the rise of pseudoscience (marxism) and sophism (postmodernism) and denialism (feminism) is because of: (1) we spoke in religious, philosophical, and moral middle class language, and; (2) because our group strategy and reason for success is eugenic,; (3) our organizing principle is actually our law (martial and judicial class) and tripartism, not our philosophy(middle class) universal or religion (administrative class) universal; (4) we lacked understanding of our organizing principle and its difference from other civilizations; had no practice in using it against administrative and middle class moralisms, sophims, supernaturalisms, and pseudosciences, and; (5) universal enfranchisement in a single house majoritarian democracy is logically and empirically counter to the tradition of our law (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty), our group strategy (sovereignty, tripartism, commons and eugenic evolution). In retrospect it isn’t complicated but in the process it was chaos. But now we know. Truth is enough.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548262235 Timestamp) —“Much of leftism is about projection and subversion. Leftist beta soyboys are very much lacking in the sack, and their women know it. Also, women tend to badmouth one’s sexual status and performance when disagreed with, especially if they can deceive themselves about it (over the internet, everyone is an incel). The other reason is that it’s a cheap shot, literally below the belt, which makes a right-winger pause with shock in what ought be a serious discussion of policy.”— Nikola Dzhilvidzhiev

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548262166 Timestamp) Let us try this again: —“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”— What is difficult about this question? Spectrum of Lying: 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. Where truthful speech consists of: 1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: 9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law. Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian). Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them. So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments? Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream. All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims. We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age. I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes. Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice Law. Why? Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason. So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity? …..Which answers a question of the ages. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548213602 Timestamp) —“You’ve been repeating that Rothbard is a liar recently though in the past you said he couldn’t have been a liar, just mistaken. What’s the lie?”— This is one of those deceptively simple questions on its face that once deflated and operationalized makes you question the frame in which we ask the original question. It depends on point of demarcation of agency vs tradition, intuition vs biology. … I(we) use a higher standard of intent: failure of due diligence. Do women know what they do when they sh-t test or is it biology? Did Rothbard and mises? What about those men that invented the tradition of lying (pilpul) both operated under? Is a carrier of a lie responsible? In law, one causes harm or not and is responsible for failure of due diligence, not intent, and must pay restitution for the failure of due diligence. If intentional an additional punishment is levied on top of the restitution. However the entire marx/rothbard/trotsky-strauss … set of anti-white movements, consist of a continuation of undermining the host civilization (‘revolutionary spirit’), the use of sophism(pilpul) and critique (straw manning an undermining) and authoritarianism (monopoly class interests) in opposition to western tripartism. So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome? So which standard of lie, or set of standards of lying, are we to use? The question is harder than at first appears. How could a man of that learning err so widely? Is he a fool or a liar, or a fraud? Women engage in conspiracies of common interest when they undermine, to the detriment of the host males. What does this say about rothbard mises, hoppe et al?

  • Curt Doolittle added a new photo to Eli Harman’s timeline.

    (FB 1548209761 Timestamp) ( dunno if you saw this but it’s a hilarious compliment and jab at the same time. ) There is an advantage to having a hemisphere between you and the guy you’re teasing… lol

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548266844 Timestamp) WHY WE FAILED So you see, the reasons the west could not defeat the rise of pseudoscience (marxism) and sophism (postmodernism) and denialism (feminism) is because of: (1) we spoke in religious, philosophical, and moral middle class language, and; (2) because our group strategy and reason for success is eugenic,; (3) our organizing principle is actually our law (martial and judicial class) and tripartism, not our philosophy(middle class) universal or religion (administrative class) universal; (4) we lacked understanding of our organizing principle and its difference from other civilizations; had no practice in using it against administrative and middle class moralisms, sophims, supernaturalisms, and pseudosciences, and; (5) universal enfranchisement in a single house majoritarian democracy is logically and empirically counter to the tradition of our law (sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty), our group strategy (sovereignty, tripartism, commons and eugenic evolution). In retrospect it isn’t complicated but in the process it was chaos. But now we know. Truth is enough.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548262235 Timestamp) —“Much of leftism is about projection and subversion. Leftist beta soyboys are very much lacking in the sack, and their women know it. Also, women tend to badmouth one’s sexual status and performance when disagreed with, especially if they can deceive themselves about it (over the internet, everyone is an incel). The other reason is that it’s a cheap shot, literally below the belt, which makes a right-winger pause with shock in what ought be a serious discussion of policy.”— Nikola Dzhilvidzhiev

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548262166 Timestamp) Let us try this again: —“So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome?”— What is difficult about this question? Spectrum of Lying: 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. Where truthful speech consists of: 1. categorically consistent (identity) 2. internally consistent (logic) 3. externally correspondent (empirical) 4. operationally consistent (existentially possible) 5. rationally consistent (rational choice) 6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice) 7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete) 8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent) And where: 9. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible. 10. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution. That is the list of conceivable dimensions available to man, the means of due diligence by which we test them, and constitutes a ‘complete, deflated, dimensional’ definition of truthful speech – a speech that will survive in a court of law. Rothbard’s ethic uses the first premise of volition – the ethics of the ghetto, the pale, and the low trust middle east. This ethic is consistent across afro-asiatic peoples: can I get away with it? Just as face ethic is consistent across asiatic peoples, and just as truth over face is consistent over northern european peoples (not russian). Western ethics uses the first premise of reciprocity – the ethics of the high trust homogeneous europeans (exclusively). It says ‘will their be repercussions over time?’ The west competes by its commons, the middle east by predation upon them. So, what are Mises and Rothbard NOT accounting for (Cherrypicking) in their arguments? Mises didn’t practice ‘austrian’ economics. He was from L’viv (near where I live). He practiced the economics of the ghetto, pale, and middle east, and restated it with Menger’s subjectivity. He found another application of pilpul with which to justify his priors. Hence why there is ‘austrian economics’ of menger and hayek fully incorporated into the mainstream, and ‘ukrainian ghetto economics’ of mises and rothbard (and eastern ashkenazim in general) that have not been incorporated into the mainstream. All peoples (states, civilizations) so far have attempted to take the british scientific revolution and exit the medieval world of supernatural sophisms while retaining (a) their traditional method of argument, and (b) the traditional underlying ethics, in order to (c) persist their group competitive strategy. No people has done otherwise: the french, germans, italians, russians and ashkenazi, the chinese, and now the muslims. We have just about ended the jewish century of resistance to truth and science (marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises, rand/rothbard, strauss) and are entering into the muslim century of resistance to truth and science. It is the last civilization we have yet to drag out of ignorance, and the most primitive, most resistant, with the worst demographics. Our ancestral attempt in the roman era resulted in a dark age. I understand this subject better than anyone else living. Mostly because I have spent the better part of a decade understanding the differences between anglo, continental, jewish/arab(Semitic), Hindu, and asian methods of law, argument, philosophy, religion, economics, and family structure, and produced a value independent, fully commensurable, logic of law, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy for these purposes. Of the existing grammars we call math, logic, science, algorithms, law-testimony, descriptive speech, ordinary speech, narrative speech, fiction, fictionalisms(sophisms-idealism/philosophy, supernaturalisms-theology, and pseudoscience/magic), and deceit, I practice Law. Why? Because of those grammars, it is the only one that is both both complete, complete, and free of fictions, and the means of suggestion by which to circumvent our reason. So the question is, why would anyone not write about social science in law – the language of reciprocity – unless to circumvent that law of reciprocity? …..Which answers a question of the ages. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548213602 Timestamp) —“You’ve been repeating that Rothbard is a liar recently though in the past you said he couldn’t have been a liar, just mistaken. What’s the lie?”— This is one of those deceptively simple questions on its face that once deflated and operationalized makes you question the frame in which we ask the original question. It depends on point of demarcation of agency vs tradition, intuition vs biology. … I(we) use a higher standard of intent: failure of due diligence. Do women know what they do when they sh-t test or is it biology? Did Rothbard and mises? What about those men that invented the tradition of lying (pilpul) both operated under? Is a carrier of a lie responsible? In law, one causes harm or not and is responsible for failure of due diligence, not intent, and must pay restitution for the failure of due diligence. If intentional an additional punishment is levied on top of the restitution. However the entire marx/rothbard/trotsky-strauss … set of anti-white movements, consist of a continuation of undermining the host civilization (‘revolutionary spirit’), the use of sophism(pilpul) and critique (straw manning an undermining) and authoritarianism (monopoly class interests) in opposition to western tripartism. So in the distribution between intent, failure of due diligence, carrier of lies, and a cognitive tradition of lying by sophism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience, and the biological drive of the female-biased mind to use gossip and undermining to undermine the hierarchy, … what is the distribution of rothbard’s guilt? With him, his culture, or his genome? So which standard of lie, or set of standards of lying, are we to use? The question is harder than at first appears. How could a man of that learning err so widely? Is he a fool or a liar, or a fraud? Women engage in conspiracies of common interest when they undermine, to the detriment of the host males. What does this say about rothbard mises, hoppe et al?