Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • Blocking Policy

    [I] hate blocking people and my block list was very short until peers and followers asked me to stop wasting my time; to clean up the feed; and to preserve the educational environment. I teach the Law and its application. I run a class 24×7 to a global audience. My goal is to preserve the environment. I (WE) BLOCK FOR: 1 – Wasting my (our) time. Which consists of: 2 – Ridicule, Sarcasm, Gossiping, Rallying Shaming, Moralizing (GSRM) as a substitute for argument. 3 – Memes as a substitute for argument. (no meme zone) 4 – Intellectual Dishonesty in argument 5 – Antagonism as a substitute for argument. 6 – Faith or Sophism as a substitute for argument. 7 – Occasionally: Argument from Ignorance and Arrogance (attacking the work while not knowing enough to do so.) 8 – Occasionally also: Common Stupidity, Schizotypal stupidity (paranoia), Other Psychological Problems. I (WE) DO NOT BLOCK FOR – Good natured teasing. I am easy to tease. Height, age, generation, weight, aspieness, number of women/divorces, tech stuff, abundance of typing mistakes, being a 1%er, teaching by king of the hill game, the difference between my real and online personalities. You know, the list is endless. NOTE: I (we) practice reciprocity. So if you use GSRM against me (us) , I(we) will use it against you … and then return to the central point – over, and over, and over again.

  • What I Do Here: An Experimental Classroom (King of the Hill, and No Hate)

    (regular repost) ===AN EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM=== [F]or new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad. Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism. I am slaying a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and doing so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.) But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution. I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth. === KING OF THE HILL GAME: TEACHING MEN === I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them. My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me“. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works. Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.) You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona. This is educational entertainment and theatre. === I DON’T DO HATE === Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, sovereignty and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man.

  • Blocking Policy

    [I] hate blocking people and my block list was very short until peers and followers asked me to stop wasting my time; to clean up the feed; and to preserve the educational environment. I teach the Law and its application. I run a class 24×7 to a global audience. My goal is to preserve the environment. I (WE) BLOCK FOR: 1 – Wasting my (our) time. Which consists of: 2 – Ridicule, Sarcasm, Gossiping, Rallying Shaming, Moralizing (GSRM) as a substitute for argument. 3 – Memes as a substitute for argument. (no meme zone) 4 – Intellectual Dishonesty in argument 5 – Antagonism as a substitute for argument. 6 – Faith or Sophism as a substitute for argument. 7 – Occasionally: Argument from Ignorance and Arrogance (attacking the work while not knowing enough to do so.) 8 – Occasionally also: Common Stupidity, Schizotypal stupidity (paranoia), Other Psychological Problems. I (WE) DO NOT BLOCK FOR – Good natured teasing. I am easy to tease. Height, age, generation, weight, aspieness, number of women/divorces, tech stuff, abundance of typing mistakes, being a 1%er, teaching by king of the hill game, the difference between my real and online personalities. You know, the list is endless. NOTE: I (we) practice reciprocity. So if you use GSRM against me (us) , I(we) will use it against you … and then return to the central point – over, and over, and over again.

  • POLICY: WHAT I DO HERE (regular repost) ===AN EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM=== For new

    POLICY: WHAT I DO HERE

    (regular repost)

    ===AN EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM===

    For new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad.

    Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism.

    I am slaying a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and doing so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.)

    But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution.

    I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth.

    === KING OF THE HILL GAME: TEACHING MEN ===

    I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early.

    Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument.

    I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them.

    My role in this ‘game’ is to play king of the hill, and say ‘come get me’. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works.

    Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating.

    The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases.

    The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience.

    I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.)

    You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona.

    This is educational entertainment and theatre.

    === I DON’T DO HATE ===

    Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy.

    But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty.

    I advocate nationalism, tribalism, sovereignty and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence.

    I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement.

    I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement.

    I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-06 12:33:00 UTC

  • BLOCKING POLICY I hate blocking people and my block list was very short until pe

    BLOCKING POLICY

    I hate blocking people and my block list was very short until peers and followers asked me to stop wasting my time; to clean up the feed; and to preserve the educational environment.

    I teach the Law and its application. I run a class 24×7 to a global audience. My goal is to preserve the environment.

    I (WE) BLOCK FOR:

    1 – Wasting my (our) time. Which consists of:

    2 – Ridicule, Sarcasm, Gossiping, Rallying Shaming, Moralizing (GSRM) as a substitute for argument.

    3 – Memes as a substitute for argument. (no meme zone)

    4 – Intellectual Dishonesty in argument

    5 – Antagonism as a substitute for argument.

    6 – Faith or Sophism as a substitute for argument.

    7 – Occasionally: Argument from Ignorance and Arrogance (attacking the work while not knowing enough to do so.)

    8 – Occasionally also: Common Stupidity, Schizotypal stupidity (paranoia), Other Psychological Problems.

    I (WE) DO NOT BLOCK FOR

    – Good natured teasing. I am easy to tease. Height, age, generation, weight, aspieness, number of women/divorces, tech stuff, abundance of typing mistakes, being a 1%er, teaching by king of the hill game, the difference between my real and online personalities. You know, the list is endless.

    NOTE:

    I (we) practice reciprocity. So if you use GSRM against me (us) , I(we) will use it against you … and then return to the central point – over, and over, and over again.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-06 12:03:00 UTC

  • 1) I’ve founded one of the largestly held private consulting companies, been a p

    1) I’ve founded one of the largestly held private consulting companies, been a principle in another of similar size, and founded a third, all of which still exist today in some form or other. Average people can learn the syntax, just like they can learn basic mathematics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-05 14:21:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092790272625393664

    Reply addressees: @webdevMason @ESYudkowsky @MrRiotDiet @Elixir_Beats @PointlessSpike

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092513984874405888

    IN REPLY TO:

    @webdevMason

    @ESYudkowsky @MrRiotDiet @Elixir_Beats @PointlessSpike Produce more coders, get more products/employers — (a) the ability to code is a toolkit for building products, but beyond that atm every strong coder has to turn down a deliciously inflated salary if they want to have a go at entrepreneurship

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092513984874405888

  • DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN???? Road, Rail, Gas, Power, Stations, Arsenals Look at OK

    DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN????
    Road, Rail, Gas, Power, Stations, Arsenals

    Look at OK, Texas, Louisiana, Penn, and Erie.

    The money is in ny and dc and la but everything else is in the middle. Islands in an ocean of territorial fragility.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-04 23:54:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092572020641009664

  • Please thank Brandon Hayes for all the work he does for the institute and us all

    Please thank Brandon Hayes for all the work he does for the institute and us all.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-04 22:09:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1092545790646603777

  • Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law, principally by ph

    Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law, principally by philosophers but, from the twentieth century, also by social scientists. Scholars of jurisprudence, (jurists or legal theorists), seek to obtain a deeper understanding of legal reasoning, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society.

    ROMAN LAW

    ORIGIN

    Jurisprudence in Ancient Rome had its origins with the (periti)—experts in the jus mos maiorum (traditional law), a body of oral laws and customs.

    DEVELOPMENT

    he sentences of the iudex were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but—apart from considering what traditional customs applied in each case—soon developed a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to newer social exigencies. The law was then adjusted with evolving institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional mode. Praetors were replaced in the 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. Admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.

    FORMALIZATION

    Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and practice of the law became more academic. From the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant body of literature was produced by groups of scholars, including the Proculians and Sabinians. The scientific nature of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times.

    INSTITUTIONALIZATION

    After the 3rd century, juris prudentia became a more bureaucratic activity, with few notable authors. It was during the Eastern Roman Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis was born.

    EUROPEAN LAW :

    ORIGIN: NATURAL LAW

    Begins with Aristotle

    In its general sense, natural law may be compared to both state-of-nature law and analogous to the laws of physical science.

    natural-law jurisprudence generally asserts that human law must be in response to compelling reasons for action. There are two readings of the natural-law jurisprudential stance.

    The Strong Natural Law Thesis holds that if a human law fails to be in response to compelling reasons, then it is not properly a “law” at all. This is captured, imperfectly, in the famous maxim: lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law at all).

    WEAK LAW (DEVELOPMENT)

    The Weak Natural Law Thesis holds that if a human law fails to be in response to compelling reasons, then it can still be called a “law”, but it must be recognised as a defective law.

    POSITIVE LAW (FORMALIZATION)

    Natural law is often contrasted to positive law which asserts law as the product of human activity and human volition. Positive law is not law per se, but regulation, contract, or command.

    LEGAL REALISM (INSTITUTIONALIZATION)

    Legal realism was a view popular with some Scandinavian and American writers. Skeptical in tone, it held that the law should be understood as, and would be determined by, the actual practices of courts, law offices, and police stations, rather than as the rules and doctrines set forth in statutes or learned treatises. The essential tenet of legal realism is that all law is made by human beings and, thus, is subject to human foibles, frailties, and imperfections.

    CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND THE LAW (REFORMATION)

    Karl Popper originated the theory of critical rationalism. According to Reinhold Zippelius many advances in law and jurisprudence take place by operations of critical rationalism. He writes, “daß die Suche nach dem Begriff des Rechts, nach seinen Bezügen zur Wirklichkeit und nach der Gerechtigkeit experimentierend voranschreitet, indem wir Problemlösungen versuchsweise entwerfen, überprüfen und verbessern” (that we empirically search for solutions to problems, which harmonise fairly with reality, by projecting, testing and improving the solutions).

    LEGAL INTERPRETIVISM (“RELATIVISM”) (DECLINE)

    Contemporary philosopher of law Ronald Dworkin has advocated a more constructivist theory of jurisprudence that can be characterized as a middle path between natural law theories and positivist theories of general jurisprudence.[37] In his book Law’s Empire,[38] Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. He argued that law is an “interpretive” concept that requires barristers to find the best-fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions. According to him, law is not entirely based on social facts, but includes the best moral justification for the institutional facts and practices that we intuitively regard as legal. It follows from Dworkin’s view that one cannot know whether a society has a legal system in force, or what any of its laws are, until one knows some truths about the moral justifications of the social and political practices of that society. It is consistent with Dworkin’s view—in contrast with the views of legal positivists or legal realists—that no-one in a society may know what its laws are, because no-one may know the best moral justification for its practices.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-04 13:03:00 UTC

  • Because Odin existed, and was a leader and law giver

    Because Odin existed, and was a leader and law giver.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-03 01:12:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091866941172662274