WHAT’S WRONG WITH AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT?
Daniel Schmachtenberger asks a set of “Questions regarding law enforcement in the US”. This is my response. (~5600 words).
https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/11/98309/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-11 22:31:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259974552022650881
1 – Limit transport to school to ‘troubled and disadvantaged children’. Otherwise school in home.
2 – Reduce school time to min.
3 – Add gaming (simulations) and restore adversarialism.
4 – Financially separate teaching universities from research.
5 – End undergrad campuses.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-10 18:35:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259552629069406209
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259551614815387650
Especially if they did military AND a meaningful education….. And eve more so if they could start at 14-15 instead of 18.
This whole childhood thing is out of hand.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-10 18:18:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259548385461383170
Reply addressees: @torinmccabe
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259544899365548033
Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.
Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.
Apr 29, 2020, 11:29 AM (revolution) I think radicalism, revolution, and pursuit of renaissance is personally costly for leadership. I’m a career executive entrepreneur who built my fortunes – starting in my early twenties – by acquisition and integration of companies consisting of people with different levels of education and experience. It is easier for me to see the world paternally rather than parentally, and managerially rather than interpersonally. And even more so militarily and politically rather than socially and familial. Within the spectrum of Political, Executive, Paternal, Parental, or Peerage relationships, our ‘reward’ – feedback – for our leadership varies across a big difference in not only people but time – and our frustration or self doubt must be held in check by our confidence in a field of mixed successes and failures over time. Because we wish to measure the change in individuals – rather than the social construction of organizational change that occurs through the fragmentary understanding of ever increasing numbers until they system (market) of people itself is self-correcting because there are sufficient fragments among people with partial knowledge and variation in ability that they collectively coalesce over time into emergent fundamental rules of concept, thought, paradigm, argument, and behavior without the reinforcement of the underlying understanding. I think some of us don’t have the stomach for ‘crossing the chasm’ into hostile territory: where we increasingly encounter people with increasingly greater differences in intuitions, understandings and wants. I think each of us needs to continue to discover whether we are supporter, activist, supplier, fighter, leader, and whether we educate as co-operator and ally, advisor and peer, a teacher and parent, a paternal executive, or a general for whom sacrifices – including of those we value – are the costs of winning wars for those whom we may not – but who have no other advocates. And given the spectrum of our current conditions we may not be in a personal position to choose our preference from the full range of choices available. But this is the stage we are at. Where we have a solution, there is market demand for it, and we must migrate from parents and small business owners to ‘industry leaders’ before we next migrate to politicians and generals. For some of us the cost of making a mark on history is worth paying. For others it is not. We can only make mark that we are willing and able to. But every mark adds to the whole. The only people who matter are those willing and able. The only people who matter at the beginning at first are those who fight, those who assist those who fight, and those who do not resist them. The rest are not important until they must be governed. But they are the ones who talk the most – generating demand for rule by those willing.
Apr 29, 2020, 11:29 AM (revolution) I think radicalism, revolution, and pursuit of renaissance is personally costly for leadership. I’m a career executive entrepreneur who built my fortunes – starting in my early twenties – by acquisition and integration of companies consisting of people with different levels of education and experience. It is easier for me to see the world paternally rather than parentally, and managerially rather than interpersonally. And even more so militarily and politically rather than socially and familial. Within the spectrum of Political, Executive, Paternal, Parental, or Peerage relationships, our ‘reward’ – feedback – for our leadership varies across a big difference in not only people but time – and our frustration or self doubt must be held in check by our confidence in a field of mixed successes and failures over time. Because we wish to measure the change in individuals – rather than the social construction of organizational change that occurs through the fragmentary understanding of ever increasing numbers until they system (market) of people itself is self-correcting because there are sufficient fragments among people with partial knowledge and variation in ability that they collectively coalesce over time into emergent fundamental rules of concept, thought, paradigm, argument, and behavior without the reinforcement of the underlying understanding. I think some of us don’t have the stomach for ‘crossing the chasm’ into hostile territory: where we increasingly encounter people with increasingly greater differences in intuitions, understandings and wants. I think each of us needs to continue to discover whether we are supporter, activist, supplier, fighter, leader, and whether we educate as co-operator and ally, advisor and peer, a teacher and parent, a paternal executive, or a general for whom sacrifices – including of those we value – are the costs of winning wars for those whom we may not – but who have no other advocates. And given the spectrum of our current conditions we may not be in a personal position to choose our preference from the full range of choices available. But this is the stage we are at. Where we have a solution, there is market demand for it, and we must migrate from parents and small business owners to ‘industry leaders’ before we next migrate to politicians and generals. For some of us the cost of making a mark on history is worth paying. For others it is not. We can only make mark that we are willing and able to. But every mark adds to the whole. The only people who matter are those willing and able. The only people who matter at the beginning at first are those who fight, those who assist those who fight, and those who do not resist them. The rest are not important until they must be governed. But they are the ones who talk the most – generating demand for rule by those willing.
May 1, 2020, 8:58 AM The Method to The Appearance of Madness: Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won. (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) February 11th, 2019 0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it. 1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not. 2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse. 3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution. 4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:
(a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.
(b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
(c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.
(d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.
(e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.
(f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.
(g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.
(h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).
(g) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.
(j) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing. We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily.
It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military. We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization. We can easily win. It’s just a choice. 5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration. All I care about from the Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists , and Religious, is to i) not impede our work ii) be willing if the time comes to raise the few million we need to bring this entire country to a halt in short order, such that once published, our demands are met without bloodshed. ii) BEcause while you don’t understand, and I do, the ability to starve tens of millions of our enemies and turn their island cities to ruin is about as difficult as having a sandwich and beer. Thanks for your time and attention.The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won.
May 1, 2020, 8:58 AM The Method to The Appearance of Madness: Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won. (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) February 11th, 2019 0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it. 1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not. 2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse. 3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution. 4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:
(a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.
(b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
(c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.
(d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.
(e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.
(f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.
(g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.
(h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).
(g) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.
(j) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing. We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily.
It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military. We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization. We can easily win. It’s just a choice. 5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration. All I care about from the Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists , and Religious, is to i) not impede our work ii) be willing if the time comes to raise the few million we need to bring this entire country to a halt in short order, such that once published, our demands are met without bloodshed. ii) BEcause while you don’t understand, and I do, the ability to starve tens of millions of our enemies and turn their island cities to ruin is about as difficult as having a sandwich and beer. Thanks for your time and attention.The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won.
May 2, 2020, 2:46 PM 1) I learned from napoleon that the best general does not plan for a single strategy, but plans a strategy of seizing opportunity. 2) I learned from Mao that the countryside can always and everywhere defeat the cities. 3) I learned from ISIS to move move move and resource resource, and profit profit profit, because, concentration of force is difficult, and it deprives opposition of resources, and it motivates the men. 4) I learned from the arab spring how fast revolutions spread to people with similar anxieties, and that we are in the same condition. 5) I learned from the IRA that you always win with time, especially if you use both political and military actions. 6) I learned from the past twenty years that americans cannot fight and win a fourth generation war. 7) I learned from the civil rights movement that the government caves to demands rather than face chaos. 8) I learned from the the LA, Baltimore, and KC riots – and charlottesville – that the police are only symbolically powerful – and only for as long as they aren’t outmaneuvered. 9) I learned from strategic research that the USA cannot survive power outages and road checkpoints for more than a few weeks. 10) I learned from the data that there are very few people capable of resisting a movement that originates in multiple places at once. 11) I learned from the past four years that the deep state will not ‘go’ without ‘a fight’. 12) I learned from the data that a constitutional solution will be supported by the majority of men in the military especially if accompanied by the right incentives. 13) I learned from the evidence that left and right might align on taking out the financial sector, and gutting the state if we both agree to separate. 14) I learned from the past thirty years that the left in all its forms is confident it can win and must be stopped permanently. 15) I learned that it is relatively easy to restore our place in human history and lift our people again in to a renaissance if we win. I learned a lot more too….