6.2-Debate (argument) · Uncategorized

Start Negotiation From ‘We Prefer War’.


Always make sure the opposition understands the choices that you prefer are those that are very undesirable to them. Never enter a negotiation with a presumption of achieving a rational compromise. Instead set the terms of your negotiation at the limits of your preference.

Our current preference is to end democracy, and rule you for profit. If you are governed by natural law but have no access to political power (violence) then this is acceptable. But you have demonstrated a desire to circumvent natural law and use violence, of the state to enslave and diminish us. Therefore we will reciprocate and happily profit from you, but deprive you of the violence you are too infantile and parasitic to master. In Ignorance · · 6.2-Debate (argument) · Uncategorized

You Dont Have The Right To Spread Ignorance


( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )

Why do you have the right to ignorance?

Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.

And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.

And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.

So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.

So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.

And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.

But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:

1st with ridicule & shame
(Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)

2nd with ostracism
(I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)

3rd loss of privilege
(I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)

4th loss of liberty
(You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)

5th loss of freedom!
(Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state 😉)

6th loss of life

6.3-Methodology · Aphorisms

Which Argument Are You Making?

Some arguments ask if statements are ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’.
Some arguments ask if statements are ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Some arguments ask if statements are true or false.
Some arguments ask if statements are gains or losses.
Some arguments ask if statements are exchanges or transfers
Some arguments ask if statements are investments or frauds
Some arguments ask if statements are any of the above.

6.1.0-Progressivism (Feminism) · Genders · Women, Men, Relationships

Love Doesn’t Require Debate

We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.

6.2-Debate (argument)

All Speech Is Negotiation

–“Most conclusions are really excuses to stop thinking; and most arguments (especially without ontological integrity) are a defenses for excuses rather than warranties of conclusions.”—Bill Joslin

BINGO. All speech is negotiation. Truth is not natural to man .This is why science has been such an expensive and time consuming project that has taken us 2500 years: we fight it at every turn.

6.3-Methodology · P06-Mastery · Uncategorized

How To Prosecute Rather Than Convince


We have moral cause (genocide).
We have moral authority (a century of lies).
We have sufficient violence.
We have opportunity (loss of any credibility in the honesty of our opponents.)

So, we have means, motive and opportunity.

1) Prosecute people to demonstrate that they are liars and thieves.

2) Ask why they will not trade with you instead of lie, cheat and steal.

3) Tell them that if we disagree and they force no costs upon us, our kin, and our civilization, then that is merely an agreement to disagree. If they wish to trade what we wish for what they wish then that is merely an agreement to cooperate on means, even though we seek different ends. But if they will not respect what is ours and leave us in peace, will not compromise by trade, and instead seek to impose costs upon us, our kin, and our civilizations, by proxy via the force of government, or by deceit, or by conversion, or by invasion, or by violence, then it is only rational that we will resort ourselves to violence, displacement, deportation, enslavement, and truthfulness.

We are left with no choice but to prosecute enemies by punishment, expulsion, enslavement, or death.

This is what I mean by prosecution.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.