Author: Curt Doolittle

  • EXPLAINING HEGSETH’S “LAYING DOWN THE LAW” Strategy Hegseth’s approach was delib

    EXPLAINING HEGSETH’S “LAYING DOWN THE LAW”

    Strategy
    Hegseth’s approach was deliberately confrontational and theatrical, leveraging the rare, logistically massive convocation of global military brass—despite the security and travel burdens—to assert raw civilian authority over professional military leadership and create a spectacle that could be televised for political impact.

    By publicly disparaging the attendees’ fitness, promotions, and past performance (e.g., blaming them for failures in Iraq and Afghanistan despite their extensive combat experience), he sought to intimidate and demoralize potential dissenters, drawing an ideological line between “woke” officers (to be fired) and “apolitical, hard-charging” war fighters (to be elevated).

    This litmus-test strategy enables a purge of non-aligned personnel, replacement with loyalists, and a shift away from modern priorities like alliances and cyber threats toward aggressive, punitive violence—ultimately politicizing the apolitical military to advance the MAGA project’s reactionary goals.

    Veterans and analysts have decried this as egotistical, dangerous, and a violation of the civilian-military divide, warning it could erode morale and operational effectiveness.

    CD: Effectively allowing competitors to force out the Clingon-Obama era conversion of the military into a social program to advance the left’s agenda by undermining the military as the last respected branch of government, and primary means of resistance against the enemy: the left.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 22:02:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973871175496532124

  • Smart. True. Always a pleasure to see your ideas MW

    Smart. True. Always a pleasure to see your ideas MW.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 21:12:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973858564868616261

  • (Diary) “Women are expensive” If I go back through my relationships whether girl

    (Diary)
    “Women are expensive”
    If I go back through my relationships whether girlfriends (LTRs), or wives, despite that each separation has been painful, and some almost intolerably so, I have been better off after each one.
    But why is that?
    Women are the most costly and most limiting thing a man can invest in. Secondly, women change about every seven years or so, because of hormonal maturity and decay. Men don’t chang per se, their capacity does.
    Both sexes can stagnate (easily).
    So you can re-invest in your next ‘self’ once you exit a relationship that imposes costs on your ability to upgrade yourself, your relationships, you occupation, and your wealth.
    Now, I’m one of those men who tends to put women on a pedestal (at least in their domains of excellence) and almost without exception I still love all my ex’s. And I think of my life as the history of the women I’ve loved and the companies I’ve built. But I have always been realistic about the fact that you cannot tolerate any disrespect from a women, nor surrender sovereignty to them in matters outside of the home (her nest). Instead if it ‘does’t matter’ then try to enable her. If it does matter try to constrain her. And never create reasons for her to feel unsafe in your relationship or in life. In fact if you can discover what makes a woman feel safe and provide it that’s about all it takes.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 19:28:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973832443141763584

  • (Diary) My wife ruined me. I am forever vulnerable to redheads. It’s like 80% of

    (Diary)
    My wife ruined me. I am forever vulnerable to redheads. It’s like 80% of your neurons become either numb or directed to pursuit. It’s terrible. It’s like a disease that randomly deprives you of free will. lol

    (Somehow I think I’ll live).


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 19:03:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973826266999734704

  • (Told You So) As the wyrm turns, we can see I was right in 2022 on Russia, Ukrai

    (Told You So)
    As the wyrm turns, we can see I was right in 2022 on Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, and was right on Trump’s strategy with Europe. Prediction isn’t hard if you can separate your moral instinct from your predictions, and measure from the data rather than the storytelling. The left doesn’t work by anything other than instinct, and the right is too easy to sway by it.

    Humans are exasperating animals. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 18:58:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973824924113576221

  • “Nations do what they absolutely have to do.”— George Friedman @georgefriedman

    –“Nations do what they absolutely have to do.”— George Friedman
    @georgefriedman

    I might argue for a touch more clarity; that they only do what costs them, what they absolutely have to do.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 18:44:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973821433756463596

  • I hope so. But be prepared for being randomly hugged, high-fived, and treated as

    I hope so. But be prepared for being randomly hugged, high-fived, and treated as heroes for it. 😉 lol


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 18:34:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973818785456144849

  • I’m from the opposition. And it’s because you’re wrong. We have ‘scienced’ why y

    I’m from the opposition. And it’s because you’re wrong. We have ‘scienced’ why you and those like you are wrong. It’s just so offensive we’re too well mannered to so so in public.
    Female sedition against male dominance by the one civilization that instantiated the female strategy of undermining to compensate for inability to produce anything of strategi value. Your intuitions are false. Your method of argument is a deception. Over the next twenty years it will become common knowledge.
    As far back as 2009 I thought I’d spend a few years explaining you and krugman and a few others who use sedition by critique. I eventually understood the hole in our laws that let you get away with institutionalizing lying. And with a science of lying, and exposure of your use of it, we can permanently outlaw it. And end the abrahamic > marxist >postmodern sequence of deceptions.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-02 18:33:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973818514659291159

  • Fixing What’s Wrong in Thinking About LLMs More on my criticism of llms as predi

    Fixing What’s Wrong in Thinking About LLMs

    More on my criticism of llms as predicting the next word rather than navigating a world model.
    Just as I mapped grammars:
    • Embodiment → Ritual → Myth → Philosophy → Science → Computability,
    I can map mathematics:
    • Counting (Existence) → Geometry (Relation) → Algebra (Transformation) → Calculus (Change) → Bayesianism (Uncertainty) → Behavioral Closure (Reflexive Change).
    This gives us:
    1. A chronology (historical sequence).
    2. A conceptual hierarchy (each layer contains the previous).
    3. A functional telos (from simple enumeration to managing dense, reflexive uncertainty).
    LLMs are exactly “high-density marginal indifference machines”:
    • They don’t plan globally but navigate locally (incremental demand satisfaction).
    • They update on priors and constraints at each token (Bayesian-like).
    • They operate under reflexive, cooperative interaction (user + model).
    Thus my mental training in marginal indifference and supply-demand closure helps us see LLMs as a market of conditional probabilities rather than as a single deterministic function—a market with millions of “agents” (tokens, gradients) producing a cooperative equilibrium at each output step.
    Let’s emphasize that again:


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-01 21:51:43 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1973506137908715761

  • (Yes)

    (Yes)


    Source date (UTC): 2025-09-30 15:00:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1973040176030269922