I”m with you brother. I find it depressing because I very much enjoyed the dance between the sexes under traditional roles, and I was happy to hold women on a pedestal. But what has happened in a short time is that we have restore the ancient and universal perception of women as selfish, experience-gluttony, gold digging wh–res, and that Pandora is the very lesson that we should take when we consider women without domestication against her hyperconsumption especially of attention. Attention whoring is perhaps the worst trait that allows the expression of the worst in female behavior. And the west along shows of our women as a point of pride only exacerbating the issue.
I think that I am nearly always misunderstood when I discuss this, as the difference between the grammar (means of conveying the logic) the content of it, and the derrogatory affects on the aristocracy that is where all the ‘good’ in the west came from. The fact that christianity, despite all its harms, made possible the unificadtion of the aristocracy, peasants women, and slaves, by making them capable of virtue without possessing the same abilities as the aristocracy. In other words chrsitanity gave teh bottom a means of virtue in a civilization where virtue was limited to aristoxratic traits. The fact that most of christianity is actually plato, and is a counter-revolution against greek and roman law, is probably lost on everyone but the few who study such things. THe truth is the truth. Christianity was originally conveyed and still is by feminine submission, sophistry, and supernatural nonsense does not necessarily detract that a christian with an 80IQ is still a good person, and that cannot be said of the same IQ under any other religion.
Great question William: Here is the correct answer straight out of our AI. You can access the AI at: https:// chatgpt.com/g/g-682681bf9f 54819180437bac589ed838-curt-doolittle-s-natural-law …. .
Yes, the Natural Law Institute (NLI) under Curt Doolittle explicitly defines “parasite” and “parasitism” in operational legal and moral terms.
According to Volume IV of The Natural Law, parasitism is any imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others without reciprocal compensation. More precisely:
“All attempts to circumvent reciprocity constitute an attempt at free riding, parasitism, or predation – whether by accident, error, bias, or intent – are irreciprocal, and criminal, unethical, immoral, or evil.”
This definition is grounded in the Natural Law of Reciprocity: one must not, by display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of costs on others’ demonstrated interests unless it is part of a productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntary exchange.
In economic and legal dimensions, Doolittle extends this to any form of rent-seeking, free-riding, or fraud—actions that generate gains for one party at unconsented cost to others. This includes both direct harm (e.g., theft) and indirect externalities (e.g., misinformation, fraud, or legal imposition without due diligence or consent).
Thus, in NLI’s legal philosophy, “parasite” is not a rhetorical insult but a strictly defined class of irreciprocal behavior testable under the logic of sovereignty, reciprocity, and demonstrated interest.
Q: A husband and wife are in an ‘argument’ because he doesn’t anticipate what she’s thinking and he says she needs to express her thoughts. Can you break this down into first principles?
A: Curt Doolittle’s Natural Law GPT Says
We can decompose the marital dispute you’ve described—where the husband expects explicit communication, and the wife expects implicit anticipation—using Natural Law’s first principles and epistemological commitments.
Here’s the analysis:
I. First Principles Action Requires Incentive: – All behavior is acquisition. – All acquisition demonstrates interest. – Cooperation Requires Reciprocity in Demonstrated Interests. – Cognition Operates via Prediction and Disambiguation. – Speech is Testimony. – Truthful speech is a performative warranty under threat of perjury.
II. Causal Chain of the Conflict
1. Cognitive Division of Labor (Sexual Dimorphism): – Women evolved to manage social harmony through high-context, emotionally intuitive communication (implicature). – Men evolved to manage external threats and production through low-context, propositional communication (explicit instruction).
2. Different Strategies of Coordination: – The wife’s implicit expectation (“You should know what I feel”) reflects evolved female strategy for emotional calibration via mutual awareness—contingent on visible cues and social signaling. – The husband’s explicit demand (“You need to say it”) reflects male optimization for efficiency, clarity, and conflict avoidance by reducing ambiguity through propositional speech.
3. Conflict Emerges from Asymmetric Grammars: – The wife is operating in a feminine, high-context grammar: trust and understanding are inferred from empathic anticipation. – The husband is operating in a masculine, low-context grammar: trust and understanding are earned through explicit negotiation and declared intent.
III. Operational Breakdown Component
IV. Decidability via Reciprocity
The disagreement is undecidable without mutual adaptation to a shared grammar of coordination. The conflict arises from:
1. Asymmetric Demonstrated Interests: She demonstrates emotional need for proactive attention. He demonstrates pragmatic need for explicit instruction.
2. Irreciprocity in Expectations: She imposes a cost of constant emotional vigilance without compensation. He imposes a cost of emotional labor outsourcing without mutuality.
V. Restitution via Operational Solution
1. Institutionalize a Shared Protocol: Mutual agreement on what must be spoken and what can be assumed. E.g., “I will try to anticipate, but you must inform me when it’s critical.”
2. Reciprocal Commitment to Disambiguation: She practices explicit signaling of emotional state. He practices proactive questioning and checking for context.
3. Testimonial Correction: Move both parties toward truthful speech under performative warrant. Replace mind-reading with inquiry, replace emotional withholding with disclosure.
Conclusion: The conflict reflects an evolved cognitive and communicative asymmetry. Resolution requires both parties to converge on a mutually intelligible operational grammar—transforming the marriage from adversarial guessing into reciprocal coordination. This is the institutionalization of empathy via decidable speech.
Well done. Though the presumption that the polity would survive long enough for such emergence is more than questionable and you might need to discuss that potential and its consequences as well, and provide insight into what determines each outcome. But again well done even if optimistic. 😉
Yes. I could easily fawningly compliment all of your videos and embarrass myself but this one just struck home extra hard. Thanks for all you do for our people. – hugs.
