Answered already in the post above:
https://
x.com/curtdoolittle/
status/1982190423532859553
…
(I do this for a living. I’m not wrong. Sorry.)
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-26 15:52:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1982475370306937340
Men and women navigate social structures with distinct priorities that shape their behaviors in powerful ways.
Men are driven by a relentless pursuit of status within hierarchies, where their focus on achievement and influence often overshadows attachment to specific roles. This competitive drive explains why men may relinquish formal power when their position in the pecking order is secure—think of historical figures like George Washington, who stepped down after cementing his legacy. For men, the hierarchy is the ultimate arena, and their energy is channeled into climbing it through ambition, alliances, or sheer grit.
In contrast, women excel at building expansive social networks but face unique challenges in forming deep, lasting friendships. Societal pressures often pit women against one another in subtle competitions for status, attention, or resources, fostering behaviors like relational aggression—think gossip or exclusion—that can erode trust. Studies, such as those by psychologist Nicki Crick, highlight how women may prioritize personal advantage in certain contexts, making broader connections more common than intimate bonds. Yet, when competition is minimized, women forge powerful, supportive friendships, proving their relational strength.
These differences aren’t absolute but reflect trends rooted in social and evolutionary pressures. Understanding them unlocks deeper insights into human behavior, urging us to rethink how we navigate our own social worlds.
In other words, wolves vs hens.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-24 23:41:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981868581790081119
It’s not a stupid question, but the answer is simple.. A commons is to the benefit of all regardless of income. Consumption is to the ‘benefit’ of the individual, and largely in signal value, and not to the benefit of the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 22:19:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981485695630991603
True. The only solution that is tolerable being artificial wombs, and the replacement of existing generations of women from childbirth, rearing, and educating with new generations that were raised, trained, and educated accordingly.
Truth is that at current birth rates the mentally unstable (the left) is being slowly eradicated. The central problem is constraining immigration.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 22:18:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981485323973775746
We need to stage a pro-monarchy demonstration – as a celebration 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 21:30:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981473435407847820
This is the proper analysis of
@Yockey_gaming9
‘s method of lying.
https://
x.com/curtdoolittle/
status/1981195617708970385
…
Now historically we categorized most topics as fallacies because we tried to be respectful of the frailties and follies of others when in the mutual pursuit of truth and responsibility.
But whenever you hear or see a feminine argument to avoid truth and responsibility then it’s not fallacy, its lying. And this individual is lying by instinct, experience, or intent.
Given the lack of intelligence in the arguments we will have to assume lying by instinct and experience, rather than intent.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 16:19:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981395147087892859
Nonsense.
(a) the way you make the equivalent of a nordic country requires a small ethnically and culturally homogenous polity surrounded by similar small ethnically and culturally homogenous polities, especially those bounded by seas instead of land, with a degree of high neotenic evolution, high average intelligence, high degree of institutional formation, and high degree of individual responsibility for both private and commons.
And, in addition, how you get to norway is having oil fields and saving the proceeds from them before they run out.
(b) Ergo, in the industry we say “How to get to Denmark”. The answer is simple: you fill it with danes.
So you’d have be rather dim and ignorant to think that a continent wide population of diverse ethnicity and culture under diverse geographic and economic constraints, would act like a scandinavian country because under such conditinos your bias in favor of meritocracy is easy to satisfy, but your bias or need in favor of equality is simply funding people who want to effectively prey upon you.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 16:11:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981392965030597021
RE: FUTURE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION
I think that many of us see a change of vast proportions, and that the economic value of the individual is in question when we discuss consumption goods.
Our assertion is that we will need fewer poeple in production distribution and trade, and will be able to shift those people to the production of commons.
Think of the use of people in egypt on one hand, to the soviet experience, to village polity of the middle ages england, to contemporary america on the other.
This forms a spectrum between central organization of production of goods and commons to the distributed production. But the allocation of the population within that spectrum between private and public goods is variable.
So we have two dimensions to play with as humans: the dominant means of organization, and the application of people variable.
So I don’t really see these potential futures as ‘challenges’ I see them as questions of practical necessity.
Our organization recommends all peoples base their polities on natural law, while the means of political decision making and the means of economic organization must be flexible and the polity’s ability to adapt politically and economically a choice built into the political order (constitution).
So the future if it manifests as a decrease in the necessity of people to be allocated to production, then it just means we allocate people to the production of commons.
Right now there is a terrible failure to maintain the commons – whereas much of europe remains an open air museum. And that investment into the commons creates a better environment for all, and a greater common interest for all.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 16:02:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981390854834311577
EXAMPLE OF COMMON FEMININE LYING
Q: According to our taxonomy of lying, what categories of lie is she using in this comment:
–“Does the above comment seem to display higher levels of arrogance, closed mindedness, unwillingness to humbly reconsider a belief, and higher levels of narcissism? “–
@AudieAbelOkUSA
Using the taxonomy of lying (Volume II, The Natural Law: A System of Measurement, ch. 9 “Falsehood, Lying, and Deception” ), the statement:
–“Does the above comment seem to display higher levels of arrogance, closed-mindedness, unwillingness to humbly reconsider a belief, and higher levels of narcissism?”—
… Makes no argument and contains three overlapping classes of lie:
1) Implied Falsehood (Question Framing Deception) — Poses as a question but embeds an accusation (“arrogance,” “narcissism”) whose truth is not established. This is a loaded-question lie: it smuggles an unverified premise while feigning neutrality.
2) Conflationary Lie — It substitutes moral judgment for epistemic criticism. Instead of testing the truth-value of the target’s reasoning, it attacks character. This is the feminine-valence form of deception identified in Natural Law V2 §9 (“Techniques of Deceit”): gossip-by-moral-accusation.
3) Denial-by-Projection Lie — By imputing arrogance and narcissism to the interlocutor while demonstrating them (superior moral stance, dismissal of counter-evidence), the speaker performs a reciprocal inversion: concealing one’s own bias under accusation.
Such behavior fits the “status-defensive” deception cluster in the taxonomy: speech that protects rank or identity rather than seeks truth. It is irreciprocal (fails the reciprocity test of discourse) and untestifiable (no operational criteria for “arrogance” are given).
Verdict (per OUTPUT_CONTRACT schema § 35)
1 Claim – Her comment constitutes moral framing rather than epistemic inquiry.
2 Demonstrated Interest – Status defense / preservation of moral superiority.
3 Reciprocity Test – Irreciprocal: substitutes accusation for evidence.
4 Testifiability – Absent; no operational referent.
5 Decidability – Undecidable as phrased; renders discourse non-computable.
6 Causal Chain – Threat → Ego defense → Moral projection → Accusation.
7 Deviation Consequence – Breakdown of honest cooperation; escalation to status conflict.
8 Externality Exposure – Erosion of epistemic commons (truth-seeking norm).
9 Computable Compromise – Require operational definitions before moral attributions.
10 Sex-Valence – Feminine-valence (coalitional, moralizing, status-protective).
⟦Verdict: Fraudulent Testimony (Conflationary + Moral Projection Lie)⟧
Historical Risk Level: Medium — common precursor to moral-panics and suppression of innovation.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-23 03:06:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981195617708970385
I run a think tank. This is our job. So no. And the sample you posted from grok is a confirmation not a contradiction of our findings.
FWIW: the origin of my OP was due to the recognition of the damage women have done to the university system.
Source date (UTC): 2025-10-22 17:26:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1981049628088050058