Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autis

    RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM

    (from Eric Best)

    —“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best

    I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them.

    Thoughts:

    There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE.

    The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.)

    And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger.

    The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms.

    So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year.

    But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome.

    And that means strategy and policy expressed in law.

    Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 07:54:00 UTC

  • RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autis

    RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them. Thoughts: There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE. The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.) And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger. The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms. So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year. But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome. And that means strategy and policy expressed in law. Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

  • What Is Your Review Of €œstar Trek Discovery”, Episode 1:12, “vaulting Ambition”?

    childish, cartoonish, intellectually insulting, and a progressive postmodern political drivel is revolting. keep the captain. lose the rest.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-episode-1-12-Vaulting-Ambition

  • What Is Your Review Of €œstar Trek Discovery”, Episode 1:12, “vaulting Ambition”?

    childish, cartoonish, intellectually insulting, and a progressive postmodern political drivel is revolting. keep the captain. lose the rest.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Star-Trek-Discovery-episode-1-12-Vaulting-Ambition

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein

  • ERIC WEINSTEIN ON THE FAILURE OF THE GATED INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE Including: –

    ERIC WEINSTEIN ON THE FAILURE OF THE GATED INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE

    Including:

    – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula.

    – The Disagreeables,

    – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory.

    1) Consider these adjectives:

    Embattled

    Controversial

    Divisive

    Reclusive

    Provocative

    Struggling

    Right-Wing

    Eccentric

    Self-styled

    Far-Left

    Recovering

    Disgraced

    Self-Promoting

    Free-thinking

    Volatile

    etc.

    2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns.

    3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached.

    4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor.

    So…how can that be?

    5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick.

    The point is that real humans don’t talk like this.

    6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target.

    Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality

    7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn.

    And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability.

    8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility.

    This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures.

    9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn?

    10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them.

    So something new *has* to happen.

    Here goes…

    Either:

    A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again.

    B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out.

    C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables.

    CLOSING

    My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg.

    And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables.

    Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb.

    –Eric Weinstein

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 17:23:00 UTC

  • Eric Weinstein On The Failure Of The Gated Institutional Narrative

    Including: – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula. – The Disagreeables, – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory. 1) Consider these adjectives: Embattled Controversial Divisive Reclusive Provocative Struggling Right-Wing Eccentric Self-styled Far-Left Recovering Disgraced Self-Promoting Free-thinking Volatile etc. 2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns. 3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached. 4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor. So…how can that be? 5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick. The point is that real humans don’t talk like this. 6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target. Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality 7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn. And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability. 8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility. This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures. 9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn? 10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them. So something new *has* to happen. Here goes… Either: A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again. B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out. C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables. CLOSING My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg. And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables. Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb. –Eric Weinstein

  • My answer to Does America, in general, have the worst liberals in the world?

    My answer to Does America, in general, have the worst liberals in the world? https://www.quora.com/Does-America-in-general-have-the-worst-liberals-in-the-world/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b82d3c0d

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 16:49:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955120126529081345

  • My answer to Can the Middle East conflict ever be solved?

    My answer to Can the Middle East conflict ever be solved? https://www.quora.com/Can-the-Middle-East-conflict-ever-be-solved/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=760db61c

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 08:51:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954999824709013504

  • Well isn’t that the test that we always used?

    Well isn’t that the test that we always used?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:37:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954890704114896896

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954887211635347458

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954887211635347458