Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • (in progress… saving) ALINSKY’S RULES FOR RADICALS: THE FEMALE METHOD OF WARFA

    (in progress… saving)

    ALINSKY’S RULES FOR RADICALS: THE FEMALE METHOD OF WARFARE: REPUTATION DESTRUCTION, ALLIANCE DESTRUCTION, TRUST DESTRUCTION, SOCIAL DESTRUCTION.

    RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

    Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

    Curt Doolittle:

    The only material power is violence. Everything else is tolerance by the powerful. If you cannot use violence you are not in fact powerful. If you can use violence and you do not then you are unworthy of rule, and merely free riding, parasitizing, or conspiring. What does this teach you? Master Organized Violence. Use it with Zero Tolerance.

    RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

    It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

    Curt Doolittle::

    Straw manning is only effective if we are tolerant of straw manning, and avoiding the central issues at hand. The only reason not to engage in war, decimation, enslavement, and enserfment of the various type available, is truthful, productive, discourse on the central issues. If we cannot discourse on issues then we either war if we can, or are destroyed if we cannot. Ergo, the only power is Violence.

    RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

    Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

    Curt Doolittle::

    Again, straw manning is effective in particular because those who specialize in truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, voluntary exchange under the natural law, and markets in all aspects of life, develop specialization and habituation of doing so. Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Nietzsche (and me for that matter), and The Great Generals, are not telling us how to fight war. They are telling us that we must not be ‘christianized’ by our own moral rule. This is one of the secrets to the west’s success outside of the abrahamic dark age: rule by warriors ensures we are not victims of ingroup morality extended to outgroup conflict. It is also one of the reasons for the success of islam: it is a continuous call to war against aristocracy, by every living soul, to reverse aristocracy and restore dysgenic pastoralism.

    RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

    Curt Doolittle::

    Critique is a powerful means of avoiding the act of providing a solution that ‘in total’ is more

    (need to understand how they seek reciprocity)

    RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

    There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

    Curt Doolittle:

    Ridicule is not discussion, debate, or argument… it is admission one lacks one, and as such breaks the incentive for non violence necessary to negotiate. Therefore all cases of ridicule that are tolerated are nothing more than you avoiding the cost of policing the commons against those who would undermine, free ride, parasite, and predate.

    RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

    They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

    Curt Doolittle:

    tolerating small wins by the enemy only gives them positive reinforcement. If you are practicing truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, natural law, and markets in everything the only objective people can have is falsehood and duty(debt) avoidance, reciprocity and non-sovereignty, arbitrary rule, and free riding, parasitism and predation, and in such cases they are almost always unwilling to trade improvement in their behavior for commons and consumption that results from their improved behavior.

    RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

    Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

    RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

    Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

    RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

    Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

    RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

    Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

    RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

    Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-05 14:56:00 UTC

  • General rule of thumb: “Women are largely the same and relatively valuable, and

    General rule of thumb: “Women are largely the same and relatively valuable, and men are largely different and relatively disposable”.

    Women generalize and work at shorter time, and smaller scale. Men specialize and work at longer times, and larger scales.

    That this is a physical and logical necessity and a division of physical cognitive and temporal labor should be obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-05 13:02:00 UTC

  • INSIGHT: MEN => VIOLENCE TO CONFORM, WOMEN => REPUTATION DESTRUCTION TO DESTROY

    INSIGHT: MEN => VIOLENCE TO CONFORM, WOMEN => REPUTATION DESTRUCTION TO DESTROY

    Women fight men and women by the same means, men fight men by the same means, but do not fight women by EITHER means. This is the problem.

    We used to prosecute women who were scolds the way we prosecute men who are violent. There was and remains a good reason for it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-05 11:17:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WOMEN HATE MEN WHEN THEY END A RELATIONSHIP? —“Curt I must ask about so

    WHY DO WOMEN HATE MEN WHEN THEY END A RELATIONSHIP?

    —“Curt I must ask about something you related a while back. About how a woman can detach and so hate a man, viewing him as a subhuman worthy of almost any Ill. Yet men like you or I cannot bear such a notion, even to these very women after having deeply caring for them. Why do you feel that is?”—GS

    1) Males are dependent upon the success of the tribe. Females on the success of their offspring. Mates are Temporary Alliances, while Tribe and Offspring are Permanent Genetic Necessities. For this reason, Male love is driven by loyalty, Female by devotion. Absent devotion women have no loyalty. Loyalty (infrequent exercise of) is more durable but less costly than devotion (constant exercise). This is the explanation. The rest is consequence.

    2) Females evolved for their children not men. Men ‘rotate’, lose their value, or die off. Children remain. … forever. Males evolved to rotate women and monogamy is a … norm, not a necessity. Men will kill over mates more so than any other reason. We retain ‘value’ to retain ‘opportunity’.

    3) Poisoning the well (socially) for a lost or discarded man forces a cost on him and trains him that losing a woman is costly in future opportunities – so stay with them. It also eliminates the cost of keeping him ‘away’ (resisting his advances) and creating an opportunity for new or other males to make advances without fear of violence or conflict.

    4) Women ‘fight’ to the death because they are so comparatively vulnerable to ostracization, but they fight by reputation destruction to CAUSE ostracization (from opportunity) – so women engage in wars of reputation destruction, with the vehemence of it determined by the social status (social and sexual market value) differences providing ammunition. Upper not caring. Lower not caring as much, but peers caring greatly.

    5) (This topic is harder to understand) Men are more dependent upon their economic, political, and military value for less of their lifetimes. (think sprinting) Men are faster and stronger but cheaper and more disposable. Women are more dependent upon their sexual, caretaking, and social value for three generations. (think marathoning). Women are generally a good bet for men. Men are a riskier investment for women. Women are more expensive and less disposable. Losing a man by choice or accident is a kind of failure for women. It’s a Loss for men, less so a failure. A Failure for Women far more so than a loss.

    6) Women’s hatred of men is a way of controlling their impulsive emotions so that they do not have to bear the cost of unpleasant feelings, and anger, hatred, blame, allow the intentional suppression of those feelings. Men don’t have the problem of emotional lack of agency.

    I hope that helps.

    -Curt

    —“This explanation in such terms is both troubling on an emotional level, but that will pass and help me with the knowing of it. Moreover its immensely pleasing on a visceral level to have it laid out in such an orderly way, as a fellow autist I genuinely appreciate it. Please do post this if you haven’t. Thank you for this and all you do.”—GS


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-05 09:34:00 UTC

  • THE GOAL OF MEMORY IS TO OPTIMIZE DECISION-MAKING. —“The predominant focus in

    THE GOAL OF MEMORY IS TO OPTIMIZE DECISION-MAKING.

    —“The predominant focus in the neurobiological study of memory has been on remembering (persistence). However, recent studies have considered the neurobiology of forgetting (transience). Here we draw parallels between neurobiological and computational mechanisms underlying transience. We propose that it is the interaction between persistence and transience that allows for intelligent decision-making in dynamic, noisy environments. Specifically, we argue that transience (1) enhances flexibility, by reducing the influence of outdated information on memory-guided decision-making, and (2) prevents overfitting to specific past events, thereby promoting generalization. According to this view, the goal of memory is not the transmission of information through time, per se. Rather, the goal of memory is to optimize decision-making. As such, transience is as important as persistence in mnemonic systems.”— Neuron, The Persistence and Transience of Memory

    Blake A. Richards

    Paul W. Frankland


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-05 03:04:00 UTC

  • THE MALE FEMALE CONFLICT OF THE CENTURY The problem of male-female conflict is t

    THE MALE FEMALE CONFLICT OF THE CENTURY

    The problem of male-female conflict is the same on both sides. Female and postmodern and feminist control of the academy has led to feminine preference for world order – one that they undrestand – infantilization of both male and female. Childhood is an invention that has been exploited by the enemy just as trust an invention that has been exploited by the enemy, just as free speech is an invention that has been exploited by the enemy. And the liberalism with which western man has treated women is an invention that has been exploited by the enemy. Until the age of maturity you are woman’s problem. At the age of maturity you become men’s problem.

    Never again. Our instincts are functionally successful only with in the range we evolved them for. Outside of those ranges they are harmful.

    Marriage is the smallest tribe. However it the absolute nuclear family is a middle and upper class capability. Below that the need for traditional intergenerational families is necessary to collect sufficient agency and skill to raise generations.

    There is no possible aristocracy of everyone. The anglos got math, logic, language, law, economics, and science, right but mankind wrong. There is no possibility of an aristocracy of everyone. The location-independent absolute nuclear family is limited to those capable of producing sufficient agency and resources to supply a family without assistance from others.

    This is almost exclusively western, and within the west, almost exclusively middle class and upward.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-04 13:42:00 UTC

  • YES, LACK OF AGENCY DRIVES POSTMODERN THOUGHT —“The postmodernists say that ag

    YES, LACK OF AGENCY DRIVES POSTMODERN THOUGHT

    —“The postmodernists say that agency is a comforting falsehood. How does one adjudicate between you and them?”— John Tangney

    They are correct – for them. Agency is demonstrably the entire problem. And postmodernists, feminists, women, and the underclass are completely correct: they don’t have it. On the other hand, enough ‘men’ do if trained in what IS (the conservative empirical) rather than what SHOULD BE (the consumptive ideal), to govern in everyone’s interests despite the lack of agency by the vast majority of peoples.

    The question is why someone some group or some class would consider rule if one was in fact lacking agency — and worse, if both lacking agency and f–king aware of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-04 08:55:00 UTC

  • Women favor their own children very highly at the expense of all others. Women d

    Women favor their own children very highly at the expense of all others. Women demonstrate very little care for their males. Men demonstrate care for themselves, ttheir women and their offspring (pack)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-03 17:56:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069651661017280515

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069627574807076865


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @curtdoolittle Don’t people usually choose BOTH equalitarianism AND kin selection? They appeal to equalitarian sentiments in us & demonstrate kin preference for their own. OP only applies to those who fall for it. But that’s only self-serving in a few cases, maybe none in the long term…

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069627574807076865

  • We understand perfectly well why you choose equalitarianism over kin selection –

    We understand perfectly well why you choose equalitarianism over kin selection – at an unrecoverable cost to your kin. They are not worthy of your doing otherwise.

    The most important choices in history are those that increase or decrease kin.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-03 15:25:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069613567748517890

  • We understand perfectly well why you choose equalitarianism over kin selection –

    We understand perfectly well why you choose equalitarianism over kin selection – at an unrecoverable cost to your kin. They are not worthy of your doing otherwise.

    The most important choices in history are those that increase or decrease kin.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-03 10:25:00 UTC